Rights Are God-Given

So you are a John Locke fan.

John Locke was just another swinging d!ck with a pen.

He wiped his azz same as you or me.

 

Ahhhhh, I see now.

You're making the strawman I predicted. Niiiiiice.

 

Oh, so you're making the strawman that I predicted at the very start of the op?

Niiiiiice!

 

It's not a straw man as much as it is a fallacy.

 

Your thread - I guess it's your rules. Not much fun when EVERYTHING is a straw man.

 

You know I find it funny that nearly everyone who talks about that quote misunderstands it. It doesn't mean that there is no right or wrong, or that the one who is strongest actually is right - it simply means that in practice whoever is stronger wins, is "right". It's not a statement of principals, morals, or values, it's a simple observation of how the world works, especially in such a volatile time as Aristotle's.

 

I said right in the op, over and over again, that whether or not God exists is irrelevant to the point, and you're trying to argue repeatedly that God doesn't exist.

It's only posts trying to argue the thing which I explicitly said is extraneous and NOT what I'm saying that are strawmen, at least thus far.

 

NO. I'm arguing that an actual, honest-to-goodness god given right could only be taken away by that same god (or a stronger god).

 

You didn't argue a single one of my points you just tried to dismiss them because you didn't understand them or you can't refute them. This is not going to be a very interesting discussion if that's how you want to proceed.

 

If you go on to study Machiavelli and others like Nietzsche you will agree even more with Aristotle.

There really are no rights. There are only people.

And there are 2 kinds of people (as Tuco would say in The Good The Bad And The Ugly) -- strong people and weak people.

 

Ok - thanks for clearing that up.

Still extraneous as I'm not talking about an actual, honest-to-goodness God given right, I'm simply talking about people regarding rights as such.

Like a useful fairy tale.

Yep, pretty much (btw read all of them - have a degree in philosophy). But it's clearly better to live in a society where your rights are considered God-given and inalienable than it is to live in a society that regards your rights as the generosity of the political powers that be.

 

Sounds like you concur that God-given is a popular myth.

That just relegates it to political religion. Which sounds funny but that's what it really is.

 

Personally, I still prefer the second scenario. It is true there is the risk of having my rights violated, but I'd rather have my rights decided by an enemy I have a chance, no matter how slim, of defeating than having to deal with the restrictions and "rights" given to me by an invincible enemy.

 

As I made super-duper clear in the op, the existence of a deity is entirely irrelevant and extraneous to my point.

And no, it's really not political religion. Political religion is about the powers of the state - what I'm talking about is, oddly enough, a safeguard against political religion.

 

You'd rather a society where your basic rights - like right to life - are not held as sacred, but as revokable at the whims of the majority?

 

You apparently missed my post, so I will repeat it:

Rights are NOT God-given, because integrated into every religion is the concept of free will and the belief that our choices are not limited by God. Religion does, however, provide a moral compass by which society may make rules to defend rights.

A hermit living completely alone has infinite rights, but rights within society are those freedoms that are not infringements upon others.

Our founding fathers used the "God-given" concept to reinforce their beliefs, which I believe you are advocating to instill permanence.

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Nothing about "god" in that extraordinarily important statement from The Declaration Of Independence. It is borne of the philosophy of preexisting Natural Rights... a philosophy founded in the innate yearnings that inspired our forebears to retake their rights and freedoms from the oppressive British Crown and go on to establish the systems of governance and jurisprudence that acknowledges and endeavors to protect them, and a system of economics that effectively exploits them.

It's hardly surprising, then, that those who wish to relinquish The State arbitrary authority to grant 'positive rights' to facilitate "fair", "equal" and "socially just" OUTCOMES would deny their existence...preferring instead to indoctrinate to the idea that natural human rights are derived from man...from them....and gradually and arrogantly 'interpret' and 'fundamentally transform' to those ends.

Oh, and my 'creator'? am atheist, so nature....specifically, the natural forces of attraction that brought my mother and father together and ultimately delivered me into existence.

 

I would, yes. I'm not saying it would be without it's drawbacks. Though I am weighing both sets of pros and cons. If the God in question is anything like the Christian God, or any god in current religions, it would mean I'd be subject to that deity's restrictions. The sanctity of my right to life would be irrelevant if I have to be judged by a being with an opposing ideology. Of course, it all depends on what those God-given rights are, I suppose. However if you mean the idea alone of having my rights believed to come from a source higher than humans, and in these hypothetical scenarios that God's ideology is not a factor, than I suppose it is simply a matter of what rights that God gives my human opposition.

 

Kind of but not a direct hit. The founders were deists (many of them). The purpose of invoking "the creator"- a word that was chosen specifically to not invoke the Christian God .. merely that we were created by some force - was to put individual rights and freedoms/liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

This is straight out of "Classical Liberalism" - not to be confused with the modern usage of the term Liberal.

The idea of the "social contract" construct by which Gov't get's its authority was that the authority of Gov't comes solely from "we the people".

The reason for giving some authority power to punish (through law) was for protection from direct harm - one person against another (murder, rape, theft and so on). It was recognized that "no man wants to be ruled over by another" so that the power of this authority was to be extremely limited - in general only for protection from direct harm.

If we say we have "limited Gov't" ... OK ... Limited to what ? Answer ... see above.

If you want it from the horses mouth:

Gov't, of its own volition, is not supposed to have any power to mess with individual liberty. If it wants to make law doing so it is supposed to appeal to "we the people". 50+1 is not enough either. The bar is "overwhelming majority" at least 2/3 rd's.

If "simple majority" mandate was enough there would be no point in putting liberty "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't now would there ?

Law messing with liberty on the basis of simple majority mandate was classified as "tyranny of the Majority" in both classical liberalism and republicanism.

The social contract is based on overwhelming majority - how many think murder should be legal ?

The bar is no different for any other law .. and especially that which messes with individual liberty.
The point of this was to limit the power of Gov't.

Obviously - something has gone terribly wrong. For 200 years, as Gov't is wont to do, Gov't has been trying to get that power back ... and it has succeeded.

 

It's not that those rights can't be taken away (they obviously can as you suggest). But those rights shouldn't be taken away by government or individuals. And any government should be set up so taking away those rights is impossible.

 

I'm with you. But as someone suggested, "natural" rights would suffice for those not inclined to religion.

 

Right. But in a perfect world they shouldn't be taken away and we should fight to the death to avoid having them taken away.

Even if those rights are taken away, we still have a right to those rights. Ugh ... it's getting late.

 

Yeah .. "should" being the operative word. It is now our "Patriotic Duty" to give up individual liberty and the sheep are cowering in fear begging to do so - over a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "walking".

 

Au contraire. You wrote...

Of course those two guys (and many more) have violated natural rights. If you admit that people can have their rights taken away from them, then why bring up those two monsters?

 

Mmmmm yeah, sadly here you're making a straw man. Once again, not advocating a ****ing theocracy