Are post-modernism and relativism both threats to liberty and equality?

[MrFun]

Great, so now I am off to bed having nightmares about Imran's diabolical schemes.

[Berzerker]

Ah, natural rights again...

What I really don't get is the atheist who refuse to accept God's existence in the abscence of evidence, but see no contradiction in accepting the existence of objective human rights without evidence. How could a double standard be any more obvious?

Evidence of natural rights does exist, but first we have to define the term. A natural right is a greater moral claim to act. A natural right does not depend on you or me seeing it as valid any more than Hitler's behavior negated the moral claims of his victims. In any conflict there will always be one party with the greater moral claim to act. If we get it wrong or can't figure out which party has it, that is our failure, not the negation of natural rights. Inspite of our ignorance (or malfeasance), the greater moral claim to act still resides somewhere.

More evidence can be seen in human behavior. You guys seem to think if a murder occurs, thats proof natural rights dont exist. But we condemn murder because we know its wrong. How do we know? Ultimately we know this because we not only don't want to be murdered, we see the hypocrisy inherent in the act.

It comes down to "who owns you". Others may claim ownership but they cannot match your moral claim. A natural right is just a right that precedes institutions like government that may create "civil" rights. Before you can ever have a "right" to vote, you must have a right to exist (life) and choose (liberty).

[Imran Siddiqui]

The ubermench is simply someone who uses his artistic creativity to break the societal morals that bind people. People, you'd like MrFun .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ah, natural rights again...

Now the party gets started.

:clap, clap, clap:

[Az]

People, you'd like MrFun

Crappy comma placement alert.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ah, natural rights again...



Evidence of natural rights does exist, but first we have to define the term. A natural right is a greater moral claim to act. A natural right does not depend on you or me seeing it as valid any more than Hitler's behavior negated the moral claims of his victims. In any conflict there will always be one party with the greater moral claim to act. If we get it wrong or can't figure out which party has it, that is our failure, not the negation of natural rights. Inspite of our ignorance (or malfeasance), the greater moral claim to act still resides somewhere.

More evidence can be seen in human behavior. You guys seem to think if a murder occurs, thats proof natural rights dont exist. But we condemn murder because we know its wrong. How do we know? Ultimately we know this because we not only don't want to be murdered, we see the hypocrisy inherent in the act.

It comes down to "who owns you". Others may claim ownership but they cannot match your moral claim. A natural right is just a right that precedes institutions like government that may create "civil" rights. Before you can ever have a "right" to vote, you must have a right to exist (life) and choose (liberty).

my hero

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ah, natural rights again...

Arguing natural rights with a libertarian is a bit like arguing God with a Christian, but let's entertain ourselves ...

Evidence of natural rights does exist, but first we have to define the term. A natural right is a greater moral claim to act. A natural right does not depend on you or me seeing it as valid any more than Hitler's behavior negated the moral claims of his victims. In any conflict there will always be one party with the greater moral claim to act. If we get it wrong or can't figure out which party has it, that is our failure, not the negation of natural rights. Inspite of our ignorance (or malfeasance), the greater moral claim to act still resides somewhere.

Considering you're next paragraph begines with "More evidence ...", I'm forced to conclude the above is supposed to contain evidence for the existence of natural rights. I'm certainly not seeing any - care to point it out? You're, near as I can tell, just asserting the existence of these greater or lesser moral claims. How do I know if they exist? What test could falsify them?

More evidence can be seen in human behavior. You guys seem to think if a murder occurs, thats proof natural rights dont exist.

This is a frankly silly mischaracterization of my position.

But we condemn murder because we know its wrong. How do we know? Ultimately we know this because we not only don't want to be murdered, we see the hypocrisy inherent in the act.

A crucial step would seem to be lacking here; how do you get from "murder is hypocritical" to "murder is wrong"?

It comes down to "who owns you". Others may claim ownership but they cannot match your moral claim.

To verify that, we'd seem to need a metric for measuring objective moral claim.

A natural right is just a right that precedes institutions like government that may create "civil" rights. Before you can ever have a "right" to vote, you must have a right to exist (life) and choose (liberty).

True but irrelevant.