|
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
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: DoctorJ]
#5780162 - 06/22/06 11:09 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DoctorJ said: 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
You know, it's ok for two people to have threads about the same topic.
--------------------
|
DoctorJ


Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
"The search function is your friend."
"Please try to respond to existing threads rather than starting a new thread on the same topic."
I believe these are both things the admins have said in the past.
that being said, I'm certainly guilty of rehashing worn out topics in new threads myself.
Its just annoying to me when someone starts a thread on a topic I started a thread on ages ago. Meh, I'm workin on it. Hopefully, the psychological truama this has caused me won't be too severe
|
tallgreen
chillin like avillain

Registered: 05/21/06
Posts: 293
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
|
Since this forum is about natural rights, and not just natural, I should add that I don't think right and wrong exist. That is something humans made up, a story. It's fictitious. There is only "is", "is right" or "is wrong" does not exist. People have preference but that does not exist outside themselves. It is merely an idea.
-------------------- 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
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
|
As long as 'natural' and 'unnatural' seem to have something to do with humans and their 'doings' (even a meteorite destroying the earth would be called 'natural'), I will make the huge assumption, that everything a human will 'touch', automatically loses it's status of 'naturality' and is sickened to 'unnatural'-nes, hehe Perhaps even a human glimpse may be enough to taint the world out of its natural base 
So, perhaps there are natural rights for humans only then, when they see themselves as kind of animals or integration to biosphere earth again...
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting


Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Triplexiosis said: 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.
As it is obvious from obeserving nature, this is how it works in nature:
it's a closed circle: in nature you have right to that which actually does happen to you. For example, if you live through the day, then it means you had the right to live through that day, if you get killed it means you had no right to live through that day. You always get what you deserve because there is no other way it could happen.
This is just a kind of metaphoric talk, because there is no "deserve" and "right" in nature.
As humans are natural beings, we are not born with rights other than those we are given. Not all human have same rights. If you are born in US, you have a right not to be killed, unless government signes a paper for that to happen. If you are born somewhere in africa, you don't have that right because there is no force to make it real. Rights and laws exist only in the force that enforces them. If you point a gun at someone and tell him to dance, then the law for him is to dance, and if you point a gun at a robber stealing the bag of a lady, the lady was given right not to be robbed, because your gun is a force that made that right happen.
Outside of these social cathegories, its just nature, and in nature you always get what you deserve. (if you get hit my a bullet, in nature you didn't have the right to survive that bullet because you weren't evolved enough to dodge it)
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting


Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: tallgreen]
#5780870 - 06/22/06 03:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
tallgreen said: Since this forum is about natural rights, and not just natural, I should add that I don't think right and wrong exist. That is something humans made up, a story. It's fictitious. There is only "is", "is right" or "is wrong" does not exist. People have preference but that does not exist outside themselves. It is merely an idea.
that doesn't say much about these concepts, because our whole lives and society are inside out heads anyway. And our reality is in our heards, therefore right and wrong exist as a part of that reality.
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting


Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Natural Rights [Re: Redstorm]
#5780885 - 06/22/06 03:39 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: 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.
And can you define a right? What is a right?
In nature things either are or are not, there is no such thing as "should", it just is as is tetermined by cause and effect. And the concept of right is based on "should" rather than is/is not.
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
capliberty
Stranger


Registered: 04/23/06
Posts: 1,949
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
even in nature, untainted by man you see social structures, a leader, followers, a certain law for distributing food, and animals do kill for the simple pleasure, not just for survival, also different rights are given to different animals, the alpha male has more power within his group, so he inheranitly excercises more control, he has right to mate, kill any coconspirtors trying to overthrough him, band certain members, etc., this based on status of being the strongest, in this a sense a natural right has occured for being genetically stronger, to define right and wrong in the animal sense, its based on consequence, whats deemed right or wrong is only a matter of consequence which is basically what it is in human world as well, most animals don't have complex moral systems, but base their actions on consequences, so natural rights is more semantic in defining what right and wrong means, even most intelligent animals, are far more premiative to the complexities of man,
Edited by capliberty (06/22/06 04:14 PM)
|
Triplexiosis
Lachrymologist


Registered: 12/17/04
Posts: 199
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Outside of these social cathegories, its just nature, and in nature you always get what you deserve. (if you get hit my a bullet, in nature you didn't have the right to survive that bullet because you weren't evolved enough to dodge it)
I stay by my opinion that firing a gun at another person is unnatural. Why? Supossedly we have something animals do not. What is that - is debateable but imo woudln't help this topic. Be it consciousness, soul, free will, whatever, supossedly we humans have it be it for "better" or for "worse". I don't see natural selection fitting in human society. I go by my feelings, kill or be killed, or devour to survive is bad monkey play. Imo we should be evolving on the inside, not on the outside.
--------------------
"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
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting


Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Triplexiosis said:
Quote:
Outside of these social cathegories, its just nature, and in nature you always get what you deserve. (if you get hit my a bullet, in nature you didn't have the right to survive that bullet because you weren't evolved enough to dodge it)
I stay by my opinion that firing a gun at another person is unnatural. Why? Supossedly we have something animals do not. What is that - is debateable but imo woudln't help this topic. Be it consciousness, soul, free will, whatever, supossedly we humans have it be it for "better" or for "worse". I don't see natural selection fitting in human society. I go by my feelings, kill or be killed, or devour to survive is bad monkey play. Imo we should be evolving on the inside, not on the outside.
It's unnatural in human society, but not unnatural in nature. A gun is just a metaphore for any kind of violence.
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting


Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
|
And just for the record, I really don't enjoy saying all this darvinistic bullshit about people, but I'm just discussing it within the limits of that kind of worldview.
And really I give accent to the word "limits" in the above text
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
capliberty
Stranger


Registered: 04/23/06
Posts: 1,949
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
having rights and right or wrong are two different things, rights aren't necessarily based on right on wrong, if you look at rights as having permission, or deemed acceptable then of course we have nature rights, if you look at it on a moral stand point, its move indirect and harder to prove, it gets into whether you believe in karma or not, and proving its existence
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting


Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
capliberty said: having rights and right or wrong are two different things, rights aren't necessarily based on right on wrong, if you look at rights as having permission, or deemed acceptable then of course we have nature rights, if you look at it on a moral stand point, its move indirect and harder to prove, it gets into whether you believe in karma or not, and proving its existence
Well that's what I was trying to point out, that rights are a questions of what you can get away with: either what you can force upon your environment or what others let you do.
And as for karma and things like that, well we are talking about nature here, nature as we learn about it in biology
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
Triplexiosis
Lachrymologist


Registered: 12/17/04
Posts: 199
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
And just for the record, I really don't enjoy saying all this darvinistic bullshit about people, but I'm just discussing it within the limits of that kind of worldview.
 Was just further explaining my views.
--------------------
"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
Edited by Triplexiosis (06/22/06 05:22 PM)
|
IamHungry
Stranger
Registered: 01/12/03
Posts: 220
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
|
|
Natural rights only apply to beings that have the capability of understanding those rights. Let's say a wolf eats a lamb for sustenance. The wolf apparently violated the lamb's natural right to life, right? Not so, because the wolf does not understand the lamb's rights. As human beings, capable of rational thought and moral decision-making, we CAN understand the right to life of other creatures beyond ourselves. Unless we provide and respect other beings' natural rights, we are no more intelligent than they are, and all this thinking is only hindering us from a life of debauchery and decadence. Of course "natural rights" is a man-made concept... without them there would be very few "men" left in the world.
-------------------- Here comes the sun, do n do do, Here comes the sun, and I say, It's alright...
|
|