|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Natural Rights
#5771120 - 06/20/06 01:50 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Doesn't it seem like wishful thinking to assume that natural rights exist when we can plainly see how frequently and easily they are violated and/or ignored?
|
Triplexiosis
Lachrymologist


Registered: 12/17/04
Posts: 199
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
|
|
Natural rights exist, but if you violate them be prepared to get your own violated. Imho when you violate natural rights of others, you're also violating your own, payback time.
--------------------
"If there were no desire to heal, the damaged and broken met along this tedious path I've choosen here, I certainly would have walked away by now" Tool - Patient "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Natural rights don't exist, and nature will plainly evidence this.
I remember once that someone proposed that, because we are living, we have a natural right to live, which is senseless. Animals in nature do not respect these so-called natural rights. 
If you are living, you have the right to continue living, right up until the moment you die..... Whoa, man, profound. 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Triplexiosis
Lachrymologist


Registered: 12/17/04
Posts: 199
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
|
|
Still a set of so called rules is necessary, otherwise we'd all go around killing each other. Live naturally, die naturally, i refuse to accept that murder is natural death. Not talking animals here mind you (but heck, that's just me)
--------------------
"If there were no desire to heal, the damaged and broken met along this tedious path I've choosen here, I certainly would have walked away by now" Tool - Patient "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
Triplexiosis said: Still a set of so called rules is necessary, otherwise we'd all go around killing each other.
No, they are not necessary, and such "rules" have little to no effect on whether or not people kill others. It, quite simply, reduces down to the consequences that would result from doing so. If someone wanted to kill another person, and knew that they would assuredly get away with it, then the "rules" aren't going to make a difference.
There is a reason why people just don't go around killing other people, and it has to do with the fact that doing so would harm oneself.
Quote:
Live naturally, die naturally, i refuse to accept that murder is natural death. Not talking animals here mind you (but heck, that's just me)
I'm sorry, but I simply see no relevance in discerning "natural" and "unnatural" death. Is death from disease natural?
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Triplexiosis
Lachrymologist


Registered: 12/17/04
Posts: 199
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
|
|
"There is a reason why people just don't go around killing other people, and it has to do with the fact that doing so would harm oneself." I agree, yet this is a "rule" in a way, and it bears consequences if "broken". A personal rule individuals set for themselves. I wans't refering to law in my earlier post.
"I'm sorry, but I simply see no relevance in discerning "natural" and "unnatural" death. Is death from disease natural?" Good point, to me suicide ie. is unnatural, one unleashes pain on himself, not even animals do this intentionally. Thus is murder, for killing another is hurting self from my perspective. If one brought the disease intentionally to him/herself or other I'd say yes, it was an unnatural death.
--------------------
"If there were no desire to heal, the damaged and broken met along this tedious path I've choosen here, I certainly would have walked away by now" Tool - Patient "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
demiu5
humans, lol


Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium
|
|
Quote:
Still a set of so called rules is necessary, otherwise we'd all go around killing each other. Live naturally, die naturally, i refuse to accept that murder is natural death. Not talking animals here mind you (but heck, that's just me)
Whoah! whoah! whoah!
We are animals, nothing more, nothing less. 100% mammal. I, personally, have never heard of another animal that kills for fun and pleasure besides us humans. All other animals kill for food, for survival. They know (possibly with or without actually knowing) that if they went around killing every animal, they soon would have no means of survival.
-------------------- channel your inner Larry David
|
Triplexiosis
Lachrymologist


Registered: 12/17/04
Posts: 199
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: demiu5]
#5771702 - 06/20/06 08:00 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
If simply being a mammal means we're animals, then I agree. Otherwise I'll keep refering to humans as humans (and this doesn't mean I place humans above animals too)
--------------------
"If there were no desire to heal, the damaged and broken met along this tedious path I've choosen here, I certainly would have walked away by now" Tool - Patient "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
IamHungry
Stranger
Registered: 01/12/03
Posts: 220
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
|
|
It's hard to identify any part of human existence, especially in modern times, with anything "natural." How "natural" are the computers we use to type responses to this question?
When people talk about natural rights, they are referring to the way things "should" be. The violation of these rights is what makes life so difficult but interesting. Imagine how boring life would be with no conflict.
-------------------- Here comes the sun, do n do do, Here comes the sun, and I say, It's alright...
|
WalnutsMan
Stranger

Registered: 06/07/06
Posts: 8
Last seen: 17 years, 19 days
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: IamHungry]
#5771832 - 06/20/06 09:11 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
IamHungry said: How "natural" are the computers we use to type responses to this question?
As natural as an ant hill.
|
demiu5
humans, lol


Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium
|
|
Quote:
WalnutsMan said:Quote:
IamHungry said: How "natural" are the computers we use to type responses to this question?
As natural as an ant hill.
Um...care to explain that?
-------------------- channel your inner Larry David
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
Natural rights is an outdated term for human rights. After WW2, natural rights was replaced with human rights, due to natural law becoming controversial. Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights/human rights through "reason" alone. John Locke believed in rights derived from a common human nature. Etc...
Human rights isn't an absurd idea, and natural rights is just a thing of the past. In my studies of contemporary philosophy, I have never stumbled across the reference of "natural rights".
|
WalnutsMan
Stranger

Registered: 06/07/06
Posts: 8
Last seen: 17 years, 19 days
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: demiu5]
#5771928 - 06/20/06 10:00 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
demius said:
Quote:
WalnutsMan said:Quote:
IamHungry said: How "natural" are the computers we use to type responses to this question?
As natural as an ant hill.
Um...care to explain that?
People tend to distinguish between natural and man made object. This is a useful distinction but lends itself to the delusion that they are disparate sets. Man is a part of nature and the set of man made objects is a subset of natural objects.
Man cannot create the unnatural.

At least this is how I believe things are.
|
demiu5
humans, lol


Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium
|
|
I understand a little better. I suppose the basis is that all things we use were at one point "natural." My stance from the word natural is naturally occurring in nature. Things like computer chips, wires, circuitry, lights, these are not naturally occurring, whereas an ant hill is just dirt that has been relocated.
-------------------- channel your inner Larry David
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: spud]
#5771977 - 06/20/06 10:26 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said: Natural rights is an outdated term for human rights. After WW2, natural rights was replaced with human rights, due to natural law becoming controversial. Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights/human rights through "reason" alone. John Locke believed in rights derived from a common human nature. Etc...
Human rights isn't an absurd idea, and natural rights is just a thing of the past. In my studies of contemporary philosophy, I have never stumbled across the reference of "natural rights".
We are currently studying Kant and Locke in my ethics class, which is why I felt the need to start this thread. Elaborate on human rights.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: demiu5]
#5772040 - 06/20/06 10:44 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
demius said: Things like computer chips, wires, circuitry, lights, these are not naturally occurring, whereas an ant hill is just dirt that has been relocated.
It may just be dirt that has been "relocated", but the ant hill itself is not "naturally occuring", in the same manner that you have stated computer parts are not "naturally occuring".
The only difference is complexity of the processes involved.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
georgeM
Human


Registered: 07/05/05
Posts: 1,748
Loc: Osage Cuestas
|
|
Though electrical circuitry does not exist in nature … similar archetypical dynamic structures exist.
Natural rights being purely conceptual do not exist outside of consciousness. Not to dismiss the very idea of natural laws as inconsequential, as we all should be well aware, consciousness can lead to very tangible results. To dismiss “concepts” as being negligible in terms of impact on life/existence is to consider human culture as equally negligible. I doubt anyone could make an argument that human culture is without significance in terms of planetary impact.
But then.... just what is implied by Natural Rights? Could it all be reduced to semantics? Everyone knows semantics are best quibbled about over coffee… not message boards. imo
georgem
|
DoctorJ


Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Once again, you are light years behind me in your thinking, and in the wrong forum as well:
Natural Rights and the Delusion of a Just World
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: DoctorJ]
#5780133 - 06/22/06 10:58 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It seems like the right forum to me. Natural rights are not only a political topic, but perhaps may be even more relevant to philosophy.
I believe there are natural or human rights that are inherent in every person on this Earth. When a gov't decides to suspend these rights, they are in the wrong and it is the duty of the citizen to regain these rights at all costs.
|
tallgreen
chillin like avillain

Registered: 05/21/06
Posts: 293
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: Redstorm]
#5780152 - 06/22/06 11:05 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Someone should clearly define "natural", otherwise this is simply a semantics argument.
IMHO, everything is natural, suicide, atomic bombs, we are a part of nature and that is inescapable. There is nothing we could do, ever, that would be "unnatural", it's an oxymoron. How could something exist outside of nature, the universe is nature, we are nature. Just because we have never seen anything like us before doesn't mean it's outside of natural occurrence. If you believe in evolution than you must submit that we are just a continuation of that. If you insist that we or our actions are somehow outside nature, tell me where the line is? At what point, at what instance did we go from natural to unnatural. If you think that point exists you are defining "natural" as a state relevant to familiarity, and that is not an objective perspective.
-------------------- Nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy. All you need is love. - The Beatles
|
|