WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Current Topics
Trump 2.0
by rporter314 - 03/15/25 12:19 AM
2024 Election Forum
by rporter314 - 03/11/25 11:16 PM
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 14 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Agnostic Politico, Jems, robertjohn, BlackCat13th, ruggedman
6,305 Registered Users
Popular Topics(Views)
10,261,101 my own book page
5,051,292 We shall overcome
4,250,992 Campaign 2016
3,856,583 Trump's Trumpet
3,055,775 3 word story game
Top Posters
pdx rick 47,430
Scoutgal 27,583
Phil Hoskins 21,134
Greger 19,831
Towanda 19,391
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
Irked 1
Forum Statistics
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,541
Members6,305
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Ardy Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by issodhos
that “rights are integral to the human mind” which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not ‘natural’ man, but the nature of man.

Yours,
Issodhos

I would ask for a further bit of clarification from you.

As I was thinking about this issue, it seemed to me that rights are somehow integral to society. For example, if you have a lone man swimming in the ocean, a discussion of rights seems meaningless. As a concept, rights only seem to apply between men... which by definition would require society. Am I correct on this point?

Also, could you clarify the following issue please. It appears from scientific evidence that humans evolved over a long period of time from more primitive creatures. You have separately indicated that rights do not apply to other creatures. So it appears that at some point in the past men were not sufficiently human to have rights... but then they developed sufficiently so that they did have rights. Could you please clarify the evolutionary point at which rights first adhered to man.


"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Ardy Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by a knight
Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1791

Thanks for the very interesting link.

Time does not permit me to fully review this very long document. Please let me know if there any particular sections you want me to review for relevance to this discussion.

From my brief reading of some small parts of this link, it appears that Mr. Paine is proposing what he considers to be a new and superior political philosophy of government. Correct?


"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,031
R
member
Offline
member
R
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,031
I was working on a reply over the weekend, but it was more or less OBEd by Issodhos's most recent post; therefore, I'll confine my remarks to a specific item:
Originally Posted by Ardy
...But simply naming the standard as immutable does not change it's fundamental character. No matter which words you use to describe that immutable standard, the fact remains that it is a political/social agreement that has established the standard. And being a political social agreement... the standard is inherently subject to the potential corruptions inherent built into it's fundamental nature.
No, I do not agree, as - like Issodhos has stated - I think that those rights pre-exist any social imprimatur and are inherent to man; they are the sine qua non of man as we currently understand him. I hold, with Jefferson, that the rights are endowments and you may believe the dowry to derive from a Creator or simply from the creation of our species by whatever contingent forces were applicable.

I further think that these preexisting, inalienable rights are tensors - statements true under all frames of reference. The right to life and liberty are no less inherent to the nameless young women killed to be grave-servants and buried with Queen Shu-Ab in ancient Ur than they are to an American on death row who is appealing for a writ of habeas corpus.

The perceived imperfections in the right are not a function of some ambiguity of the right per se, but of society's - government's - derivation and application of it. The six thousand captured and made slaves by the Pharaoh Narmer - as depicted on the Narmer Palette - were still holders of that right but were denied it solely by that society's interpretation of how some humans could be constrained. Despite his noble words, Jefferson himself owned black slaves - men and women who were not slaves due to the absence of the inherent right - but because society's still-limited interpretation permitted it.

The true purpose of the social contract is to understand how deep the right runs, and the slow painful evolution toward that maximum expression is seen in our history. Again to reference Jefferson, government - the implement of the the social contract - is instituted to secure those rights, and the securing of those rights implies an exploration of and an understanding of their persistence. Half a millennium ago, the acceptance of slavery was virtually universal; one hundred and fifty years ago it was seen as acceptable only for certain groups of mankind, and even that was bitterly disputed by many; today, slavery is almost universally viewed as an abomination.

Thus, if one chooses to regard our rights as nothing more than a mutually agreed-upon set of do/do not at some freeze-frame moment in our history, then we have absolutely no moral basis to criticize any age or any society's denial of life and liberty to anyone for any reason whatsoever.


Life should be led like a cavalry charge - Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Ardy Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by Ron G.
Thus, if one chooses to regard our rights as nothing more than a mutually agreed-upon set of do/do not at some freeze-frame moment in our history, then we have absolutely no moral basis to criticize any age or any society's denial of life and liberty to anyone for any reason whatsoever.

Ron,
I do not see that we DO have a moral basis to cast our gaze back on history and criticise decisions and actions of past civilizations.

That said, would anyone care to offer a definition of "rights"


"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Ardy Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by issodhos
I also wrote that rights are integral to the human mind; which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not ; man, but the nature of man.

Yours,
Issodhos

How do we know this? IMO this whole line of argument is not based upon any solid facts. Instead, it seems to be an ironclad rhetorical device that defines "rights" in such a way that they are protected from any corruption or erosion. It seems to me like a statement of the fundamental principle of a political philosophy: IE we hold these truths to be self evident, given to us by the creator... beyond dispute or discussion.


"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 754
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 754
Maybe you need to remove cosmology from the argument.

Here's a definition of Natural Rights that you might find acceptable:

Natural Rights are the liberties which The Nation's Founders believed could never be surrendered up to the state, and its citizens remain free.

Thomas Jefferson offers insight:

Quote
The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse. by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.

Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia"
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Library)
Andrew A. Lipscomb, Editor in Chief, Albert Ellery Bergh, Managing Editor
Volume II - page 221

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Ardy Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by a knight
Here's a definition of Natural Rights that you might find acceptable:

Natural Rights are the liberties which The Nation's Founders believed could never be surrendered up to the state, and its citizens remain free.

AK
I am having a little trouble extracting a definition from what you wrote. Let me paraphrase and see if I get it right:

Absent a government we all have unlimited liberty.
We choose to allow restriction of some liberties to attain the benefits of a government which (among other things ) referees conflicting pursuit of liberties.
But some of those liberties should never be surrendered under any circumstance because to do would be to surrender freedom.
And those liberties are called rights.

Is this a fair re-statement of your "definition?"


"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 754
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 754
Admittedly, a fundamental problem with the natural Rights philosophers is a chicken-or-egg conundrum. To be human is to be a social being, and that, of itself, posits that there could have been no human condition which predated society. Still, which came first: humanity or society?

You conflated what I stated as a method for determining what is a Natural Right though, and it was one which comports to the Constitutional theory broadly known as "Originalism". What the Nation's Founders believed to be Natural Rights, are removed from their being abridged by a legitimate American Government.

Among these rights is assuredly a natural right to matters of personal conscience, as long as they did not directly interfere with another human being's natural rights. It is an absurdity to posit that a state has a right to impair an individual's personal thoughts.

I am strongly Jeffersonian in my political world-view, so I often use his writings to ground my views of Natural Rights in. Jefferson also believed in a limited Natural Right to property:

Quote
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It' would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself ; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine ; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac Mcpherson, August 13, 1813
Jefferson, Thomas, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, and Albert Ellery Bergh. 1903. The writings of Thomas Jefferson. Washington, D.C.: Issued under the auspices of the Thomas Jefferson memorial Association of the United States.
Volume XIII - pp 326-338
A Jefferson letter to Noah Webster offers a bit more illumination into what should be considered natural rights:

Quote
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses. These were the settled opinions of all the States, - of that of Virginia, of which I was writing, as well as of the others.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Noah Webster, December 4, 1790.
Jefferson, Thomas, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, and Albert Ellery Bergh. 1903. The writings of Thomas Jefferson. Washington, D.C.: Issued under the auspices of the Thomas Jefferson memorial Association of the United States.
Volume VIII. - pp 111-115
In America, Individual rights do indeed exist, or the American government is itself, an illegitimate tyranny.

Last edited by a knight; 07/30/08 05:49 AM. Reason: fix page typo in 2nd cite
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Quote
I observe that when babies are born, they have no capability to communicate in the manner that you describe above. From that fact, would we conclude that babies do not have the natural right that you describe?

When a human infant is born, there is every expectation that over time it will complete its development and it will hone the skills necessary for it to take advantage of its innate human ability to express itself. Man is man, whether just born or at the edge of death, and intrinsic to him at each extreme and between each extreme is his nature – the basis of rights. One does not decide upon whether this person or that person has rights dependent upon his particular ability to exercise them anymore that one would claim that a dog that cannot bark is therefore not a dog. Each human is recognized as human because each human has characteristics that categorize her as being human. Just as a dog that cannot bark retains its doggy nature, so to does a man retain his nature. So, yes, the infant has rights, though her ability to exercise them may be currently restricted.

As to your mistaken concern that I am claiming that capability implies a right, I am not. As I wrote earlier, the concept of rights arose from the study of the nature of man. Continuing to use our “communicating and expressing thoughts” example, the role “ability” plays in such a study is that if man did not have an ability to express himself, any suggestion that he had a right to do so would me moot.


Quote
So it is not a right if exercising the "right" would conflict with another person's similar exercising of his right?

You are mistaken. A quick example: You have the right to express your thoughts, but you do not have the right to enter into my home to do so without my permission. Your right is restricted when it would violate one of my rights. By denying you entrance into my home, I have not infringed upon your right to express your thoughts.

Quote
And further, there seems some assumption that there are some fundamental rights which will never be in conflict. But it seems to me that claims to "rights" would have inevitable conflicts. In the case of the proposed natural right to communicate ideas, there are innumerable potential problems. For instance, when one person is speaking, the other person cannot speak. And maybe speaking second is less advantageous. So who has the right to speak first? If someone has a right to communicate his ideas, does that obligate others to listen? What if someone conspires to keep people from hearing my free expression... without actually stifling my free expression... have my rights been violated?

I think you are confusing socially agreed upon protocol with rights and conflating “advantage” with an unfounded requirement for “equity”, as well as expecting another or others to provide you assistance in the course of you exercising your right. By the way, two or more people are quite capable of speaking simultaneously – it is done all the time.:-)


Quote
As a concept, rights only seem to apply between men... which by definition would require society. Am I correct on this point?

Actually, it would only require two individuals, Ardy, in the sense that the concept is about the relationship between individuals. So I think you would be incorrect.

Quote
Also, could you clarify the following issue please. It appears from scientific evidence that humans evolved over a long period of time from more primitive creatures. You have separately indicated that rights do not apply to other creatures. So it appears that at some point in the past men were not sufficiently human to have rights... but then they developed sufficiently so that they did have rights. Could you please clarify the evolutionary point at which rights first adhered to man.

I am going to have to leave it to you or others to provide the “Missing Link”, Ardy, but, I think that musing on the theoretical point of man’s transition from mudpuppy to mud-wrestler is taking us quite a bit away from your original question which is, “Do rights exist?” You claim that if they do they are an invention of man’s mind. It seems to me, your claim is more in need of pinpointing when man became “sufficiently human” than my premise that rights are integral to man and are revealed by observation of the nature of man. So, for me, historic (modern) man will do.

Anyway, have you gotten enough yet to present a Socratic conclusion, Ardy?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Quote
As I wrote earlier, the concept of rights arose from the study of the nature of man.

Sure would love to read the research report on this "study". Got a link?


Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5