Where do your Rights come from?

W.J. Wilczek · #51 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 04:30 PM

Your question is inapposite. To state that a right exists is only to beg the question that it is provided by law (i.e., that it is a legal right - that it is enforceable by law); for absent the law, such right is a nullity. For example, your beloved Second Amendment does not grant any rights; nor does it prohibit the regulation of firearms by law. Whatever rights that may be protected by the Second Amendment are nevertheless provided by law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. Indeed, the Supreme Court has already ruled on these points.

TakuanSoho · #52 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

But in the example, isn't society the ultimate authority, provided the offender is caught?

(not absolute in the sense of universal truth, but absolute as authority?)

Not necessarily. In a dictatorship the authority rests with an individual, and society has no input.

Unless you want to engage in some sort of tautology where power = society, the conclusion really boils down to the right rests with the individual, and only s/he decides what rights he wants to give up to "society". To use your terms, the individual is responsible for his society, not the other way around.

Virgil Kaine · #53 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

Okay, I have a better response to this:

Morality is a metaphor for the way we learn to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate action. Its a crap metaphor. The more accurate and useful metaphor is the naturalistic metaphor I am offering, something like story-telling as being the way we learn to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate action. This allows us to see the contingent, dedivinized, aspects of our interpersonal relationships that rest strictly on the way we speak to one another. (Also Occam's Razor)

OK try this, morality isn't a metaphor for anything. It is a way we learn to distinguish between appropriate (right) and inappropriate (wrong) action. People have been using story-telling as a way to learn to distinguish between right and wrong for thousands of years. The stories are called parables, and they lead to something called a moral. Pretty cool huh? Changing Right and wrong to appropriate and inappropriate is just morals LITE . All of the restrictions if you follow them and none of the repercussions if you don't.

Suburbanite · #54 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil Kaine

OK try this, morality isn't a metaphor for anything. It is a way we learn to distinguish between appropriate (right) and inappropriate (wrong) action. People have been using story-telling as a way to learn to distinguish between right and wrong for thousands of years. The stories are called parables, and they lead to something called a moral. Pretty cool huh? Changing Right and wrong to appropriate and inappropriate is just morals LITE . All of the restrictions if you follow them and none of the repercussions if you don't.

It isn't morals lite, it actually relates to something substantial and absolves us of the dead metaphors of right and wrong.

DrAgOn1123 · #55 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:22 PM

Who is the dumbest superhero?

NAT · #56 (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil Kaine

No a creator deity is not mentioned in the Constitution that I can recall. I started this thread from some lines I found in the document that explains why we as a people decided to throw off the government of England.

It goes something like this,
"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."
And that document would be, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

I was just thinking they might have had this in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

I LOVE the second amendment! And thank you so much for putting it in the right context. It is there to ensure the people can defend themselves against the government. Not so I can go hunting on the weekend.

I also can embrace the idea that nobody has the right to anything until they have the will and the power to stand up and take it as their right. Only the strong people and strong groups have rights. The weak, poor and underprivileged must live with what scraps the strong decide to give them! Now that is the kind of PROGRESSIVE government I can really get behind. No complicating things with stupid ideas of "right and wrong". Just what do I want and am I and my friends strong enough to get it! Truly Beautiful.

Oh, I see your confusion now.

The Declaration of Independance (DOI) is a Colonial Document, and predates the US. It is merely a letter of intention crafted by a people still beholden to a Christian empire, politely telling their Christian monarch to bugger off using the proper structural formalities of the day.

Certainly an important historical document, but it is certainly not a "Founding Document", nor even a US legal document. The title and honor of the First Founding Document goes to the Articles of Confederation, which was ultimatly replaced with our Constitution.

I have links to all these documents if you would like them, or can't locate them yourself.

NAT · #57 (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

According to a few of the Founders the rights came from God.

Their personal opinion, certainly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

He didn't make an argument, he asked questions.

My standard reply, sorry. Most of my debate on this subject is against far right-wing religious conservatives. If he was insulted, I'm sure he would state such, for which I would of course apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

Again, according to quotes be the Founders the rights came from God. You can disagree with them, the people who wrote the Constitution, if you want.

Quotes are unsuited for this arguement for a number of reasons. Quotes can be taken out of context, mangled and snipped past all recognition, or, as I have found many times during such a debate, manufactured and/or merely attributed to a particular person. And those that are accurate and sourced reflect that person's personal opinions.

And this isn't mentioning the protracted "Quote Wars" that result, since quotes can be found to suit anyone's views.

What is important is the document that they created, a secular document that guarantees our rights by law, and also protects our religious equality and freedom by keeping the institution of religion, and the institution of government, seperated.

NAT · #58 (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

Prove that your God does not exist, or prove where life comes from, or prove how a star is born, or even describe what causes gravity. Therefore, because you can not prove where mankind comes from but only speculate.....you must not be real, as you are only the product of someones mental speculation. If man exists its not hard at all to conclude that God exists as well. BD

Non Sequitor, sorry.
The only basis for your God, one of the youngest on this planet BTW, is the religion of Abraham.
The only basis for my God, and Goddess, is a religion whose roots are lost to time.
The Gods, and religion, are a personal matter, unprovable to anyone but yourself.
And there is that pesky old Evolution that you biblethumpers hate so much as well.

Sir Les Patterson · #59 (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil Kaine

Basically I'm asking, do people have any expectation of how they should be treated here on earth? Where does this expectation come from? Is there a right and a wrong. Who decides which is which?

Are Your Rights GIVEN to you by your government? OR Are Rights inalienable? GIVEN to you by God?

Is it not so that with one you owe the very air you breathe to whim and the good grace of the government? That the government is the ultimate authority?

Is it also not so that with God given rights your government has to at least try not to violate your rights?

The Kike "God" you are referring to gave rights to his Chosen Race only. It was only when Paul The Turk came along and rewrote the Christian myths to suit his own Mithraic upbringing that Gentile untermensch got equal religious rights with the aforementioned master race.