Basic Human Rights

[Age]

But laws cannot confer rights: they can only recognize them, or fail to do so.

If rights are real, how can they be infringed?

Very easily.

Human beings have free will. Free will means not only that he can do the right thing, but that he can choose to do the wrong one. And his choices affect the real world, and affect other people as well. The sad thing about humans is that they don't always do the right thing, nor do they always accord each other the rights God gave them. That's just further evidence that mankind is out of step with God.

LOL one does NOT need further evidence to SEE and KNOW that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was written, were COMPLETELY and UTTERLY 'out of step with God'.

To violate willfully somebody's rights is to declare oneself an enemy of the God who made him and endowed him with those rights.

To refer to 'men' ONLY, and thus ignore the rest, violates willfully their rights. So, 'you', "immanuel can", are here, according to 'your logic', declaring "yourself" an enemy of God; thee One that made 'you' and endowed 'you' with rights.

As 'you' are also ALWAYS 'SINNING', "immanuel can", then 'you' are, naturally and literally, an enemy, and an opposite, of God, ANYWAY.

It's an act of rebellion against the true moral order of things. God gave a man life, liberty and the right to behave as a steward of property entrusted to his care; and God holds every man individually responsible on the Day of Judgment for what he has done with those rights. Consequently, a person who denies those basic rights to his fellow man or woman is rebelling against God.

Well 'you' have OBVIOUSLY been denying those ACTUAL basic rights. So, 'you', "immanuel can", ARE rebelling AGAINST God.

Locke understood this. He was very explicit. You should maybe take a look at what he says about it. His essay on toleration would be a good place to start.

[Age]

... the God who made him and endowed him with those rights. ... God gave a man life, liberty and the right to behave as a steward of property entrusted to his care ...

"He," did? Well I have never found that passage in the Bible. In fact, the word, "rights," does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Wouldn't you think, if rights were real and were so important they'd get mentioned at least once?

Not necessarily so.

Maybe 'rights' are so inherent, that they do not even need mentioning. A bit like some 'things' are so obvious, they do not need saying.

"Locke understood this. He was very explicit. You should maybe take a look at what he says about it. His essay on toleration would be a good place to start."

Well, I've read all of Locke. I did not agree with him the first time I read him, or any of the times I've read him since. I don't think one more time will convince me.

Perhaps you should read the Bible and see if you can find the word, "rights," mentioned.

[Please do not quote one of the, "new translations," that corrupt the original, like changing, "the manner of," to, "rights?" The concept of, "natural rights," which eventually evolved into, "human rights," did not exist as a political or social concept before the 17th century.]

Perhaps you should read some history. (Just poking fun.)

[Age]

... the God who made him and endowed him with those rights. ... God gave a man life, liberty and the right to behave as a steward of property entrusted to his care ...

"He," did? Well I have never found that passage in the Bible.

Try the first chapter of Genesis (1:26-31). God gave mankind life, volition and stewardship.

So what do you think if one of His creatures decides to deprive another person of that life, that liberty or of accountability for his stewardship? Against Whom is his real offence, then?

Locke was not in doubt. Here is what he said:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours.”

"locke" may not be in doubt, but "locke" did not explain nor clarify, fully nor sufficiently, enough.

The faults and inconsistencies in "locke's" words are also obvious, and will cleared up, soon enough.

In fact, the word, "rights," does not appear anywhere in the Bible.

Well, of course the word "right" does, and frequently, too: 949 times, in fact. But it's not the usage of "right" in the context we mean, of course. What you mean is that the term or concept "human rights" does not occur. And that's true.

In fact, "human rights" is just a term we use to summarize a deduction we get from the facts laid out in the Bible. But if you want to drop that term, it will not change the fact that the deduction is valid, obviously. And we can substitute any other label we like: let's call them "things God gives to all men," then.

Fine?

Wouldn't you think, if rights were real and were so important they'd get mentioned at least once?

No, not at all, necessarily. They could, but it doesn't have to be so.

There are other terms we have also coined to describe deductions we get from the Bible, or from other documents, or even from scientific facts. The word "gravity" does not appear in nature...or, for that matter, in the Bible. However, I think we both see the deduction, and the human coinage, as necessary and reasonable, in that case. So human beings are quite free to coin new words to describe concepts they discover from deductions.

The basic question is only this: did the fact that God created mankind in the first place, gave him life, gave him independent volition and a charge of stewardship in the world -- for which God holds mankind personally responsible at the Judgment (or, as Locke called it "The Great Day,") imply that mankind has any rights? Is it correct, then, to say that mankind was "endowed by his Creator" with "unalienable rights," which include "life, liberty and property"?

If it does imply that, then even if you insist there's no God, then you'd have to concede that people who DO believe in God are being consistent and rational to maintain their belief in human rights also. And if you believe there's no God, then a Theist will have to concede to you that you are totally warranted in maintaining your belief that no such things as human rights exist.

That seems fair, does it not? You are allowed to be rational on the terms of what you believe to be true of the origins and nature of things; and I am allowed to be rational on the basis of what I also believe to be true about the origins and nature of things.

And, to me, you are BOTH being obviously IRRATIONAL to base ANY thing on what you BELIEVE to be true about ANY thing.

OBVIOUSLY, if you ALREADY BELIEVE some thing to be true, then you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing 'other', and, if you are NOT OPEN, then you can NOT continue to learn, more nor anew.

[Age]

... those in the US have rights by virtue the constitution that is an agreement that power and people have agreed to, that is enforced by gov (the power) and or the (people)

When did you sign the constitution?

No one ever asked me to sign it or if I agreed to anything in it, (which I don't). Since when does what someone else agree's to and signs apply to those who don't.

When they want to stay and live in someone else's home.

You want to live and stay in someone 'else's" home, so you have to live by and follow their rules, and if you do not, then you will, more than likely, suffer the consequences.

Just like now, when you want to live and stay in God's home, you will have to live by and follow God's rule, and if you do not, then you will, and are, suffering (in) the consequences.

Think I'll sign a contract with somebody obligating you to send me $1000 a week. We'll call ourselves, "the people," and since we agree you'll have to pay. Does that sound right to you?

[Age]

It is not possible to believe in, "rights," in the social/political sense, without resorting to some kind of appeal to the supernatural or mystical, as Locke's, your, and even Jefferson's arguments prove. It's your choice and I have no objection to that. I just do not agree.

It's not the conclusion you draw from the premise you base your belief on, it's your premise I disagree with.

And that's fine. But it also shows that it would not be true if we imagined that human rights cannot be rationally explained. They can. It all simply depends on the premise in question.

However, before we pass over this point too quickly, it's not actually true that belief in God, and hence, belief in rights, depends on "some kind of appeal to the supernatural or mystical."

How could ANY actual REAL 'thing' be "supernatural"?

Also, if ANY 'thing' is still "mystical", to you, then that just means there is still MORE for you to learn, and understand.

So, WHY would you 'appeal' to some 'thing', which is NOT even possible, or you just have NOT YET learned about or understood.

Those considerations are indeed involved, at some level. But they are not the only route available to Theists.

And, as you will no doubt know, there are naturalistic arguments for the existence of God, and therefore, there are naturalistic rationales for "human rights" as well. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Design, the Historical Arguments, and so on, all depend on empirical evidence, and all point to the existence of the Creator, without primarily referring to the supernatural. The whole field of such arguments is called "Natural Theology."

But I presume you also reject the naturalistic arguments for God, such as the mathematical or design arguments, correct?

[Age]

That seems fair, does it not? You are allowed to be rational on the terms of what you believe to be true of the origins and nature of things; and I am allowed to be rational on the basis of what I also believe to be true about the origins and nature of things.

not really you may believe and trust what ever you may believe or trust, but to express that may have consequences, also if one is incorrect in what one believes or trust that also has grave consequences so "allowed" isn't really there is it? especially in the long term.

Quite right. "Allowed" refers only to the fact that people are "allowed" to believe wrong things, if they insist on doing it. I'm not suggesting that "allowing" somebody to believe a lie turns it into truth.

But there are rational beliefs premised on truth, and rational arguments premised on falsehoods. Both are rational. Bu only the former is right. I fully recognize that.

A rational argument based on a falsehood would be something like:

The earth was created by aliens,
All aliens are animals,
Therefore, the earth was created by animals.

It's all false, but it's perfectly rational. That is, IF the premises were true, the conclusion would be warranted. But it's not true, so the conclusion is false -- even though it's rationally structured. And that's all I'm saying about the proposition, "There is no God." It's false, but it can be employed in a rational syllogism to generate warranted conclusions; even though those conclusions will also be false.

And could it also be, rationally, stated; "the proposition, "There is God", be false as well"?

But that proposition can be employed in a rational syllogism to generate warranted conclusions; even though those conclusions will also be false?

Could it be possible that 'you', "immanuel can" are arriving at false conclusion, because they are being based on your false beliefs?

Or, is this just NOT possible, in "your world"?

So yes, my concession to RC is minimal. I recognize him as behaving rationally. But I still think he's wrong. No doubt, he thinks the same of me. But at least we are not calling each other "irrational" or lunatic. And that's something.

But, if BOTH of 'you' are "being irrational", then that is what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, correct?

I suggest forming "arguments" not on what ACTUALLY IS but rather on just what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, is being 'irrational', and, on just about ALL occasions, will lead to Wrong, False, or Incorrect conclusions.

[RCSaunders]

You claim, a 'right', can ONLY mean, the way one would like things to be, here you are now claiming there is no such thing as 'rights', which would mean, to you, 'there is no such thing as the way one would like things to be', which is OBVIOUSLY NOT true, AT ALL.

So, if you want to be FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then you will have to EXPLAIN this OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION, of yours.

I was almost certain you were much too bright to confuse my example of people thinking their desire for the way they would like things to be with what is called, "rights," and you thought I was describing, "rights," with that example. But, we were both mistaken.

[commonsense]

why do you not just say; "A human belongs to them self; a human's life, liberty, and property are theirs"?

Look, you asked why I phrased sumthin' the way I did, and I explained why. I got no interest in a dissection.

Leave it be.

WHERE and WHEN have I, supposedly, asked you why you phrased something?

I think you did ask why and proposed alternative phrases above.

Sorry, my differently-abled fingers have somehow reversed HQ and Age abovve.

[RCSaunders]

Just like now, when you want to live and stay in God's home, you will have to live by and follow God's rule, and if you do not, then you will, and are, suffering (in) the consequences.

I am completely happy with this world and thoroughly enjoying my life in it and have no desire to change anything about it, especially other people.

It's you and those who believe as you do that are never happy with the way things are and want to make the world your own private utopia. G.B. Shaw was right: "Those for whom the world is not good enough stand shoulder to shoulder with those who are not good enough for the world."

[Age]

but reasoning isn't what its all cracked up to be, is it?

I agree, in one sense...not in another.

It depends on whether or not the person in question knows what "reasoning" really means.

"Reason" is not a particular set of conclusions, anymore than mathematics is. And it's not designed to lead only to certain conclusions; only to make sure that whatever conclusions you reach are well-structured and logically sound. That's all.

So just as you can plug any values into X + Y, as a mathematical equation, you can plug anything -- true or false -- into a rational syllogism. And the result will be "mathematically" or "rationally" correct, but not ultimately true, necessarily.

In order for reason to "be all it's cracked up to be," you have to first guarantee that the premises you're plugging into it are also true. If they are, then you'll get solid conclusions; but if one or both of your premises is false, your conclusion will be false, too.

That's not the fault of reason, but a failure of truth. So reason is a very good thing, and, if employed on truthful premises, leads to true conclusions: but its success depends entirely on the having of true premises.

Just out of curiosity, WHY do you think 'you', "immanuel can", have not been able to formulate a sound and valid argument, for what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, in regards to God, Itself?

...but you know belief and trust are above such or salvation wouldn't be by faith, it would be by reasoning.

No, I don't agree. I would say that faith and reason are friends, actually, not opponents.

Faith is not a matter of believing in irrational things, or believing without good reasoning being involved. I would suggest that faith is actually taking the premises God provides as true, and working forward rationally from them.

In fact, I suggest that faith not only can be rational; I would point out that it must be. For for one of us to refuse to reason from the premises God has provided is essentially to disbelieve them, to regard them, and treat them, as "not true," and hence to refuse to go forward on the conviction of them.

But to reason that what God says is true, and then to act rationally on that, is what it means to "have faith." You see this over and over again in a chapter like Hebrews 11: look there at all the things that people did because they believed what God told them. Their actions confirmed their faith, because they reasoned based on the premises God gave them.

Reason wasn't the problem. Unbelief was (Heb. 3:19).

[commonsense]

We don't cuz I don't believe one person has a claim on another's time, labor, or resources.

I don’t disagree with you here, because a person owns only himself and his time, labor and resources.

Does a new born human baby own itself, and so is 100% responsible for its own self?

Does a human parent, to a new born human baby, own only them self? Does a new parent not owe their time, labor, nor resources to ANY other human being?

Touche’

[Age]

What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?

For example, can we all agree that anyone accused of a crime should receive a fair trial?

If not, what would be some problems with the above right whereby it should not be a basic human right?

What other rights can we pretty much all agree to?

What about a right that, no one should be denied a fair means of providing basic necessities for themselves or their dependent loved ones, in order to live. Or perhaps a right to fair compensation for one's labor?

What rights do you think can be made basic to everyone?

Can we agree what it means to agree on what is a "right"?

Yes. 'we' CAN agree on the 'meaning' of ANY thing.

How are rights made?

Until we agree on what the word 'rights' means, or refers to, exactly, then we will not be able to KNOW, for sure, if 'rights' are made or just occur, naturally.

Do they need enforcing?

What occurs naturally, does not necessarily need enforcing.

Who is responsible for that?

If ANY thing 'needs' enforcing, then it is the ones who are meant to be the 'responsible ones' who would be responsible for 'that'.

And, in Life ONLY 'adults' are 'meant to be' the 'responsible ones'.

Unless we can answer these questions, I feel that rights are pretty much meaningless.

We can answer these questions, very simply and very easily by the way.

If, and when, we actually come to an agreement, is another question.

The fat is the children are dying right now from lack of clean water. Is not access to water that is not going to kill you are right?
Yet how many of you are doing anything to ensure this right.

Is this a 'right', which you feel is pretty much "meaningless"?

172 children die from dirty water every ten seconds.

And the reason for this is ...?

[Age]

Because you can't give everyone a right to medical treatment that hasn't been invented.

This is so blatantly obvious it did not need saying. What you said here is also just an attempt at deflection.

You asked why I said what I said.

The ACTUAL question I asked was:
Why only when "technology has progressed" it, supposedly, seems wrong to deny someone essential medical treatment that could save their life?

Your SHORTENED VERSION, of my ACTUAL QUESTION, is misleading AND deceiving.

So I explained it.

But you NEVER explained what my question was asking for and referring to.

You made an "explanation" in relation to YOUR OWN SHORTENED VERSION of my ACTUAL QUESTION, which had NOTHING to do with what I asking an explanation for?

'[Essential] medical treatment' has been around since human beings have been. So, your claim that you cannot give everyone a right to '[essential] medical treatment' that has not been invented is just a deception, just a deflection, and just blatantly OBVIOUS.

If you answered my ACTUAL QUESTION, which was;
Why only when "technology has progressed" it, supposedly, seems wrong to deny someone essential medical treatment that could save their life? In relation to what I also wrote and said along with that question, which was;

Why not throughout ALL of human history it would not be wrong to deny someone essential medical treatment that could save their life?

From my perspective, it does NOT matter at what period in Life, if essential medical treatment, which could save a life, is wanted, then denying that would just be plain Wrong. Then you would NOT have jumped into the middle and wrote and said that misleading and deceiving "explanation" and deflection that you did.

You jumped into the middle of it without understanding what I was talking about.

Talk about doing EXACTLY what you say I did.

From my perspective I KNOW EXACTLY what you are talking about, and it is YOU is CLEARLY NOT UNDERSTANDING what I am saying, and talking about. That is; 'essential medical treatment' has been around since human beings have been living.

You wrote;
As technology has progressed it seems wrong to deny someone essential medical treatment that could save their life.

I was asking you;
Why only when "technology has progressed" it, supposedly, seems wrong to deny someone essential medical treatment that could save their life, and, Why not throughout ALL of human history it would not be wrong to deny someone essential medical treatment that could save their life?

Not sure what else you want from me.

What I wanted from you is to answer thee ACTUAL QUESTION I asked you.

If, however, you choose to do that or not is completely and utterly UP TO YOU.

[Age]

Does a human parent, to a new born human baby, own only them self? Does a new parent not owe their time, labor, nor resources to ANY other human being?

There is no mystical unearned obligation on anyone to provide anything to anyone else.

I NEVER said there was.

I am just asking 'you' a CLARIFYING QUESTION.

You will either answer IT, or NOT.

Parents to not care for their children out of some sense of obligation or duty, but because they love their children, and find joy in nourishing and fostering them.

And what is 'love', EXACTLY?

I KNOW parents who HATE 'their children' but still care for them.

Also, I ask two questions. One of them being;
Does a human parent, to a new born human baby, own only them self?

Your use of the word 'their', when you said and wrote, 'their children', implies and/or infers ownership, which means your actual Honest and OPEN answer' to my question here, would actually be, 'No', correct?

If you could get around your sentimentality, you would understand, those who raise children under some sense of obligation, and not personal choice, usually end up abusing those children.

LOL When, and if, you ever come to understand thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', then you will LEARN and UNDERSTAND that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ABUSE children. This, obviously, includes ALL of 'you' who raise children from your own personal choice as well.

[Age]

You claim, a 'right', can ONLY mean, the way one would like things to be, here you are now claiming there is no such thing as 'rights', which would mean, to you, 'there is no such thing as the way one would like things to be', which is OBVIOUSLY NOT true, AT ALL.

So, if you want to be FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then you will have to EXPLAIN this OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION, of yours.

I was almost certain you were much too bright to confuse my example of people thinking their desire for the way they would like things to be with what is called, "rights," and you thought I was describing, "rights," with that example. But, we were both mistaken.

I am just going off, and on, the ACTUAL words that 'you' used. You did, after all, write:
No matter how you turn it, a right only means, "the way one would like things to be.

So, my reply was NOT on ANY "example" you now 'try to' make, but RATHER on what 'you' ACTUALLY WROTE.

You even actually used the words; "No matter how you turn it", "a right ONLY means", "the way one would like things to be". This can NOT be mistaken.

So, who actually is, and is NOT, 'TOO BRIGHT' here, the readers, themselves, will choose.

As they will also choose who actually is 'trying to' deceive and/or deflect here, as well.