Natural Rights

[Az]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Azazel -

Those were just examples, in no way am I suggesting these are the only universal desires we have. But since happiness means different things to people, we'd get bogged down with all the different values people have wrt happiness. Happiness may very well be a universal desire, but methods of achieving this happiness may not be universal. If murdering people makes me happy, is my happiness universal? No. Of course I'm sure you weren't talking about murdering people as a valid endeavor, but that problem does arise once we go down the road of subjectivity.

No, Of course, happiness means different things for different people, but this doesn't change the fact that happiness is what people seek, and what we must strive to achieve. This is the place from where stems my pov that the more overall happiness increases, the better. This is also supplimented by the fact that inspite of people's different requirements to be happy, many things are vital for people's happiness, and are shared by all people, as well as there are things that will be welcomed by the vast majority of people and will make them happier.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Berzerker
That means government can at best make laws to reflect morality, a morality that exists outside of government, true?
And rights are moral claims to act, so, certain rights - "natural" rights also exist outside of government and at best can be acknowledged and protected by governments.

Well, I had a similar discussion recently about if "Might makes Right" (not only "Right" as "Law"=legal, but also "morally right". It goes down to the question where our moral does come from.

My position is that the government can of course make laws. And yes, I think these laws reflect moral beliefs, not (primarily) vice versa. Also a big part of our moral beliefs are not codified law, many of these beliefs are simply widely shared views developed sometimes over centuries, so yes, moral standards exist outside the government.

However, I don´t think that law is meaningless for moral. If you establish a new law, you can influence morality. At a certain point it may even change moral beliefs of the people. But I don´t think that law is our primary source for moral standards. Moral standards can be highly individual (ican choose to be utilitarian or not, Christian or not, and so on, and so on).

I don´t believe these standards are somehow given to us per se (not by a creator or else). That many views are so widely shared is IMO related to social factors. Means if humans construct moral they do it under the impression of their social reality. So certain constructions make more sense, others not.

Yes, and these universal values are the basis for identifying natural rights.

Well, as said, I don´t support this concept of natural rights in your sense. However, I agree that certain things are universal (eg. hardly anyone wants to be murdered). The problem starts for me if "universality" means more than those basic things (etc. not to be murdered, not to be tortured).

If "univeral values" says that there are core values and rights that have to be the same allover this planet it becomes quite difficult, especially if you relate these things to political and economical concepts. Means if you say the Western concept of rights is the best and western democracy is the best method to secure these rights, you get in trouble with other cultures.

It is not that I´m a cultural or ethical relativist, I even think (for now ) that this western concept is indeed the "best", but I can´t hold this as everlasting truth or dogma, since there may be other approaches.

So as long you are on those basic things (etc. not to be murdered, not to be tortured) I´d agree that we have universal values. If you mean it follows then that certain political and economical concepts are universal it would get problematic.

That is the point where I´m still undecided. Because if those desires (or whatever we call them) are universal, we must ask: what is the best way to make sure that for example murder or torture doesn´t happen? But then you are at the question: is there only one "universal" solution, or is it possible to have several approaches to this? This is what I still find somehow difficult to decide.

[Lorizael]

Berzerker

Then why are you asking me to prove a creator exists if you doubt a creator exists (which is evident from your question)?

Why would I ask you to prove the existence of something I did think existed? I think it's pretty obvious. I see a lack of proof, and I'm asking for you to supply that proof.

Maybe, maybe not. I make no assumptions about who or what created the universe or what purpose was served, all I can do is observe our little corner of the universe and reach conclusions consistent with what I see.

Obviously that's all anyone can do. We here just seem to think you're reaching the wrong conclusions. *shrug*

Is there a design in an atom? Of course there is a design to the universe just as there is a design to evolution.

If you believe that there is a design to evolution then your idea of what evolution is is entirely flawed. Evolution occurs by random happenstance. It is not an entity, nor does it have sentience.

Evolution happens because a very long time ago some nucleic acids ran into each other, formed a neat little combination, and then fell apart again. But it took many millions of little run ins before that happened.

And you tell me not to make assumptions about your argument when you now ask me if I'm talking about a biblical creation? You've just shown my assumption to be accurate.

No no, that was an honest question meant to clear up any possible confusion. If I were sure you meant Creation I would have said, "Ha! You're using Biblical Creation, which I can easily thwart with bla bla bla..." but I didn't say that. I was asking to make sure that's not what you meant.

Not much point in debating if you can't even acknowledge that someone or something created the universe.

Sorry... I can't help what science says.

I didn't know science had proven the universe has always existed, but feel free to explain how this can be true given the universe is expanding and has been for eons. But religious folk say "God" has always existed too, so maybe the universe is the creator.

I did not say prove. I said science, "seems to indicate" that the universe has always existed.

And actually, it's incredibly easy to see. The universe includes all the dimensions known to us. This includes the dimension of time. Therefore, before the universe, there was no time. What that means is that the universe came into existence at the exact moment that time began, which means that the universe has existed forever.

And yes, religious folk say that "God" has existed forever, but they don't really put forward any evidence that this is so. Science, on the other hand, observes the evidence and then makes conclusions based on what has been observed.

Oh, and if you totally ignore my most powerful argument, which also happens to be my conclusion, does that mean I win?

This is circular reasoning here. You say that there is a Creator who made the universe. You say that this creator made natural rights. You say that the Creator shows evidence of natural rights in the universal desires of humankind. Then you say that the evidence of this Creator is in the universal desires of humankind.

That doesn't work. You prove the existence of a Creator by citing the existence of a part of the Creator's creation, but without actually presenting any hard evidence that the Creator had anything to do with that creation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said natural rights are based upon universal desires meaning we can use universal desires to understand which rights are consistent with creation. Now, does the fact no one wants to starve (ignoring political protestors on hunger strikes) translate into a universal desire to rob people?

Actually... yes. If people are starving and there are those who are not, then there would be a universal desire to rob people. Hell, even people who have enough have a desire to rob. There is also a contrary universal desire not to be robbed. Of course a contradiction is developed.

Furthermore there is a universal desire not to be killed. Therefore when people are murdered we want to punish them. We can't use the death penalty, because there is a universal desire not to be killed. So then you'd have to be against the death penalty. Are you?

This notion of yours that no murder ever occured until government invented it is silly. If no government ever existed, would it be possible to kill someone? Yes. Brutaly? Yes. Unjustifiably? Yes.

Murder is usually defined as unlawful killing. This 'unjustifiable' stuff was simply added so people could call things that the government did as 'murder'. I don't really accept that definition. 'Brutal' is even sillier. If you kill brutally in self-defense.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Murder is usually defined as unlawful killing.

This definition alone is inadequate -- "involuntary manslaughter" is killing and is against the law (though it's only a misdemeanor, AFAIK), but it isn't murder precisely because it isn't premeditated and/or malicious. "Killing with premeditated malice" or "Unjustified killing" are still fairly sound definitions, while "unlawful killing" simply doesn't come close to cutting it.

'Brutal' is even sillier. If you kill brutally in self-defense.

If I tortured somebody to death in self-defense, then I'd understandably have a helluva time convincing a jury that it really was self-defense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This definition alone is inadequate -- "involuntary manslaughter" is killing and is against the law (though it's only a misdemeanor, AFAIK), but it isn't murder precisely because it isn't premeditated and/or malicious. "Killing with premeditated malice" or "Unjustified killing" are still fairly sound definitions, while "unlawful killing" simply doesn't come close to cutting it.

What is 'unjustified'? Isn't it against the law... someone's law? A lot of killings that are done and are not against the law can be justified (hell, even those that are illegal can be somewhat justified).

If I tortured somebody to death in self-defense, then I'd understandably have a helluva time convincing a jury that it really was self-defense.

It depends on your definition of 'brutal'. Killiong by a sawed off shotgun could be called 'brutal'.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What is 'unjustified'? Isn't it against the law... someone's law?

No, only a few of the dictionary's definitions of "justice" incorporate the term "law" -- the more usual definition is "rightness" and/or "fairness," so an unjustified killing would be "wrong" and/or "unfair." We've already had this argument, though (Maniac actually linked to it earlier) -- IIRC it ended with you rejecting the entirety of the English language as being meaningless.

My point, which you have not addressed, is that "unlawful killing" is an inadequate definition for "murder" because it is entirely possible to unlawfully kill somebody without murdering them (the example being "involuntary manslaughter"). If you believe that Berz's and/or my definition of "murder" is inadequate, then provide a better alternative, not a worse one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If unjustified killing is 'wrong' and/or 'unfair', who decides that? That is why I think that defintion is inadequate. Anyone can all anything murder under that defintion based on their own ideas of what is 'wrong'. Is the DP unjustified? Who decides?

It is possible to kill someone and it be against the law without it being called murder, however, using the same argument I'd say there is also unjustified killing which is ALSO not always murder. Because involutary manslaughter is also considered unjustified killing, but is not murder.

So then both defintions suffer from the same problem.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
Oh for pity's sake, Gepap. If by "end decisively" you meant "obtusely ignore everything that has been said up until this point," you have indeed succeeded.

1. Murder is unlawful. You win the "no shit, Sherlock" award for continuing to point this out, despite the fact that I never once said anything amounting to "murder is legal" or whatever have you. Any definition of murder that failed to include this simple fact would be incomplete.

And then what was the point of your attempt to say murder could be defined without the concept of law? If you know it is an absurd thing to do, then?

2. Every one of your definitions mentions premeditation (though this may not be apparent with the first definition, but I read "on the basis of a plan" to amount to "premeditation"). Your claim that "unlawful" is the only common element between the definitions is incorrect.
3. Every one of your definitions mentions malice (though the first substitutes "cruelly," and the fourth substitutes "brutally or inhumanely"). Again, your claim that "unlawful" is the only common element is incorrect. You've got a lot of dictionaries lying around, so try using a thesaurus while you're at it.

You are not separating the definition of Murder as noun, and using murder as verb: notice that in one of them, the mention of unlawful comes only when defining murder as a noun. And that is the definition that matters, when talking about the concept of Murder. We have not been talking about mangling a song.

4. "Unlawful" may be a common element between the definitions, but this element alone is insufficient as a definition -- for example, "involuntary manslaughter" is also "unlawful killing," yet it is not "murder." On this basis, the "unlawful" element is arguably the least relevant.

Somehting beyond unlawfulness is needed to separate murder from manslaughter. But both terms can only exist within the notions of laws, which is what I was arguing with Berzerker in the first place. As I will argue bellow, a premeditated and malicious killing may not be murder

5. The point all along has been that it is possible to define murder without incorporating the term "unlawful" -- the point has not been that the contemporary definition of "murder" is defined independently of the term "law." If anything, you've merely helped to prove my point with your big stack of dictionaries, seeing as how they all agree with the legally independent "killing with premeditated malice" definition.

You seem to ginore that there are multiple meaings of words, when it comes to modern usage, but as I said above, if we are talking or murder as a noun, the very concept of murder, unlawful is central. When people use it as a verb, then maybe they might not include the "unlawful", but in a theoretical arguement about the origins of urder, and whether people have some universal desire "not to be murdred", THIS IS IRRELEVANT. The point is, was, and will be: does the concept of murder originate with or without law? Whether 3000 years after its conception people care to define it today uwithout explicitly using the word unlawful matters not. This was never the point of the arguement.

7. Vocabulary itself is fairly arbitrary. It is the underlying concepts behind this vocabulary that are non-arbitrary. I don't change the meaning of my post by typing it in red instead of black, so the color of my post is arbitrary. It doesn't matter if I call somebody "obtuse" or "thick" or "uncomprehending," since the underlying concept remains unchanged. Language is actually defined to be "communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals" -- the symbols are arbitrary, the thoughts and feelings are not. This is why language cannot be arbitrarily redefined -- thoughts and feelings cannot be eradicated by simply erasing the terms describing said thoughts/feelings from the dictionary.

And yet who is attempting to do the arbitrary redefining here? Are "kill", "Manslaughter", "execute", "assasinate", and "murder" all so close as to be able to interchange them without affecting the meaining of what is being writen? Only by a poor writer. Can murder ever be lawful? Take that definition you harp on, premeditated and malicious? OK, being that, but without mentionaing lawful, does it mean that that killing is acceptable? How many soldiers in a time of war may kill their enemy in a premeditated way, with malice? Would you accept, and think it correct, to call the acts of these soldiers murder? You seem to be arguing that yes, it would be, since it fits this one definition you have latched on to, but the very society you say won;t arbitrarilly change vocab would not accpet that from you. Soldiers may kill enemy soldiers maliciously and with premeditation, but they are not guilty of murder. Why? Becuase as malicious and premeditated as their killings might have been, they were sanctioned, lawful, and thus NOT MURDER.
Ditto for the executioner. Executions are most certainly premeditated, and many of them were very malicious. And they were also NOT MURDER, not when commited by the state, or, in other words, lawful.
Malice and premeditation separate murder from manslaughter, yes, but it is unlawfulness that is central to both felonies.

[loinburger]

Imran

You've forgotten the "killing with premeditated malice" definition, under which involuntary manslaughter would not be murder.

Anybody can call anything murder based on their own definition of "wrong," but since the term "wrong" cannot be arbitrarily redefined this greatly limits somebody's ability to arbitrarily redefine the term "murder." The same holds true with "fair" -- somebody can't simply say "fair == unfair" and go on a random killing spree. But again, we've already had this argument.

Since the term "unjustified" is somewhat independent of the term "unlawful," it is possible to kill somebody illegally and yet be capable of offering an adequate (though possibly only partial) justification for said act of homicide. For example, somebody guilty of involuntary manslaughter will have broken the law (so under your definition he will be a murderer), but he can justify his act by saying "but it was an accident, and no malice was intended!" (and thus under the "unjustified killing" definition he will not be a murderer).

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
My point, which you have not addressed, is that "unlawful killing" is an inadequate definition for "murder" because it is entirely possible to unlawfully kill somebody without murdering them (the example being "involuntary manslaughter"). If you believe that Berz's and/or my definition of "murder" is inadequate, then provide a better alternative, not a worse one.

Fine definitions of murder have been provided already. Murder is too complex a thing to define in 2 wrods.
You want a good definition of the concept of murder?

edit: woops, my little test forces e to change my def:

murder: the unlawful killing of one human being by another, commited either with premeditation or malice, or in the act of commiting another felony act.

[GePap]

Bezerker:

Your definition of murder is very inadequate.

You asked before if you going out and murdering a murderer would be murder itself? The answer is yes, it would be a felony killing, depending on the circumstances (either murder or manslaughter) becuase you are NOT lawfully deputized with the authority to go kill anyone. And no, innocence is NOT implied: the question is, did yuo have the legitimacy to kill that person you killed? If not, that is a felony killing.

As for your answer to the idea of depraving someones natural rights: you still failed to answer why somoene can be stripped of thier natural rights even if they chose to ignore those of others: what is the mechainsm by which anyone else can moralily do it to them? Would not the people who ignore that man's natural rights be equally as immoral?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You've forgotten the "killing with premeditated malice" definition, under which involuntary manslaughter would not be murder.

As GePap said, soldiers kill with premeditated malice. Are they guilty of murder?

Anybody can call anything murder based on their own definition of "wrong," but since the term "wrong" cannot be arbitrarily redefined this greatly limits somebody's ability to arbitrarily redefine the term "murder." The same holds true with "fair" -- somebody can't simply say "fair == unfair" and go on a random killing spree. But again, we've already had this argument.

Well if people can define wrong different and fair differently this explination has problems. Simply because one person's idea of 'fair' is very different than someone elses. After all, communists and capitalists have opposite defintions of 'fair'.

So according to a Capitalist a Communist says fair==unfair. According to the Communist, their decision isn't unfair. And no one is going to solve the Communism/Capitalism debate anytime soon.

Since the term "unjustified" is somewhat independent of the term "unlawful," it is possible to kill somebody illegally and yet be capable of offering an adequate (though possibly only partial) justification for said act of homicide.

But what about voluntary or involuntary manslaughter? It's still a crime that has penalties, so it isn't justified (at least totally). It is unjustified killing, but still not murder.

[GePap]

Here is a simple test of priorities:

Can a murder be spontaneous?
Yes, as a crime of passion.

Can a murder be without malice?
Yes, it can. Poisoning someone with somehting that will kill them quickly in thier sleep shows no malice. But if planned, it is murder

Can a murder be justified?
Yes, at least, it most be sometimes, given the notion of justifiable homocide.

Can a murder ever be lawfull?

Well, can it?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -

The Golden Rule - treat others as you would have others treat you - IS an expression of universal desires, so I can't say much about what these Christians you know think if they don't accept what Jesus said. Btw, neither Christianity or religion are universal desires.

The Golden Rule is a dictate from God - so it must be followed. Even if all universal desire ran against the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule would still be a natural right according to Christianity (i.e. following God's dictates are necessary for natural rights, that universal desire lines up is happy accident).

I started the thread and defined the word "right", so if they are here using a different definition, that has little bearing on my position.

But your definition is of no interest; we'll stick to the public definition.

I said otherwise?

I'm merely explicating the concept of right as it is typically understood in moral/political philosophy.

Now you've gone from a right to be left alone to a "right" to rob people.

But, your own definition of right as a universal desire precludes limiting rights to rights-to-be-left-alone. If free healthcare and X-boxes are universally desired, then providning then one has a right to them. If you don't like this, then rethink you conception of rights. My suggestion - list all the rights you like, find out a common thread that binds them, and then create a definition of rights.

Nothing you said proves that.

I've given you the standard definition of a right (trumping any countervailing claim). This definition includes nothing about desire or ownership. Nothing in the definition of desire or ownership includes natural rights. These are not analytically connected (to use Kant-speak). It is up to you to connect them, not me to disprove a connection.

No they aren't. If you spend 10 years of your life laboring to buy a home, that's 10 years of your life.

You're blurring a very important distinction between life, labor and the fruits of labor.

(1) Life: I could give a slave an absolute right to life - i.e. the master may not kill the slave.

(2) Labor: a person could have the right to choose their labor. I.e. you could choose to build a house or not regardless of what the community will do with the house. Now you may not choose to build a house if there is no guarantee that you will keep it, but it is still your choice.

(3) Fruits of labor- a right to what you actually created via labor.

Changing what I said isn't very nice . If I said driving a car was fun would you say I was wrong because you can think up a nasty scenario where I'm killed in an accident? I didn't say we had a right to add our labor to stolen goods and keep the product of our labor. In your example, if the two cannot reach some accomodation, then the ore would have to be returned to it's owner, but since the sculptor never owned the ore, his labor will go un-owned too. The labor and ownership are still tied together...

Haven't changed anything the ontologically distinct nature of the gold and the statue is a standard critique of the labor theory. What uyou have in fact done is smuggle in a new principle besides labor - the "first come first serve" principle. How do you justify first come first serve?

I think as UR pointed out earlier, if you take the wood to build a chair how do you aquire the right to admix your labor with the wood? Likewise with the statue, how does the prior claim to the gold affect any claim to the statue? The statue is distinct from the gold (though dependent upon it) - so if the owner of the gold wants to melt the statue down - then what claim does he have on the statue as apart from the gold? Again, you resort to first come first serve with respect to the gold. You have, in essence added a new principle to the labor theory without justifying it.

How many times do I have to say it? Rights involve human interaction.

Animals have rights to. There I said it.

And animals can take us for food without violating our rights, getting that yet?

Can they? Perhaps what you mean to say is that non-human animals lack the capacity for moral reasoning and so their eating us has no moral content? Is that what you mean?