Rights - god given? inalienable? self-evident? natural? WRONG

Yes, the term has been handled rather inelegantly because so many ethicists have tried to interject their own religion into the mix. It doesn't have to be. All we have to agree to is that we are not living in some solipsistic universe, but rather living with each other in whatever we call "reality". The earth, the warmth of the sun, trees, squirrels... these are all things that are of "nature".

I think where people get confused is when they start thinking that the lack of rights is nature. The red of tooth and claw version of nature is always there, if we want it. The only question is whether we want that.

Do you?

 

AHH. so why would you disagree with healthcare being labelled a right if at some point, it's the consensus? and you will never get every single American to agree to any right, some will not even agree to right of life. This means, we create rights from a consensus (doesn't mean ALL), of what we believe is best for society.

exactly so you should not be disagreeing with healthcare being a right if it's the consensus. Shall we have Americans vote? I guarantee you most Americans think it is a right, so why isn't it?

Agreed, healthcare ought to be a right.

When there is a consensus amongst a group, it doesn't necessity mean every single person agrees, just the majority. Perhaps we have a different definition in mind, there is NEVER 100% agreement amongst all Americans on anything. When the constitution was ratified, Americans agreed to it, it was consensual. I doesn't matter that those who are living today weren't alive when everything was agreed upon. We have the ability to amend the constitution if we wanted to.

this is the problem, when someone debates whether healthcare should be a right, you people get very technical but it shouldn't. It's simple - we reach a consensus amongst Americans on what should be a right and then it's a right, period. RIGHT - SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

 

First, MOSES led his people out of Egypt, not Abraham.

Next, "God-given rights" were inherent in the predominant conscious beliefs of our founding fathers; these standards were, of course, based on religious values, and the name of God was invoked to solidify and amplify their commitment.

The Christian concept of selflessness is integral to patriotism and supports unity. . . . Separation of church and state is fine, but government is necessarily based on morality.

 

okay..

What would you say to those that believe that killing is a god given right (plenty of killing in the bible) and a natural right? With competing resources and many of us, killing is a natural consequence and human nature. We have deemed killing 'immoral' but all this means is we have reached a consensus that it would be better for society if we violated this god given or natural right (to kill), for the well-being of society.

Think of our ape friends. A silverback gorilla will take over a group of females by force, often by killing a rival. why? so he can have the right to procreate and right to have what he wants because he is stronger. Some humans believe in this right as-well, to kill a rival to obtain what he is able to obtain. If he's stronger and more able, he has 'the right' to what the other possesses. We have essentially VIOLATED this right so that society can be more peaceful, a consensus was reached.

 

You don't have to get every single American or anybody to agree to a right in order for it to be a right. You just have to get two people together who agree on something, and that's a consensually agreed to right. The whole idea should be pretty obvious when you look at the word "right" to realize that it is considered a moral value, or rather, the "right" thing to do.

Yeah, I have no problem with healthcare being a right. Self medicate yourself all day long, and I don't mind. Hell, you can even operate on yourself if you want. That's something that you should be free to do, and is the right thing to do. If you've got a cut on your finger, I'm not going to stop you from applying a bandaid.

as for most americans and voting, you're fallling into that trap again of thinking that consensual means something else.

I explained what consensus means, and I provided an example of how non-consensual sex is considered rape. You obviously disagree and think that consensus means some kind of mob rule, so if you have a football team and a girl in a room, and the "consensus" according to your own bizarre definition is that she's going to have a whole lot of consensual sex, then it isn't rape.

Yes, we disagree on the definition of consensual.

 

Nope they are not. How did you come up with that?

 

Proof of what comes with wisdom?

 

Where is it written that Vishnu granted anyone a right? A right to do what?

 

So you think the founders of the USA were 100% in agreement with each other?
What rights do you have? How are they protected?

 

What is a natural right? Does all of humanity have those rights? Why or why not?

 

This is where you lose me as you imply someone will be forced to provide healthcare, not the case. Healthcare can be right without forcing anyone to do anything other than paying taxes but if Americans reach a consensus, then it's fine.

if all Americans agree rape is a right (right to procreate by force), then it's a right. Obviously, Americans won't agree to this right as it's deemed immoral.The point is, a right is anything we deem it to be and no-one can say it's something god given or bound by natural laws.

I never brought up the word consensual, you did and even though derived from consensus, the way it's used is different. Now we can argue the true definition of what a consensus is but practically speaking there is never 100% consensus on anything when you consider a large group of people. A group, as a whole, can reach a consensus without every single member agreeing to it. You know what i meant, it was obvious - when Americans reach a consensus on what is a right, it is a right and by this i mean Americans as a whole, not every single American. When you start talking about having consensual sex etc... you are using clever linguistic tricks to set traps.

 

In other words, man decides what is or is not a right. For it to be a natural right, the entire world must consent.
I have never seen that.

 

I guess that depends on the parties involved. If you come across somebody who thinks that killing you is a right, and you agree, then... why would you agree to that? Maybe if you're laying up in the hospital with some kind of disease that's incredibly painful and you just want it to end, then you can agree to that, and then it's a right.

A right is not unilaterally decided. That's the might makes right argument, which I disagree with. I would hope that you do too, but... you never know.

Okay, so you think a male silverback gorilla killing another male gorilla so he can take over that dead gorilla's stable of gorilla wenches is a right? Then you think that gorilla rape is a right.

Sorry, but I disagree.

 

Not the entire world, but rather as a consensus between two or more people.

And of course you've seen this. Don't you and your neighbors consensually agree not to take a dump on each others lawns? It's an unwritten and unspoken consensus, but I'm pretty sure that every one of you would agree. If there's that one neighbor (we all have them) who says "hell, I don't care!" then it creates a lot of tension and a lot of fertilizer in each other's lawns.

Is that moral or "right" behavior?

 

Christian principle? Really?

The Popes went to war for years with different factions of Christianity. Christians in England were at war for decades with Christians from Ireland over the structure of their religion.

Thousands fled those wars to America where they immediately went to war with those "heathen" American Indians.

Christians killed Wickans for their religious beliefs.

European Christians killed Coptic Christians.

As the head of the church, Napoleon killed Russian Christians. Catholic Protestant wars anyone? Yup.

American Christians killed American Christians over whether it was Christian to keep slaves.

500 years of war in Europe over who would control the Christian Church - France, Italy, England or Spain.

Christians killed Mormons over religious beliefs.

Now modern Christians are much more tolerant, but it wasn't really part of the foundation of the Christian belief.

 

What you imply is that every human in the world agrees with certain rights, like right to life. No, it's a majority vs minority issue. In a way the majority are unilaterally deciding what rights are, this is a fact. Based on your definition, no rights should ever exist... there are no rights as everything is unilaterally decided at the expense of others.

You are unilaterally decided it is not a right, the other party disagrees.

see how rights are just BS? when you try to defend a right or claim one isn't valid, it is an endless debate. Fact is they are just social constructs where a majority of people agree to them and they are subject to change.

 

Who would have thought the responses we'd see from atheists?

 

intellectuals challenge those who just tell them 'you have to believe, just have faith'.

 

Where did you get this idea that I think everybody agrees with certain rights?

I even included an example of cows (you could make it lions or mongols, and it would be the same) where we have not come to a consensual agreement, thus no rights.

I told you before, you have to be linguistically precise, and you're not cutting it. You're coming up with stuff I never said and then saying "see? it's all garbage!" which is... can you name the fallacy?

hint: it involves straw.

 

this is a diversion tactic. I said you 'implied'. it, not said it.

you do imply everyone agrees to rights because you made the point that no right can be unilateral but i just showed you every right is a unilateral decision, yes or no? you conveniently evaded this point btw.

 

Non sequitur, obviously.

Because the unalienable right to life doesn't mean I cannot be killed, only that I may not justly be killed as long as I respect the unalienable rights of others. You're welcome.

Of course if you had the foggiest idea what you're talking about, you'd realize that is of no moment whatever.

Well how very handsome. How, pray tell, do we get from there to the local mafioso not having the right to rape your daughter, if he's backed up by an army and all you have is water balloons?

 

Arm yourself with more than water balloons?

The local mafiosa have not agreed to refrain from raping your daughter, so they have agreed that they have no right to their daughter not being raped.

Welcome to an uncivil society, in which nobody agrees to even basic rights, like daughters not being raped. That's what you want? Then okeydokey.

 

No, we disagree on the definition of a right. Your example of a unilateral decision is your idea of a right, which I disagree with.

so go on and have fun with your definition, and I'll have fun with mine. In the end, I'll end up living in a civil society and you won't.

 

ask the moonbats which of their natural rights they'll agree to relinquish for The Greater Good™

 

They're saying that there are no rights. Just might makes right, and nature red in tooth and claw.

That's how they want it, well... then that's what we will unfortunately get.

hell, mike is already talking about how it's perfectly fine for silverback gorillas to kill each other and take over their gorilla harem.

That's how he wants it.