Where do rights come from?

[jamil]

Is there a right to life?

Morally, yes.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

There are plenty of examples of moral foundations which exist in pretty much all cultures.

Saying there is a foundation implies that there are absolute truths. Postmodern types seem to be opposed to that idea. If there is a foundation then it has to exist outside of man. Otherwise it’s not a foundation, because man’s moralities are all over the map and generally evolve/change over time.

 

[chipbennett]

One example:
If it's a natural right to be free, then the Bible would condemn slavery completely. FULL STOP. Since the Bible sets out rules on how a master should treat his slaves, it seems kinda obvious that the moral right of liberty is a Biblically shared concept.

I'm curious if you've read how slavery worked under the covenant of Moses? It was indentured servitude, to pay off debts, and it ended in the Year of Jubilee.

Or were you referring to Philemon?

 

[chipbennett]

It’s not a conflation. Words can have different meanings. Homonyms aren’t a conflation. It’s whether you chose to refer to definition 1, or definition 2 in a dictionary. You’re arbitrarily constraining the choice to just one of them. So your “by definition...” declaration above depends on which definition you’re applying.

It is not an arbitrary constraint. It is an intentional differentiation of terms to clarify intent.

One of us is playing semantics, and it isn't me.

 

[chipbennett]

Again, if “rights” always mean inalienable, then saying inalienable is redundant and unnecessary. But what kind of rights are we talking about? The inalienable kind, not the kind HBIC’s grant.

Yes, that's sort of how adjectives work, particularly in the context in which that particular adjective was used. The point of the assertion of ostensibly self-evident truths, including that rights with which we are endowed by our Creator are unalienable, was to point out the unjust treatment by the King, in infringing upon those unalienable rights.

Again, I'm not the one playing semantics here.

 

[chipbennett]

The secular basis for natural rights is objective morality.

What makes morality objective, without the existence of God as moral lawmaker?

 

[jamil]

It is not an arbitrary constraint. It is an intentional differentiation of terms to clarify intent.

One of us is playing semantics, and it isn't me.

I honestly don’t see why you’re objecting so vigorously to my use of definitions that dictionaries and encyclopedias give me full permission to use. I gave the necessary clarification of intent by denoting natural rights from legal rights. I’m not “playing semantics. I’m just using the language as it’s defined.

 

[Libertarian01]

I don't believe there are many, if any, moral truths that cross all times and peoples. Before just two hundred years ago (give or take) the idea of victorious soldiers raping, pillaging, and killing whomever they wanted to after a battle was considered completely acceptable.

In many cultures women, children, and others were considered as property. Killing another human being was completely acceptable was fine in many ancient cultures.

The only rule I can think of that is generally consistent across all cultures and religions is that it is always wrong to kill a social superior. That is, it is almost always wrong for a peasant to kill a noble. Beyond that, there is no moral consistency.

Note that I am NOT saying that these cultures did not have a set of morals and standards, only that those would be considered very alien to our modern western point of view.

Regards,

Doug

 

[chipbennett]

I honestly don’t see why you’re objecting so vigorously to my use of definitions that dictionaries and encyclopedias give me full permission to use. I gave the necessary clarification of intent by denoting natural rights from legal rights. I’m not “playing semantics. I’m just using the language as it’s defined.

As long as we both understand that your use of "legal rights" is synonymous with my use of "privileges", that the nature of said "legal rights"/privileges is wholly distinct from the nature of natural rights, and that when I say "rights" I am referring to natural rights, then there is no problem.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't believe there are many, if any, moral truths that cross all times and peoples. Before just two hundred years ago (give or take) the idea of victorious soldiers raping, pillaging, and killing whomever they wanted to after a battle was considered completely acceptable.

In many cultures women, children, and others were considered as property. Killing another human being was completely acceptable was fine in many ancient cultures.

The only rule I can think of that is generally consistent across all cultures and religions is that it is always wrong to kill a social superior. That is, it is almost always wrong for a peasant to kill a noble. Beyond that, there is no moral consistency.

Note that I am NOT saying that these cultures did not have a set of morals and standards, only that those would be considered very alien to our modern western point of view.

Regards,

Doug

Indeed, the whole of human history would seem to refute the notion that mankind is capable of establishing consistent, universal, objective morality.

 

[jamil]

What makes morality objective, without the existence of God as moral lawmaker?

We are approaching this from completely two different world-views. I probably understand your worldview better than you understand mine, because 20 years ago I was on your end of the argument making much the same points as you are now.

My worldview is that natural selection and evolution better explains origins than does religious beliefs; ironically, it also explains religious beliefs. So in my worldview, morality is an evolved trait through a process of natural selection. It doesn’t require an external lawmaker.

As for objective morality, I’m talking about moral foundations that are present in just about all cultures. The moral rules may differ widely, but they’re based on common moral truths. For example, unjustly killing another person is seen as immoral in pretty much all cultures. But what is considered “just” widely differs between cultures.

Anyway, like I said earlier, I’ll talk all day about rights. I’d rather not have to argue against religious views. For one thing, I kinda like you people, and these discussions get testy. And secondly, there’s just no point to it. It’s not like I’m gonna change your mind. So my way of thinking, if you’re a believer, and you think your creator endowed you with these inalienable rights, well fine. But you start saying there can be no rights without God, and you’re in dogmatic territory.

 

[2A_Tom]

Outside of the

 

[nonobaddog]

As long as we both understand that your use of "legal rights" is synonymous with my use of "privileges", that the nature of said "legal rights"/privileges is wholly distinct from the nature of natural rights, and that when I say "rights" I am referring to natural rights, then there is no problem.

Now you have finally answered the question about your definition of rights. Your definition is a subset of the dictionary definition. Using different definitions almost guarantees confusion.

 

[jamil]

Indeed, the whole of human history would seem to refute the notion that mankind is capable of establishing consistent, universal, objective morality.

Morality evolves. It was once moral justified to enslave people. Now it’s considered immoral in all Western societies. One moral foundation, perhaps the most ancient, is care and aversion to harm. That one is more tribal, but maybe less so in more advanced cultures.

But the rules for what is “care” and what is “harm” may vary widely between cultures.

 

[jamil]

As long as we both understand that your use of "legal rights" is synonymous with my use of "privileges", that the nature of said "legal rights"/privileges is wholly distinct from the nature of natural rights, and that when I say "rights" I am referring to natural rights, then there is no problem.

Because of the language I used, I really don’t get why we’re having this conversation. It was quite clear what I was saying.

 

[2A_Tom]

There is nothing more basic than maintaining life.

Show me something more basic.

 

[jamil]

Now you have finally answered the question about your definition of rights. Your definition is a subset of the dictionary definition. Using different definitions almost guarantees confusion.

Which is why it’s kinda helpful to say “natural rights” vs “legal rights”. Which I did upthread.

 

[jamil]

There is nothing more basic than maintaining life.

Show me something more basic.

I have zero to disagree with here. That is the ultimate moral truth that humans have figured out. It’s compatible no matter what is your worldview.

 

[2A_Tom]

In the past couple of centuries about 20 to 25 % have.

It is far from ubiquitous let alone universally recognized.

How is that objective.

 

[jamil]

In the past couple of centuries about 20 to 25 % have.

It is far from ubiquitous let alone universally recognized.

How is that objective.

What? There has always been care for human lives throughout human history. Just not all human lives. And that’s also true today. Morals evolve too, both socially and biologically. Yes. I said biologically. we’re prewired for morality.