Rights exist not

Quote :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

-Thomas Jefferson

First let me state that you cannot derive a ought from an is.


Second: Inalienable rights do not exist. Inalienable rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and neither of these can provide anything inalienable.

Rights are installed only by government or politics and without them there is noone to enforce them. In a state of nature beyond society the only right that exists is might in that the golden rule of nature is that there are no golden rules. In nature there is only survival of the fittest where morality is unheard of.

Amongst nature there is no need of justification for any action where survival revolves around the fittest.

If there were inalienable rights, the government or anyone else would not need to try to uphold them, you would always have them no matter what. Obviously, rights are only social rights that other people have to respect.

Human rights do not exist.
Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue of
being human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought to
have, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not to
deny the individual X and obligates the government to protect the
individual's possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, to
qualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimal
conditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals to
be so obligated. The second is that there is an effective government
mechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beings
may inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or both
conditions are not met without losing their humanity. In such
circumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that such
human beings would continue to possess rights. Since there are
circumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim that
a human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Human
beings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human.

Universal rights don't exist just as universal morals don't.

People are owed nothing by that of nature or others.

The concept that people are owed anything comes from the fallacy that the casual agent of transaction is benevolent.

There exists no observable trait as noone is entitled to anything.

There only exists what a man can procure and what is coercively taken from them by that of either force or blackmail.

By inalienable he means that the desire for them can not be removed from the human disposition.

Lucretia wrote:

By inalienable he means that the desire for them can not be removed from the human disposition.

Explain.

Meaning all people have the desire for those rights, which is why a state based on the consent of the governed is ethically obligated to protect them.

Lucretia wrote:

Meaning all people have the desire for those rights, which is why a state based on the consent of the governed is ethically obligated to protect them.

So what if they have desires to have them? That still doesn't say why they should be entitled to such rights.

I have the desire to fly.

Will somebody be obligated to help me have superpowers to fly throughout the air?

But life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are reasonable preferences, they have to do with an easily sustainable quality of life which everyone in the United States and most of the western world enjoys. There is not sufficient cause to restrict them, physics is a sufficient cause to restrict the desire to fly unassisted.

Quote :

But life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are reasonable preferences,

Reasonable?

Quote :

they have to do with an easily sustainable quality of life which everyone in the United States and most of the western world enjoys.

Everyone? Are you sure? That implies total equality. I've never seen that.

Quote :

There is not sufficient cause to restrict them,

Perhaps but it isn't sufficient to support them either.

Quote :

physics is a sufficient cause to restrict the desire to fly unassisted.

And human selfishness along with humanity's disposition for violence is enough to dismiss rights too.

If you don't recognise the fact that all citizens of the United States have total equality then I don't know what to say to you, and human selfishness is the source of all rights, not a dismissal of them, because the human self innately has the desire to be social. Ask any biologist.

Quote :

If you don't recognise the fact that all citizens of the United States have total equality then I don't know what to say to you,

Oh so now everyone has total equality? Do they really?

Quote :

and human selfishness is the source of all rights, not a dismissal of them

Alright but since selfishness is the source of all rights, morals, and ethics it explains nothing as to why people should follow them.

I suppose you could use the whole analogy of morality being operated out of the barrel of a gun but that won't help your foundation much.

Quote :

because the human self innately has the desire to be social. Ask any biologist.

Define social.

Everyone has had total equality since 1964.

I don't see why that logic isn't apparent to you. If the source of them is universal human selfishness, people follow them because they like to, it's in accordance with their selfishness as the result of a biological predisposition.

Quote :

Everyone has had total equality since 1964.

That doesn't even make sense. How has everyone acquired total equality since 1964?

Everytime I look at the world I see nothing of the sort. What world do you live in?

Quote :

I don't see why that logic isn't apparent to you.

For one your statements are awful vague.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 excludes social discrimination of any kind.

The Fool wrote:

Quote :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

-Thomas Jefferson

First let me state that you cannot derive a ought from an is.


Second: Inalienable rights do not exist. Inalienable rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and neither of these can provide anything inalienable.

Rights are installed only by government or politics and without them there is noone to enforce them. In a state of nature beyond society the only right that exists is might in that the golden rule of nature is that there are no golden rules. In nature there is only survival of the fittest where morality is unheard of.

Amongst nature there is no need of justification for any action where survival revolves around the fittest.

If there were inalienable rights, the government or anyone else would not need to try to uphold them, you would always have them no matter what. Obviously, rights are only social rights that other people have to respect.

Human rights do not exist.
Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue of
being human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought to
have, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not to
deny the individual X and obligates the government to protect the
individual's possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, to
qualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimal
conditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals to
be so obligated. The second is that there is an effective government
mechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beings
may inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or both
conditions are not met without losing their humanity. In such
circumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that such
human beings would continue to possess rights. Since there are
circumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim that
a human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Human
beings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human.

Universal rights don't exist just as universal morals don't.

People are owed nothing by that of nature or others.

The concept that people are owed anything comes from the fallacy that the casual agent of transaction is benevolent.

There exists no observable trait as noone is entitled to anything.

There only exists what a man can procure and what is coercively taken from them by that of either force or blackmail.

You put very little on the importance of man don't you?
Rights exist, they are simply human constructs, or rather collective human constructs. I don't know anyone that would say otherwise. This does not mean that they don't exist. Whether or not the morality that we have to construct these rights was given to us by some higher being or not is entirely debatable, though in my experience such a debate is utterly pointless as no accurate conclusion can be drawn. This point is unimportant though.
Are the morals that we inherit from our ancestors always the same? Possibly, it is hard to observe what can be constituted as a moral and what morals are ignored due to personal gratification, or fear of those who favour personal gratification over these morals. Or perhaps no one persons morals are the same. Either way we can observe certain patterns in morality over various cultures, where one tribe observes that killing is wrong and another does the same on the other side of the world this lends something to thinking that killing is morally wrong. Of course there is the counter argument that this simply happens for the sake of survival and is not innate but cultural. Even if this is the case however could not these 'learnt morals' after time not be learnt at all, rather they could be inherited as a survival instinct.

Lucretia wrote:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 excludes social discrimination of any kind.

Well it certainly is doing a bang up job isn't it?

Quote :

Rhinoboy says:

You put very little on the importance of man don't you?

It's one of my many talents.

Quote :

Rights exist, they are simply human constructs, or rather collective human constructs.

Yet what one constructs another can deconstruct, yes?

Therefore there is no reason why someone should be entitled to this or that as there is nothing beyond the person saying so.

Quote :

This point is unimportant though.
Are the morals that we inherit from our ancestors always the same? Possibly, it is hard to observe what can be constituted as a moral and what morals are ignored due to personal gratification, or fear of those who favour personal gratification over these morals. Or perhaps no one persons morals are the same. Either way we can observe certain patterns in morality over various cultures, where one tribe observes that killing is wrong and another does the same on the other side of the world this lends something to thinking that killing is morally wrong. Of course there is the counter argument that this simply happens for the sake of survival and is not innate but cultural. Even if this is the case however could not these 'learnt morals' after time not be learnt at all, rather they could be inherited as a survival instinct.

Morality has nothing to do with what is wrong as nothing in the sense is universally wrong where everything is indeed permissible.

Morality has more to do with control, manipulation, and dominionism.

( Controlling your competition or opponents through imaginary constructed values of worth by that of images, superstition, and mere hearsay.)

The Fool wrote:

Lucretia wrote:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 excludes social discrimination of any kind.

Well it certainly is doing a bang up job isn't it?

Yes it is, hence the equal opportunity employers existing universally.

The Fool wrote:

Yet what one constructs another can deconstruct, yes?

Therefore there is no reason why someone should be entitled to this or that as there is nothing beyond the person saying so.

Well thats not true, theres allot more people behind that person, thats why its a collective construct, a little different then one person saying it

Quote :

Morality has nothing to do with what is wrong as nothing in the sense is universally wrong where everything is indeed permissible.

Morality has more to do with control, manipulation, and dominionism.

In the universe we are the ones who observe what is right and wrong therefore what we decide is right and wrong is right and wrong universally

natural rights do not exist.

human rights are artificial constructs.

now I ask you: and so? We are a product of an entirely artificial society. We live in and on it and we don't complain. You're taking advantage of an artificial right guaranteed by the constitution of the USA that allows you to come to an internet message board and say whatever you want. You are using your freedom of the will and your freedom of speech even though you know they're both human constructs.

i don't really see how you could do without these and other such 'illusions'...

How the heck are we an artificial society? Are animal herds or packs artificial? We are natural to what species we are. This artificial crap is just that ,crap. Its an egotistical way to deny our link to nature. We are a complex sentient species but, we are still quite natural and quite animal. Our cities are no different then termite nests or ant hills We treat each other the way all animals treat each other. we just have a facade of humanity to veneer our more crass actions. Rights are bestowed or earned through social agreement. A stray can gain social rights if the herd or pack allows . Geez, you may be artificial but, I am not.

Kriswest, you haven't apparently understood what I meant when I said that our society is artificial.

obviously, I didn't mean 'society' in the 'natural', say Aristotelian sense of the word.

i meant society as a set of customs and formalities which are not 'natural' in any conceivable way. These customs, these traditions, these formalities, are dead artificial and were created by man as he 'evolved' from his primitive condition to his current, modern situation. They are not natural and they are not essential. We are just so accustomed to them that we can't get rid of them without dying. They are conventions and illusions, and they don't free us from our true animal nature, but they help us to forget it for a while and think, pretend or dream that we are essentially domesticated, 'civilized' beings...

If it occured then it is natural. Strip away the facade and you have a herd coping to survive and thrive. Humanity is natural, our social constrcts are natural and very much similar to any herd animal. Domesticated is just a word for making a life cope with different living creatures.
All herds construct methods to allow the herd to propagate and thrive.
Humans cannot forget they are products of a feral world. We are sophisticated and more complex than our brethren creatures, nature did that not us. So what we are and what we do is very natural to our species. To pretend otherwise is just plain old denial and a false sophistry. You deny society because it does not please you, so you call the construct unnatural. You deny your own nature. All creatures on this earth are in a process of evolution. What we are doing is evolving along a natural path for us. We continue to evolve with each generation. All creatures evolve, it may take thousands of years for some , for others it may take a month. Each progresses at its own pace. Nature made us, directs us and drives us. Anything that is done is natural even that which is deemed socially unnatural.
if it occurs it is natural.