Natural Rights

[Berzerker]

loinburger -

it's necessary to cut up the posts in order to make them legible, but this only makes it all the easier for "some people" to selectively ignore sections of the other person's posts.)

Trust me, it doesn't matter how he posts, he'll find a way to ignore embarassing questions.

chegitz -

1) Shared and universal are repetitive and universal is a dubious claim.

Repetitive only to add emphasis and provide clarification if someone has trouble understanding "shared", even after giving both some people still don't understand what they mean. As for dubious, I'm not saying there is some magical formula that makes: universal desires = rights. I'm saying that universal desires provide the best foundation for defining morality and that "rights" are expressions of these universal desires, i.e., moral claims deriving from the best foundation for a system of morality. The competing idea for the origin of rights offered in this thread is that "society" creates rights, but that means "society" can refuse to create rights, can deny they exist. Which means societies that engage in slavery and genocide can't be condemned on moral grounds since they took no rights from their victims.

This remains to be proven.

Do you really believe there are people who "want" to be murdered or enslaved? So far, the attempts to refute it have failed badly.

You jumble a lot of different points together here. If you're ttrying to make a proof, keep them seperate.

1) Universal desire = best system of morality
2) Rights = expressions of moral claims based on this system
3) Universal desires = rights

This does not necessarily follow. Peasants were not owned, but they were compelled to provide labor.

The fact a tyrant stole your labor doesn't mean you no longer have a moral claim to your labor, only that the tyrant behaved immorally by stealing it.

Then the qualifier natural has no meaning. Either a right exists in nature or it does not.

"Rights" qualifies "natural" since rights involve human interaction. We don't need to include animals in a statement about what is natural for humans.

Then why use the term "natural?" If nature does not respect these rights, how can they be natural?

Because these are rights that exist by virtue of creation, not government, and can only be recognised by more sentient beings.

If nothing created the unverse, then nothing gave you your rights. Therefore, by your logic, we do not have them.

But someone or something did create the universe. It's here...

On a logical and factual basis, you have not even begun to establish your premise, let alone make an argument.

That remains to be seen.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

But someone or something did create the universe. It's here...

This is the worst claim I've seen in a while.

So, Berz, if the universe exists then, by definition God exists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

As for dubious, I'm not saying there is some magical formula that makes: universal desires = rights. I'm saying that universal desires provide the best foundation for defining morality and that "rights" are expressions of these universal desires, i.e., moral claims deriving from the best foundation for a system of morality.

What I'm claiming as dubious is the notion that there are universal desires. Even the wish to continue existence is not a universal one, otherwise the concept of suicide would not exist.

The competing idea for the origin of rights offered in this thread is that "society" creates rights, but that means "society" can refuse to create rights, can deny they exist.

That is absolutely true.

Which means societies that engage in slavery and genocide can't be condemned on moral grounds since they took no rights from their victims.

This does not logically follow. Just because I believe that rights are social doesn't mean I can't condemn what I see as violations of those rights by those that do not recognize them. The flaw in your reasoning is forgetting that if we define our rights and morals, we may also grant ourselves the right to condemn violations of those morals.

More simply, just because I think that moral code and set of values is relative doesn't mean I don't think that my moral code is not superior to other moral codes. In fact I do, and from that basis I can condemn slavery and genocide.

Do you really believe there are people who "want" to be murdered or enslaved? So far, the attempts to refute it have failed badly.

In some societies, people who were not chosen for the honor of being sacrificed to the gods committed suicide. These people wanted to be murdered (ignoring for the moment that murder is an unlawful killing and the ritual sacrifice was lawful--in this case I am expanding your use of the term murder to mean that no one really wants to be killed).

Two, a substantial portion of the world's population believes it is their proper place in the world to be enslaved by others. I am, of course, talking about women. Clearly we have made major stried in overcoming this ancient and disgusting belief, but even in the West, there are still large numbers of women who believe that their proper role is to be a servant to their husband, that their husband owns tham, and that is the way things should be.

1) Universal desire = best system of morality

You have failed to establish the premise that universal desires exist. Even if you could show that they exist today, it would not be possible to extend that claim backwards through human history, let alone prehistory. Failure of the first premise leads to the failure of all subsequent claims.

The fact a tyrant stole your labor doesn't mean you no longer have a moral claim to your labor, only that the tyrant behaved immorally by stealing it.

If you believe that it is your God given place to serve a King, then how is the King immoral?

"Rights" qualifies "natural" since rights involve human interaction. We don't need to include animals in a statement about what is natural for humans.

Actually, you need to prove that statement. You simply accept as given what is simply an assertion, not a proven fact. Why don't we need to include nature in a discussion of what is natural?

Here you introduce something new . . . what is natural for humans. Now, how do you know what is natural for humans? Are you simply claiming what is natural for humans by viture of logic (and let us remember what tortures of reality Aristotle preformed with logic) or is it through the scientific method, i.e. biology, psychology, anthropolgy, archeology, sociology, etc.? Furthermore, if you resort to logic, I must remind you that Hegel's Philosophy of Right makes a much stronger logical case that all rights derive from society.

Because these are rights that exist by virtue of creation, not government, and can only be recognised by more sentient beings.

Again, an unproven assertion.

But someone or something did create the universe. It's here...

As far as I know, nothing created the universe. It simply happened.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon


This is the worst claim I've seen in a while.

So, Berz, if the universe exists then, by definition God exists.

I agree with Berzerker. There is a cause for every effect.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I agree with Berzerker. There is a cause for every effect.

There is no reason to believe anything caused the universe.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


There is no reason to believe anything caused the universe.

There is a cause for every event in the universe. Why should we believe that there is no cause for the universe?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There is a cause for every event in the universe. Why should we believe that there is no cause for the universe?

Why should we believe there is one? You're falling into the fallacy of the first cause. Why couldn't the universe simply have come into being for no good reason at all. Our current understanding of physics posits this as possible, and it's the most simple explanation. Given enough time and enough space, a universe will come into being.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why should we believe there is one? You're falling into the fallacy of the first cause. Why couldn't the universe simply have come into being for no good reason at all. Our current understanding of physics posits this as possible, and it's the most simple explanation. Given enough time and enough space, a universe will come into being.

Wouldn't the critical mass of time and space be a cause then, but what is the cause of time and space?

[chequita guevara]

We don't know yet.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious


There is a cause for every event in the universe. Why should we believe that there is no cause for the universe?

Cause and effect are temporal relationships. An effect follows a cause temporally.

The Big Bang created time--there was no time before it. Ergo cause and effect do not apply, because there was no temporal relationship to be had.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Cause and effect are temporal relationships. An effect follows a cause temporally.

The Big Bang created time--there was no time before it. Ergo cause and effect do not apply, because there was no temporal relationship to be had.

I don't see any logic to your statements, but I'm jsut curious to know how the Big Bang created time.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't see any logic to your statements, but I'm jsut curious to know how the Big Bang created time.

What's not logical? Can you have cause and effect without the passage of time?

Time is a function of space. Without space, there can be no time, since time is movement of things through space.

If there was no space until the Big Bang happened, there was also no time. Even if there was space, there was nothing to move through it, ergo no time. Not until the Big Bang set things in motion did time begin.

The universe began as a single point, and then exploded into the other dimensions. Time, being the fourth of those dimensions, couldn't have existed until after the previous ones had been created.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What's not logical? Can you have cause and effect without the passage of time?

I guess if you could convince me that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, and for the record I'm not convinced that the Big Bang occured.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Time is a function of space. Without space, there can be no time, since time is movement of things through space.

If there was no space until the Big Bang happened, there was also no time. Even if there was space, there was nothing to move through it, ergo no time. Not until the Big Bang set things in motion did time begin.

Time is only measured by movement through space. Just because something isn't measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also you can't really say that nothing existed before the Big Bang. How do you know?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The universe began as a single point, and then exploded into the other dimensions. Time, being the fourth of those dimensions, couldn't have existed until after the previous ones had been created.

Couldn't time be the first dimension, and we just call it the 4th?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I guess if you could convince me that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, and for the record I'm not convinced that the Big Bang occured.

Time is only measure by movement through space. Just because something isn't measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You just contradicted yourself. Time is indeed the measure of movement through space. If there is no measure, then time can't exist. Movement through space is a requirement for time to exist. If there is nothing moving through space, time is meaningless.

The reason time didn't exist was that nothing was there to move through space. Unless you're coming up with a brand new definition of time of which we are yet aware...?

Also you can't really say that nothing existed before the Big Bang. How do you know?

The Big Bang came from a singularity - A one-dimensional point of infinite mass and zero volume. That was all there was. How could anything else have been around?

Couldn't time be the first dimension, and we just call it the 4th?

Oh come on, it's not the nomenclature that's the issue. Call it the Foofoo dimension for all we can. The ordering of the dimensions is based on simple mathematics:

1st - single point
2nd - plane (made up of single points)
3rd - space (made up of planes)
4th - time (made up of movement through space)

You can't have the higher dimensions until the lower dimensions are in place.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You just contradicted yourself. Time is indeed the measure of movement through space. If there is no measure, then time can't exist. Movement through space is a requirement for time to exist. If there is nothing moving through space, time is meaningless.

The reason time didn't exist was that nothing was there to move through space. Unless you're coming up with a brand new definition of time of which we are yet aware...?

Time is just duration. We measure duration with movement through space. You haven't argued that there was no duration before the event in question. And meaning? What doesn meaning have to do with existence?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The Big Bang came from a singularity - A one-dimensional point of infinite mass and zero volume. That was all there was. How could anything else have been around?

Infinite mass? You will have to argue that seperately.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Oh come on, it's not the nomenclature that's the issue. Call it the Foofoo dimension for all we can. The ordering of the dimensions is based on simple mathematics:

1st - single point
2nd - plane (made up of single points)
3rd - space (made up of planes)
4th - time (made up of movement through space)

You can't have the higher dimensions until the lower dimensions are in place.

I don't see why time couldn't exist first unless you define it as such, but in fact time can be teh first dimension.