"Natural rights"?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MacTBone
I know that in Mayan society your right to life was not guaranteed, in fact, you sacrificed others and were willing to sacrifice yourself, so if that is true than reciprocity exists, yet now we would not approve of that morality. So, there is no Objective Morality.

Your argument is against Absolute Morality, not Objective Morality.

[MrFun]

I think I go for the claim that life is definitely a natural right.

Just because a government or civilization, such as the Aztec or Maya, decreed that they could legally sacrifice humans for the purpose of religion, does not mean that life is NOT a natural right.

When any government enacts laws that deny a person the natural right to life, they are grossly distorting, or completely disregarding that natural right -- whether they are aware that life is a natural right or not.

Damn --- I don't know if what I said made any sense.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
...life is definitely a natural right.

How do you figure?

[MrFun]

Life is the essence of nature.

Nature is natural.

Life is a natural right.

[Drake Tungsten]

This thread makes my head hurt...

edit: Death is just as much a part of nature as life is, Mr. Fun.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Life is the essence of nature.

How do you figure?

Looks more like death is the essence of nature to me, since everything dies. Death is inevitable, life is not.

[MrFun]

I know -- I realized the mistake I made.

Just because death is more invevitable than life itself, that does not mean that life is no less a part of nature.

In fact, both are the essence of nature, forever struggling in balance.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
In fact, both are the essence of nature, forever struggling in balance.

Where would you place non-life on this continuum? Do we have a natural right to oblivion as well?

Is it wrong to take away a plant or animal's right to life?

[MrFun]

1) Plants do not have a consciousness, so they cannot think for themselves -- not even in concrete terms.

2) Plants have no nervous system, so they do not even feel physical pain.

3) Animals that are not human do not have a consciousness, in that most animals, for the most part, cannot think abstractly.

Some people argue that all animals have the right the natural right to life then, but that would not be applicable to animals.

1) Animals still live in the realm of nature where "survival of the fittest" still applies, so they really do not have the natural right to life.



I think I might have just undone my own claim.

If I can think of anything else to contribute, I will return.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
1) Plants do not have a consciousness, so they cannot think for themselves -- not even in concrete terms.

2) Plants have no nervous system, so they do not even feel physical pain.

3) Animals that are not human do not have a consciousness, in that most animals, for the most part, cannot think abstractly.

Some people argue that all animals have the right the natural right to life then, but that would not be applicable to animals.

In that case your argument for natural rights is flawed. If humans have a natural right to life because life is the essence of nature, then everything that is alive would have the same natural right to life. Saying that plants and animals do not have consciousness does not mean that they do not have life.

1) Animals still live in the realm of nature where "survival of the fittest" still applies, so they really do not have the natural right to life.

How do you figure? Animals are alive, therefore since life is the essence of nature, and since nature is natural, animals must have the right to life.

2) Although humans have separated themselves to a substantial extent, from nature, they are still entitled to the natural right to life. The reason -- because we have originated from the natural world.

So animals, which are more of a part of nature than humans, do not have a natural right to life. Humans, who have separated themselves from nature to a significant extent, do have a natural right to life. This reasoning is contradictory; animals should have more of a right to life by virtue of the fact that they are more closely tied to nature.

[MrFun]

Loinburger -- read my entire post.

I realized that I killed my own claim. damn

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course, if we were still debating and not agreeing to disagree, I'd be obliged to point out that "changing opinions coming from seeing issues in different lights" is really just the same thing as "changing opinions in the face of superior justification for the dissenting opinion." But, since we're not still debating, I won't point this out.

You see it one way, I see it another.

But, like was said, you must be shunned .

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Loinburger -- read my entire post.

Whoops, looks like we had a cross-edit; I started my response before your edit, and posted my response after your edit. Good times.

[SnowFire]

I have to stand around on street corners and sell funny little papers, while Thomas Novak has a syndicated column nationwide, as well as television time. Because his ideology serves the dominent interests, he is given a platform, while I have to stick to the edges, and even then the cops still shut us down sometimes.

Oh, come now Che, have more appreciation for capitalism. Thomas Novak publishes nationwide because it pays the bills. [iThe Nation[/i] is published nationwide as well, even if to a much smaller audience. Nothing is preventing people from picking up the oppressed far left media aside from personal disagreement or poor writing. If people want to be told how wonderful capitalism is, then, well, capitalism will provide for it! If they want to fantasize about communism, then capitalism will help out there too, but only to the extent of the interest!

;-)

Well, that's the idea anyway. There was that guy who ran for governor of California back in the 1930's who was basically a communist and got blocked out by the media, but hey, we've come along way since then, right?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Morals are relative. You might think you have a natural right, someone might disagree. Only a state can make sure you have a right.

You are wrong as usual. No state can provide a guarantee of your rights, just ask African Americans who lived through Jim Crow. Hell, I can just decide to kill you right now and violate your rights to the maximum. All the state can do is punish me, which you will notice does not protect your most important right. In fact you would be better of believing that you have a natural right to self defense in such an instance rather than relying on the state.

I wonder why people are so impressed with state power? Take a look at the drug war for a wonderful instance of an abysmal failure of state power. I think people like using state power because it allows them to commit attrocities to further their own aims without ever having to face arguments which call into question their own values, and they can keep their hands clean while state goons round up Negroes, Druggies, Lefties or whatever the targeted group of the day is and brutalize them.