Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm
commonsense wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:40 pm Pulling a splinter out of a finger is an example of medical care that can be completed without medical tools or a medical degree. Whether that’s a right or not depends upon who’s definition we rely.
No, really, it doesn't depend on that at all.
If you really think or believe that words are not dependent upon definition, then I think you will find that you are MISTAKEN.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm If it's only a matter of social "definition," or worse, of personal "definition," then it goes no farther than the society -- or person -- who holds that definition.
And that is HOW societies and people progress. That is; the words, and their definitions, used, influences which way societies and people go. They can either go backwards, in a bad or wrong way, or, go forwards, in a good and right way.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm Now, a duty to mutual care...maybe you have that, if God says you have that.
You can NOT even inform 'us', mortals, what God IS, so ANY thing you say or write about 'God' is based on 'your' NOT knowing.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm And since He does,
LOL 'God' is gendered.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm ("Love your neighbour as yourself," for instance) then you do have such a duty.
The words and sayings, "Love your neighbor as yourself", and, "Treat others as you want to be treated", do NOT work in the "world" that 'you', people, live in, when this was written. WHY this is SO will be REVEALED, SOON ENOUGH.

Those words only 'work', properly and correctly, when the rest is added on to them. What that is IS A REVELATION. But has to be SEEN in conjunction with other things.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm But if there's no God, then nobody says you have any such duty, and any sense of that duty is merely a fiction in one's own mind or in the consent of his/her society. Nothing in the natural world compels any such duty.
There is NO "your mind".

What do 'you', "immanuel can" mean by, "if there is no God"?

WHY do 'you' write things, which you BELIEVE, wholeheartedly, are NOT TRUE, AT ALL?

I suggest if you want to KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth, then ONLY write things that are ACTUALLY True, to 'you'.

Now, to 'you', could there be a possibility or chance that there is NO God?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm The Law of Nature seems to be, "Devil take the hindmost," or, in Darwinian terms, "Survival of the fittest." So any countermanding of that principle would need some justification. After all, in the Darwinian story, "Survival of the fittest" got us where we are right now; so you'd best "dance with the one that brung ya." :shock:
Are there 'basic human rights' or are there NOT?

If there are 'basic human rights', to 'you', then what are they?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm...in the Darwinian story, "Survival of the fittest" got us where we are right now...
And in the christian story, "Jesus is lovely" got us to exactly the same place.
At least there is MORE Truth in the "christian" story, then there is in the "scientific" story that the Universe began, and is expanding.

The ACTUAL 'evidence' PROVES that the Universe could NOT begin and could NOT expand, which is IRREFUTABLE PROOF, by the wa. But, because of the pre-existing BELIEFS existing within some, so called, "scientists", they are NOT able to SEE and RECOGNIZE this Truth.

But, soon enough, this will become COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:37 pm
DPMartin wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:02 pm what you're describing here is logic, as in compute, garbage in garbage out, though reasoning can include logic, I wouldn't limit reasoning to just logic.
Well, I'd say that logic is disciplined use of reason.
But as can be CLEARLY SEEN, RECOGNIZED, EVIDENCED, and PROVEN, throughout this forum, hitherto, 'you', adult human beings, mostly form your, so called, "logic" and "reasoning" on your pre-existing BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, and this the reason WHY 'you' FAIL SO OFTEN in being able to form sound and valid arguments. And, if 'your' arguments are NOT sound AND valid, then they are NOT even worth putting forward NOR repeating.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:37 pm
plus there is the reason, as apposed to reasoning.
One's a verb, and one's a noun...so really, they're cognates, essentially the same concept. But what's the difference you're wanting to point out here? Can you explain?
people today believe and trust what media says and says about what they show pictures of. this has nothing to do with some religious views on faith.
Actually, I think it's the same process...it's only a question of what one's "faith" is being placed in.
faith is simply a combination of belief and trust.
Yeah, I can kind of agree with that...
but belief and trust may or may not use reasoning or even reasons.

Oh, quite true. There are false "beliefs," for sure. But the question is really this: can one ((literally) "have faith" in NOTHING? :shock: I mean, is it intelligible for a person to say, "I have faith," and when you ask, "In what?" They just say..."In nothing in particular. I just have faith." Does that make sense?
though in the case of the born again, God is the reason.
Absolutely. But how does one know that there is a God, or there is a salvation, a "being born again"? Is it not from passages like John 3? And how, if we don't read them and use our reasoning to understand them, will we ever know what we are to put our faith in?

I'm totally on board with the idea that our faith has to be in God. But we have to know God in order to "have faith" in Him. That means we need to know stuff, to process it, to understand what we are being asked to believe, and then actually to believe it. As the Lord Himself says, "Come, let us reason together..."(Is. 1:18)
as in God is the reason one is, therefore one trusts and believes. which goes the other way one trust and believes God is the reason until you know (experience). then faith is fulfilled. what is trusted for and believed for is fulfilled
So far, this is true.
and there's certainly no reasoning required.
Hmmm..this part is not. If you don't know anything, you have nothing to believe IN. Belief has rational content. It's not a sort of "magical zap" from the skies, far less a free-floating, unanchored hoping in things one has no reason to expect to come about.
King David trusted his God the Lord of Hosts to win the day
,
Well, he had been told he would, and he already knew who God is, so he had good reason for his trust, didn't he?

I see what you're struggling with. There is a legend within Christianity that says, "If you have reasons, it's not faith." Or "If you're going to have faith, it has to be in defiance of facts." Or even, "Faith is forced upon the individual by God." I think all three are not Biblical. In contrast, we never find a single person in the whole Bible who believed without knowing who or what he was putting his faith in.

Let me put it another way, if I may. Faith is not contrary to reason. Faith begins with reasons: you have to know who God is, what He wants, and how that impinges on your own personal situation. Faith comes in when you actually have to decide whether you're going to go with that, or go your own way. Faith is the investing of the self in what one knows, what one has reason to believe, about God.
I do believe it was Paul who stated that you can't please God without faith
Correct. But did you read the whole passage there? It reads,

"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him...."(Heb. 11:6) And it goes on to list all the things people did because they already knew who God is, and what He required of them.

Abraham, for example, knew God and knew His command. He reasoned that he would get his son back, even though he didn't know quite how it was going to be done; because he knew God had promised that son to him. (v.19) So his faith springboard off the reasons he had, and it turned out that his faith was right...though he had not correctly figured out the means God would use.
...if you don't believe the Word of God you don't believe God. and if you don't believe and or trust the Word of God you will not live and do accordingly.

True. But notice again, your faith is always IN something. In the case of the above, it's IN God, and IN His Word. You have to have the knowledge of God and the possession of His Word. But who will tell you what that word means, and what your particular obedience must look like, if you use no reasoning?

In fact, obedience depends on reasoning. But it depends on reasoning from correct premises. And that's what I've been saying.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:52 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:20 pm
RIghts are not natural
Besides the FACT that there is NOT a single 'thing', in the WHOLE Universe, that is 'not natural', what do you mean here by, "Rights are not natural"?
If everything in the univers is natural, then the word is utterly meaningless.
WHY do 'you' PRESUME and SAY this?

What would you like to put forward as being NOT NATURAL?

Oh, and by the way, a LOT of what 'you', adult human beings, have said throughout human history IS MEANINGLESS.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm

Will you elaborate on YOUR CLAIM here?
Distinctions as to what is and what is not called natural is usually cultural.
So, in other words, you will NOT elaborate on YOUR CLAIM that, "Rights are not natural", correct?

A LOT OF thinking and behavior is 'usually cultural", but this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my CLARIFYING QUESTION. Which was;
Will you elaborate on YOUR CLAIM that, "Rights are not natural"?
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm

Also, do you agree that new born children have a right to not be abused?
Depends where they are born and what species they are.
It depends on whether or not their local cultural has conceived on the notion of rights and abuses.
Where such concepts do not exist, there is no prospect that children have rights.
So, 'I' ask 'you', "sculptor", 'do YOU agree that new born children have right to not be abused?' Yet you provide 'us' with the answer, "Depends ...".

Are you NOT YET SURE what YOU agree with and do NOT agree with?

'We' KNOW that Everything is relative to, or depends upon, the observer. This is and ABSOLUTE, IRREFUTABLE FACT. And, in this case 'you', "sculptor" ARE the observer. So, what 'you' agree with or do NOT agree with is NOT dependent upon ANY thing else OTHER THAN YOU.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm
...

Or, do you NOT agree that new born children have a right to not be abused, and so the rest was just moot anyway?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm

Because there are no natural rights, and rights need to be fought for.
Sounds like a VERY WEAK EXCUSE for allowing and permitting 172 children to die from dirty water every ten seconds.
Funny you should say that because 5000 children every year do, in fact, die of lack of clearn water despite claims that every child should have a right to clean water.
And if you are claiming that such a right exists, then I ask YOU WTF are you doing to preserve that right. MY guess is F ALl.
Well YOUR GUESS IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

I am learning how to communicate better to 'you', human beings, how 'you' can make the "world" a MUCH BETTER PLACE, for EVERY one.

Also, those 5000 children who die every year due to a lack of 'you', adults, supplying them with clean water is partly BECAUSE 'you', adults, continually EXCUSE, "justify", "rationalize", and/or "minimize" YOUR BEHAVIORS in MANY WAYS. One of those ways IS; Claiming children do NOT have ANY 'rights' AT ALL. Which MEANS 'you' do NOT have to do ANY thing at all to care for or protect children.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm

Are you here really 'trying to' suggest that the only 'right' children have to accessing clean enough water, so that they do not needlessly die, is if one of 'you', adult human beings, makes and/or writes that 'right' up, which 'you' then have to, supposedly, "fight for"?
I am suggesting that we discuss whether or not, or if, the idea of rights actually helps children get clean water. It seems to have failed to do that.
The REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have FAILED COMPLETELY and UTTERLY in providing ALL children with clean water is BECAUSE when 'you', adults', were children, you were brought up and raised by adults who BELIEVED children do NOT have 'rights' and/or do NOT have a 'right' to NOT be abused.

The REST, which PROVES this True, IS Self-explanatory. But ONLY to those who are Truly CURIOUS.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:41 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:52 am

Besides the FACT that there is NOT a single 'thing', in the WHOLE Universe, that is 'not natural', what do you mean here by, "Rights are not natural"?
If everything in the univers is natural, then the word is utterly meaningless.
WHY do 'you' PRESUME and SAY this?

What would you like to put forward as being NOT NATURAL?

Oh, and by the way, a LOT of what 'you', adult human beings, have said throughout human history IS MEANINGLESS.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm

Will you elaborate on YOUR CLAIM here?
Distinctions as to what is and what is not called natural is usually cultural.
So, in other words, you will NOT elaborate on YOUR CLAIM that, "Rights are not natural", correct?
I just did you fucking moron.

A LOT OF thinking and behavior is 'usually cultural", but this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my CLARIFYING QUESTION. Which was;
Will you elaborate on YOUR CLAIM that, "Rights are not natural"?
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm

Also, do you agree that new born children have a right to not be abused?
Depends where they are born and what species they are.
It depends on whether or not their local cultural has conceived on the notion of rights and abuses.
Where such concepts do not exist, there is no prospect that children have rights.
So, 'I' ask 'you', "sculptor", 'do YOU agree that new born children have right to not be abused?' Yet you provide 'us' with the answer, "Depends ...".

Are you NOT YET SURE what YOU agree with and do NOT agree with?

'We' KNOW that Everything is relative to, or depends upon, the observer. This is and ABSOLUTE, IRREFUTABLE FACT. And, in this case 'you', "sculptor" ARE the observer. So, what 'you' agree with or do NOT agree with is NOT dependent upon ANY thing else OTHER THAN YOU.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm
...

Or, do you NOT agree that new born children have a right to not be abused, and so the rest was just moot anyway?



Sounds like a VERY WEAK EXCUSE for allowing and permitting 172 children to die from dirty water every ten seconds.
Funny you should say that because 5000 children every year do, in fact, die of lack of clearn water despite claims that every child should have a right to clean water.
And if you are claiming that such a right exists, then I ask YOU WTF are you doing to preserve that right. MY guess is F ALl.
Well YOUR GUESS IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

I am learning how to communicate better to 'you', human beings, how 'you' can make the "world" a MUCH BETTER PLACE, for EVERY one.

Also, those 5000 children who die every year due to a lack of 'you', adults, supplying them with clean water is partly BECAUSE 'you', adults, continually EXCUSE, "justify", "rationalize", and/or "minimize" YOUR BEHAVIORS in MANY WAYS. One of those ways IS; Claiming children do NOT have ANY 'rights' AT ALL. Which MEANS 'you' do NOT have to do ANY thing at all to care for or protect children.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm

Are you here really 'trying to' suggest that the only 'right' children have to accessing clean enough water, so that they do not needlessly die, is if one of 'you', adult human beings, makes and/or writes that 'right' up, which 'you' then have to, supposedly, "fight for"?
I am suggesting that we discuss whether or not, or if, the idea of rights actually helps children get clean water. It seems to have failed to do that.
The REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have FAILED COMPLETELY and UTTERLY in providing ALL children with clean water is BECAUSE when 'you', adults', were children, you were brought up and raised by adults who BELIEVED children do NOT have 'rights' and/or do NOT have a 'right' to NOT be abused.

The REST, which PROVES this True, IS Self-explanatory. But ONLY to those who are Truly CURIOUS.
Yawn!
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:10 am
uwot wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm...in the Darwinian story, "Survival of the fittest" got us where we are right now...
And in the christian story, "Jesus is lovely" got us to exactly the same place.
At least there is MORE Truth in the "christian" story, then there is in the "scientific" story that the Universe began, and is expanding.
Well, that's the thing with stories; any number of them can explain exactly the same facts.
Age wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:10 amThe ACTUAL 'evidence' PROVES that the Universe could NOT begin and could NOT expand, which is IRREFUTABLE PROOF, by the wa. But, because of the pre-existing BELIEFS existing within some, so called, "scientists", they are NOT able to SEE and RECOGNIZE this Truth.

But, soon enough, this will become COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
You've been saying as much since Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:17 am, when you joined. Still not seeing any actual evidence.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:14 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:37 pm
DPMartin wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:02 pm what you're describing here is logic, as in compute, garbage in garbage out, though reasoning can include logic, I wouldn't limit reasoning to just logic.
Well, I'd say that logic is disciplined use of reason.
But as can be CLEARLY SEEN, RECOGNIZED, EVIDENCED, and PROVEN, throughout this forum, hitherto, 'you', adult human beings, mostly form your, so called, "logic" and "reasoning" on your pre-existing BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, and this the reason WHY 'you' FAIL SO OFTEN in being able to form sound and valid arguments. And, if 'your' arguments are NOT sound AND valid, then they are NOT even worth putting forward NOR repeating.
When you say, "you adult human beings" it sounds as if you are not including yourself in the category "adult human beings." Otherwise, you should say, "we adult human beings." I'm curious how old you are? Are you under 18 years of age?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:23 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:52 pm Innocent till proven guilty, yeah, another obvious notion that it seems everyone would agree with.

But, nowadays, we don't.

So, yeah, I laugh at the question...

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

...cuz we can't.
Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?
When you say that there should be a basic human right to not be abused, what is an example of "abuse" that you would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused? For example, if someone responds to something you say with mockery or derision, do you consider that "abuse" and therefore conduct that defies a basic human right not to be abused? Or are you referring to physical abuse such as being beaten or tortured? Or maybe if you give an example or two of the kind of "abuse" you are referring to (which is against a basic human right not to be abused), then we could maybe better understand what you mean by a human right not to be abused.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:33 am IC, Would it be fair to say that we cannot have rights if there is no God? That only God can guarantee rights? Am I correct in getting that impression from what you've been saying so far? Or what is your take on rights with respect to how we can have them or what makes them effective?
Brace yourself for a long and detailed answer, Gary. :D

Not quite, Gary. I think it's fair to say that you can have whatever privileges the particular society in which you live will allow you. Some people think that's what "rights" are...the list of privileges your society offers. But I think we have to call them "privileges," because they're things WE get, but others have no possibility of having, because their societies neither offer nor promise to offer them.

I think we want "rights" talk to do more than that, don't we? We want them to transcend social rules. And I say that because we want to claim them over-and-against the particular governments and societies that offer the privileges. For instance, we want to say that chattel slavery is universally wrong, and that, say equal regard for women is universally right. We want to be able to hold up signs, and march, and campaign, and say, "Even though this society denies me this thing, I am entitled to it anyway." That, I think is what we mean when we say, "I have a right to...X."

We also don't want to stop at saying, "A right is a thing I am presently receiving in actuality, and if I'm not receiving it, I don't possess it." That confusion is expressed when somebody says something like, "Well, you can't have a right to life, because sometimes people kill others." That confuses the idea of "right" with the idea of "is." Rights have to be something that cannot be legitimately taken from another person (such as her life); but there is no sense in which it means it's factually impossible to violate that and take away somebody's life. In fact, we tend to want to claim "rights" in circumstances when they ARE being denied or taken away, as a matter of fact. So the observation that rights get violated is actually a reason why we need the concept in the first place; not a reason why we shouldn't believe in rights.

But how do we justify that? I mean, the easy answer for the tyrannical government is simply, "We never promised you the vote!" or "We never said we weren't going to allow the mangling, trading and revenge raping of women...our creed says both are positively virtuous!" Or even, "You see that we have never given you a right to public protest, so we are going to come and shoot you in the street." And what response have we, if that same government is the dispenser and guarantor of "rights"?

We want "rights" to be objective. That's another way to say it. We want to say, "Regardless of the feelings of others to the contrary, regardless of local social practices, and regardless of what the government in a given time or place has agreed to dispense to us, we are owed these rights!"

Somehow, then, these rights have to be intrinsic to us as human beings. They have to attach to the basic fact that we ARE human beings, because that's the only sense in which we're equal in all times and places: we're all human.

But what dignifies the status of a human being? What makes us so special? Darwinism's answer has to be "Nothing." In the Darwinian tale, human beings are animals and not at all equal. Some are strong or privileged, and survive; others are weak or underprivileged, and die. And there's nothing in the intrinsic nature of the cosmos that cares, or is even capable of caring about that inequality, or about mere animals that are the late byproducts of a mere space accident. What claim of "rights" have such creatures? I can think of no basis upon which such a claim cannot merely be debunked as a delusion.

But what if man is not that? What if mankind is the deliberate creation of a caring God, who endowed his creatures with particular dignity and charged them will particular responsibilities? Then the one who tries to deprive them of such dignity, such responsibilities, is running against God, against the very purposes He has written into the nature of things, and thus is guilty of a grave sin. So I can now hold up my placard and say, "You owe me this right," and if the government, or others, or the tyrant do not listen, then behind my claim is God, who calls all men to account and to judgment; and even those who refuse me my rights know in their heart of hearts, because their God-given consciences remind them, that they are doing a grave evil. When it is all said and done, all will answer for what they did. So the "rights" claim becomes infinitely powerful, then -- so long as it describes an actual right that God actually has given to human beings, and not merely something I am choosing to claim as if it were a right, but is not.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:06 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm
commonsense wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:40 pm Pulling a splinter out of a finger is an example of medical care that can be completed without medical tools or a medical degree. Whether that’s a right or not depends upon who’s definition we rely.
No, really, it doesn't depend on that at all.
If you really think or believe that words are not dependent upon definition, then I think you will find that you are MISTAKEN.
Yes, yes...we know. You always say that. More importantly, let's go back to this:
I do NOT write from "rage", but rather from amusement.

Is that AUTISTIC ENOUGH for 'you', "immauel can"?
Yes, very much so.

As I said, either you're typing with an Autistic/Asperger's persona "for amusement," as you say, or you're somebody who actually has some such syndrome. Your writing clearly tells everybody that. If you're faking it, you should stop, because people are rejecting you because of the persona, and because it's in bad taste to mock people who suffer in that way. If you are not faking it, then you are somebody who is probably suffering with one of the related conditions...ADD, ODD, Asperger's, Autism, etc.

Henry and I came to our conclusions about that independently; others have also evinced the frustration with you that is typical of people in response to undiagnosed Asperger's; and I'm quite certain that anybody who knows the diagnoses will also recognize the same pattern.

So what I'm going to ask you is this: and without malice, without unkindness, and without any insult implied. Have you had yourself diagnosed? If you have not, then I suggest, for your own good, you should. You might be having a much harder, more miserable life than you need to be having, because undiagnosed Asperger's is very hard to live with. There are therapies and self-management strategies that can make you much better socially, and can help you focus. Things can get better.

Other than that, I have nothing to offer you. I know your condition will cause you to be oppositional, no matter what anybody says. So I really can't hold a discussion with you until you get your condition under control, at least somewhat.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:51 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:33 am IC, Would it be fair to say that we cannot have rights if there is no God? That only God can guarantee rights? Am I correct in getting that impression from what you've been saying so far? Or what is your take on rights with respect to how we can have them or what makes them effective?
Brace yourself for a long and detailed answer, Gary. :D

Not quite, Gary. I think it's fair to say that you can have whatever privileges the particular society in which you live will allow you. Some people think that's what "rights" are...the list of privileges your society offers. But I think we have to call them "privileges," because they're things WE get, but others have no possibility of having, because their societies neither offer nor promise to offer them.

I think we want "rights" talk to do more than that, don't we? We want them to transcend social rules. And I say that because we want to claim them over-and-against the particular governments and societies that offer the privileges. For instance, we want to say that chattel slavery is universally wrong, and that, say equal regard for women is universally right. We want to be able to hold up signs, and march, and campaign, and say, "Even though this society denies me this thing, I am entitled to it anyway." That, I think is what we mean when we say, "I have a right to...X."

We also don't want to stop at saying, "A right is a thing I am presently receiving in actuality, and if I'm not receiving it, I don't possess it." That confusion is expressed when somebody says something like, "Well, you can't have a right to life, because sometimes people kill others." That confuses the idea of "right" with the idea of "is." Rights have to be something that cannot be legitimately taken from another person (such as her life); but there is no sense in which it means it's factually impossible to violate that and take away somebody's life. In fact, we tend to want to claim "rights" in circumstances when they ARE being denied or taken away, as a matter of fact. So the observation that rights get violated is actually a reason why we need the concept in the first place; not a reason why we shouldn't believe in rights.

But how do we justify that? I mean, the easy answer for the tyrannical government is simply, "We never promised you the vote!" or "We never said we weren't going to allow the mangling, trading and revenge raping of women...our creed says both are positively virtuous!" Or even, "You see that we have never given you a right to public protest, so we are going to come and shoot you in the street." And what response have we, if that same government is the dispenser and guarantor of "rights"?

We want "rights" to be objective. That's another way to say it. We want to say, "Regardless of the feelings of others to the contrary, regardless of local social practices, and regardless of what the government in a given time or place has agreed to dispense to us, we are owed these rights!"

Somehow, then, these rights have to be intrinsic to us as human beings. They have to attach to the basic fact that we ARE human beings, because that's the only sense in which we're equal in all times and places: we're all human.

But what dignifies the status of a human being? What makes us so special? Darwinism's answer has to be "Nothing." In the Darwinian tale, human beings are animals and not at all equal. Some are strong or privileged, and survive; others are weak or underprivileged, and die. And there's nothing in the intrinsic nature of the cosmos that cares, or is even capable of caring about that inequality, or about mere animals that are the late byproducts of a mere space accident. What claim of "rights" have such creatures? I can think of no basis upon which such a claim cannot merely be debunked as a delusion.

But what if man is not that? What if mankind is the deliberate creation of a caring God, who endowed his creatures with particular dignity and charged them will particular responsibilities? Then the one who tries to deprive them of such dignity, such responsibilities, is running against God, against the very purposes He has written into the nature of things, and thus is guilty of a grave sin. So I can now hold up my placard and say, "You owe me this right," and if the government, or others, or the tyrant do not listen, then behind my claim is God, who calls all men to account and to judgment; and even those who refuse me my rights know in their heart of hearts, because their God-given consciences remind them, that they are doing a grave evil. When it is all said and done, all will answer for what they did. So the "rights" claim becomes infinitely powerful, then -- so long as it describes an actual right that God actually has given to human beings, and not merely something I am choosing to claim as if it were a right, but is not.
Thank you for a very detailed and thoughtful answer.

So if rights are God-given, then how do we come to know what is a God-given right and what is not? How do we communicate with God to ask him/her/it what is a right and what isn't? Also, can rights evolve?

For example, perhaps slavery was OK at one point in human history (it was quite common in ancient civilizations and some even say it still is to whatever degree, when human trafficking is considered). Obviously now it is considered an abomination and some probably consider it a right not to be made a slave. So in that respect, there has been a change of attitude toward slavery over the course of history. So, is a right not to be made a slave a God-given right, or is it just a "privilege"?

If we say that rights are God-given and that all else is a privilege then have we gained anything substantial? Have we gained the ability to know the mind of God in order to know what is a God-given right and what isn't? It seems to me that we are in an impossible situation where endless errors and even excesses can be made regardless of having given them a divine foundation.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:22 pm Thank you for a very detailed and thoughtful answer.
You're most welcome, Gary. Thanks for your patience while I explained myself.
So if rights are God-given, then how do we come to know what is a God-given right and what is not?
John Locke gave us the answer to that. If I can be permitted to summarize, what he said was basically this:

1. God gave everybody a right to life. This is evident, because we were created by God, and here we are. God doesn't do things for no reason. So nobody can ever say to another person, "You have no right to be alive." God says, "Yes, he does."

So far, so good?

2. But, Locke says, God also calls mankind to account for what he does. We know this because of passages like Revelation 20:12. "And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds."

If we are judged for our "deeds," we must be allowed to do some "deed," to make some choices for ourselves, so as to either to the right things or to refuse to do them. We have to have our own volition, and a range of action that includes both the good and the not-good. If we have no choice about what we do, then how could God judge us? For we would merely be robots, doing what we were programmed to do, not responsible, personal agents making choices for ourselves.

So the second unalienable right all human beings have is freedom, "liberty," as Locke puts it, power of choice.

3. But liberty is meaningless if we have nothing with which to act. Freedom entails that we have some things, of some kind, under our stewardship, so as to show faithfulness in the dispensing of them. This was originally intended to be a blessing to the earth; that mankind would be able to arrange, sort, distribute and move things so as to make the world a better place. Now that mankind is apart from God, it has become a bad thing sometimes, because man uses it to damage, hoard, immiserate, steal, and so on. But it was not intended to be like that, and won't always be.

So mankind's third unalienable right is "property." He has to have something with which to work, something upon which, and with which, to work the good for which he will be rewarded and the bad for which he will be judged. Freedom means you have to have not just range of motion, but also something with which to show stewardship.

Thus, the third right is necessitated in the second, and both by the Judgment (which Locke calls 'The Great Day.")

Locke says more, too. He has a fair discussion about the importance of human conscience, and the responsibility we all have to allow others to act on theirs. But the three above rights have been the main ones, and have ended up in every human rights code, in one form or another, since Locke....even though people have completely forgotten Locke's original rationale.
How do we communicate with God to ask him/her/it what is a right and what isn't?

Well, I hope the above clarifies what Locke did to get that answer. And, of course, there are other rights, too...not per se "human rights," which pertain to all "humans" equally, but various personal "rights" as well. For example, the Bible makes it very clear from Genesis that marriage gives partners exclusive rights to each others affections, and that this right is also backed by God. But since not everybody is married, we don't call that a "human right," but rather a "marriage right," perhaps.

I think our chief concern here is not with every right any human being anywhere can have -- which are considerable, given what the Bible says -- but the "basic human rights," as mentioned above. "Basic" because prior to all others, "human" because grounded in the fact of our common humanity," and "rights" because universal. Is that not fair?
Also, can rights evolve?
"Evolve"? Hmmm...since they cannot be derived from evolution, that would necessarily make that a strange thought. But stranger still would be the idea that Gary today would have a "universal human right" he might lose tomorrow, or might gain a different "human right" the day after.

Again, if we are talking about "basic human rights," that has to be universal and permanent -- given by reason of what one IS, not merely by contingent features of circumstance, no?
...there has been a change of attitude toward slavery over the course of history.
Well, human attitudes do change. At one time, not only blacks but women were not considered "human beings." But "human rights" are in no way anything conferred by mere attitudes. You and I think that was still always wrong, don't we? We think that women had a right (i.e. a legitimate entitlement) to equal treatment as human beings, even when they were not being given the chance to have equal treatment as human beings, don't we?
If we say that rights are God-given and that all else is a privilege then have we gained anything substantial?
Absolutely. We've gained the unalienable moral right to claim ownership of our own lives, our own choices, and our own property. That's far from nothing: it's the fundamental realization that not only founded the States but ultimately also doomed Southern chattel slavery and the unequal legal regarding of women.
Have we gained the ability to know the mind of God in order to know what is a God-given right and what isn't?
Not necessarily. But if we want to understand what makes those rights legitimate, we're going to have to believe in God. No God, no rights.
It seems to me that we are in an impossible situation where endless errors and even excesses can be made regardless of having given them a divine foundation.
Not at all hopeless, Gary. After all, slavery did end in the US, and women did get equal rights. That's pretty great, actually. But I wonder to what we would refer to sustain those rights today, since many of us no longer believe in God. Already we see the right of children to life is being destroyed. And we also see that skin colour is returning as a basis of who is regarded as properly human, and who is deserving of hatred and scorn. That does not bode well for the future, it's true.

But in a sense, we can expect it. Man has rejected God. What alternate rationale can we possibly find to explain why anybody has "rights"?

And you can see that RC and others have realized this problem, and as testament to their intellectual courage, (if not to the advantage of rights) have decided to embrace it rather than deny it. They're maybe not right about God, but they are being intellectually honest, are they not?

That's why they claim there is no such thing as a "right." It's not because they're mean people, I think, as I find people like RC quite decent folk, actually; so I suggest it's because they are thinking through the logic of their own assumptions about God, and then making a very warranted conclusion. However, I happen to think they're wrong about God, so they're wrong about rights as well.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:07 pm That's why they claim there is no such thing as a "right." It's not because they're mean people, I think, as I find people like RC quite decent folk, actually; so I suggest it's because they are thinking through the logic of their own assumptions about God, and then making a very warranted conclusion. However, I happen to think they're wrong about God, so they're wrong about rights as well.
You are absolutely right, IC. There is no objective basis for the concept of rights and it is impossible to defend without resorting to some supernatural or mytsical basis. I appreciate your rational integrity in recognizing that fact. Since you embrace a mystical view (by which I only mean you believe in a supernatural God) you must think I'm wrong. It would be inconsistent for you to think otherwise.

By the way, you might be interested to know, I regard physicalism, evolution, psychology, sociology, and almost all philosophy just as mystical (and wrong) as any religion.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:07 pm That's why they claim there is no such thing as a "right." It's not because they're mean people, I think, as I find people like RC quite decent folk, actually; so I suggest it's because they are thinking through the logic of their own assumptions about God, and then making a very warranted conclusion. However, I happen to think they're wrong about God, so they're wrong about rights as well.
You are absolutely right, IC. There is no objective basis for the concept of rights and it is impossible to defend without resorting to some supernatural or mytsical basis. I appreciate your rational integrity in recognizing that fact. Since you embrace a mystical view (by which I only mean you believe in a supernatural God) you must think I'm wrong. It would be inconsistent for you to think otherwise.

By the way, you might be interested to know, I regard physicalism, evolution, psychology, sociology, and almost all philosophy just as mystical (and wrong) as any religion.
Heh. :D Well, there're certain some bizarre theories floating around in all of those. And there are some bizarre religious theories, too, of course.

And I have no quarrel with you, RC, even if we disagree about the nature of the reality we're in. We're both trying to be consistent with what we believe to be true, and that's something I respect in anyone...whether I'm of their "party" or not. So you're okay with me.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by commonsense »

My honest question is do atheists get to have God given rights, and if they do, how does that work?
Post Reply