Originally Posted by
essxjay
Oh, hang on. I think I see where the communication breakdown in. Let's step back a sec.
I was deliberate in the use of upper case "Natural Law," to indicate an ethical theory. I did not mean law of nature or "law of the jungle" or anything like it.
So now I'm unclear about your use of first principle, given the rest of the discussion.
What is Natural Law (upper case)? How is it different than natural law?
It is a human concept. We made it up.
People are not born with morals. Those are instilled by conditioning. People talk about the innocence of children. This is completely wrong. Children are very small sociopaths. Children only understand "ME!" If a child wants a toy they take the toy. If something gets in their way they hit it. They do this until they're TAUGHT not to. The have ethics and morality instilled in them through reward and punishment.
My point is you pretend these "rights" are somehow independent of human understanding. They are not.
Tigers are irrelevant to our discussion since we're not talking about law of the jungle.
Of course we are. Humans are animals, just one's who have created an imaginary concept called "rights."
Of course. Ethics only apply to humans. I never said or assumed otherwise
So if they only apply to us how can we divorce them from human understanding? Where did this concept come from? And, if they came from us and our imaginations, then they mean EXACTLY WHAT WE SAY THEY MEAN.
People disagree over all sorts of things but voluntarily respect the rights of others. Agreement is a sufficient condition to enjoy a right, but not a necessary one. Disagreement does not entail the denial of rights.
If I disagree with your right to own a nice car and I take it away from you at gunpoint would you hold that to be true?
Nonsense. Go back to the slavery example. Blacks had an identical moral right to be free of enslavement before the passage of the 13th Amendment as after. The consensus was about the practice of slavery as a moral matter, which was addressed in Section 1 of the amendment, while Section 2 declared Congress' power to enforce Section 1, "by appropriate legislation." The principle was recognized and declared prior to its enforcement.
We need to be clear whether we're talking about negative rights or positive ones.
You pretend there is a difference. There is not. The entire concept of rights is a human construct. It has no real value independent of us.
We have come far afield of where we started, which is generally what happens. My only real point is this - our country was founded by some somewhat similar-minded folk who decided they wanted things to be a certain way. Others disagreed and disagreed forcefully. So, we had to defend ourselves. And that defense was what let us implement our vision of the world and our place in it. Without that it would have been a noble idea but one snuffed out.
Which superior being are you referring to? Moreover, how do you know there's a superior being, and by what faculty do you evaluate the existence of such an entity and divine its intent? And what do you have left if you remove human experience from an equation?
I don't believe there's a higher power. I believe its all human fantasy. While I agree with that fantasy I don't believe, like many do, that somehow it really exists. Ethics and morality only exist in consensus.
Name me one right that is agreed upon universally. Across the board, everywhere. Just one.
Humans have always possessed the right to disagree with one other. It's just that some humans think the power to infringe the rights of others have been conferred to them. They're mistaken.
Really? If I kill you because you disagree with me who won the argument? Where are your rights? Why didn't they protect you?
And by now, you should be able to see back to the beginning of this thread why it's fallacious to think that gov't somehow grants or creates rights. Men can create laws, but not rights. The Founders didn't give us the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness because because it was never theirs to give away -- it already belonged to us. The Bill of Rights is primarily a code of ethics adopted by common law as recognition of the inviolable rights of the individual.
Men create rights. There are no
a priori rights. They are a human creation. If tomorrow the government said "no more rights" would you have them? Would you have them if you lived in China?
Go to the Sudan and tell them about your rights. Let me know how that works out for you. What will happen to you will probably be pretty horrible. Your rights will not protect you. What will protect you is a bunch of people on your side who will say "no!" and then back it up with physical action to defend themselves against those who would prey upon them.
The Hobbesean passage from the State of Nature is a metaphorical journey, not a literal one. The State of Nature is tool of rhetoric. Some folks insist on interpreting him otherwise. ::shrug::
No it isn't. Sorry, the state of nature of man is a brute. Only by apply intellect are we able to rise above that. Intellect backed up by a willingness to defend ourselves against those who would prey upon us.
No, I haven't, law_dawg. To wit ...
I disagree with your disagreement.
You said animals have no rights because they cannot conceptualize them. Before you said children have rights even though they could not conceptualize them.
I do not have X because I do not have Y.
I have X even though I do not have Y.
Which is it?
Recap: I said that concepts are discovered. The notion of a right, such as liberty, is a discovery.
Where was it? Was it lost? Where did it come from?
Territory is a concept, too, though. So, you've just contradicted yourself. If property doesn't exist in nature, how can territory exist?
You have a point here.
Property is a human name that we gave to an instinctual animal concept. In nature, or in a lawless society, the stronger take from the weaker. If a stronger animal wants something they take it. If a stronger animal wants your territory they kill you or drive you off and take it. So why doesn't this happen to you? Because we people have agreed not to do it and those that do we try and punish. The LAW is why. And where does the law come from? People.
Man is different from all other animals.
How?
So which is it: Man as pack animal, or man as striver of democratic society? Last I checked, pack animals don't develop constitutions. Humans do.
Human beings are not animals?
Or just more intelligent, reasoning ones?
So we do have a prior idea of what value we're fighting for then? This is just as I've maintained throughout.
However, your next suggestion is that if we don't fight for an idea, it just goes away ... ceases to exist -- do I understand you correctly? But this makes absolutely no sense!
Show me one pound of liberty. Measure out a cup of justice. They do not exist. They are societal constructs. We made them up. They do not exist.
"Founders had to fight to make them." The founders had to fight to make rights exist? Oy! Do you mean fight for a positive recognition of rights under the law? You're losing me.
I mean they had a different way of looking at the world and said this is the way we want it. And they had to fight to make it so.
Before man existed, were there rights? If so, where did they come from? If not, where did they come from? Your talk of "Discovery" implies prior existence independent of Man.
My point is we made the whole thing up.