What is the true source of rights?

You would defend yourself whether you are entitled to or not?

How could that happen unless you feel you have a right to defend yourself?

 

I see a lack of evidence for their position. If I have missed something then please point me to it. Until then I won't accept their beliefs as fact.

 

I suppose that it may depend upon one's understanding of natural rights.

My understanding of the term is that we are all born with the natural right to be free of government intrusion--entirely.

And I agree with that.

Do you have a different understanding of the term?

 

All we are born with is our life. Everything else us fought for, one way or another. With no guarantee.

 

I am confused. You never present a scrap of evidence that objective rights even exist and all you have is that the founders believed in it and since they believed it, it must be true. Then I refuted you and pointed out that the founders while intelligent people who did some great things, are still just people and can be wrong on philosophy like the rest of us, and we shouldn't believe them on blind faith without rational justification. Now you are talking about the definition of the term "natural rights" and want to know whether I define the term differently. What I want is some actual evidence that natural right exist. I really don't care how you define your terms as long as you back them up with actual evidence. You are the one making them claim so the burden of proof is on you to back it up. Without this evidence then I have no choice but to not believe your claim and to point out that there is no good reason to believe it.

 

Then my thoughts could possibly be due to a feeling of having a "right". Though I believe it would simply be because I want self preservation. I don't need to feel I have an externally given right. Maybe not the best example, but say for instance if two people wanted to race their cars on a public street with lots of traffic. If they had a legal right to do so, it would not matter. They would likely race eachother even if it was illegal because they simply desire to do so. My desire for self-defense is similar in this way.

 

I think ESTT is right about this one. We often do things out of a feeling of entitlement to rights but that doesn't mean we are objectively entitled to anything. And many times we do things out of a sense of selfishness and self-preservation not entitlement to rights.

 

Bogus. Is the Clown Loach sea anemone relationship NOT a god given right?

Man is a social animal. NO animal that groups, has your artificial boundaries. And man has always grouped, and exiled the Trump voter type. Honestly, I don't understand how they reproduced fast enough to replace those boiled in oil.

 

I'm sorry. You are dissembling. Two people racing cars has not congruency with your right for self-defense. Rights are not *wants*. "Wants" are entitlements.

 

I'm sorry, this is just more dissembling. Self-preservation is directly related to the right of self-defense. If you had no drive for self-preservation then you would have no need to defend yourself. You would just stand there and let the predators eat you.

Rights are not entitlements. An entitlement is something given to you from outside. A right originates from the inside.

 

Deleted

 

I simply see no reason to believe that. You can do something without believing that there is an objective right to that thing.

People can work for self-preservation without believing in rights so this point is moot.

I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sounds the same to me. Can you show me a dictionary that has this outside, inside differentiation?

 

Would you murder someone for no reason? Would you do so simply because you can?

You keep avoiding the *true* issue. Why would you believe in self-preservation if you can't defend yourself? What would the belief in self-preservation mean if you didn't have the right to defend yourself?

Again, a right is something you get by being a human, a sovereign individual. An entitlement is something another person gives you.

If you believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is something others have to give you then you must also feel you have a *right* to enslave others in order to make them give these to you! Otherwise the entitlement is meaningless, what man gives, man can take away. And if man can take it away then it isn't a right! It is an entitlement.

 

If I was a killer I would do so out of self-interest. No morality involved.

I don't do things because I think I have a right to them but because those things benefit my self-interest and nobody is going to stop me. When i used to shop-lift gum from the local Shell gas station as a teenager I didn't do so because I believed I had a right to it but because I wanted it and I wasn't going to get caught (hopefully). I drive over to dairy queen to eat my cookie dough blizzard not because there is an objective right coded in the fabric of the universe that Distraff has a right to cookie dough blizzards but because its tasty and I am able to get it.

No, "entitlement" has several definitions.
1. the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something.
2. the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)
3. a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

You are talking about definition #2 but an entitlement can be defined as an exactly a right as defined in #1.

 

Why would you be a killer in the first place?

I think I read a quote like this in Mein Kampf!

Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say:

entitlement:
a :the state or condition of being entitled :right
:a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2:a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also :funds supporting or distributed by such a program
:belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

entitle:
:to give a title to :designate
2:to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something

• this ticket entitles the bearer to free admission

An entitlement is not an individual, natural right. The definition of "entitle" says "furnish" and "give", meaning not inherent but something received from someone.

You can try to cloud the issue all you want. An entitlement is something you can only exercise by putting a burden on someone else. A right is something you can exercise yourself without putting a burden on someone else.

The minute you think you have a right to burden someone else in order to meet your desires you have just justified slavery to yourself!

 

You were asked about a scenario where I killed someone. Personally I'd avoid killing as much as possible and only do it if my life was in danger.

Provide the quote. And trying to equate other people's positions to Hitler is the oldest fallacy in the book. Do you know who else wanted to increase military spending? HITLER! Do you know who else tried to stimulate the economy after a recession? HITLER! Do you know who else tried to make a civic organization for youths? HILTER! Now they are trying to equate Donald Trump to Hitler, and you are trying to equate self-interest to Hitler. Ridiculous.

Ok I won't use the word "entitlement" and will use "right" instead. You have yet to show that rights objectively exist by the way. But interesting conversion though.

 

I'm confused. Are you saying I would only defend myself because I feel I have externally granted authorization to do so? I think it is possible for it to simply be in my own self interest.

 

No, that is what *you* are saying. If rights are not inherent then they must be given in order for you to have rights. If rights are inherent then they are natural rights.

Again, is killing someone just to kill them in your self-interest?

 

Wikipedia has the following to say about natural rights:

"The concept of natural law is related to the concept of natural rights. Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy, and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was subsequently alluded to in the Bible, and was then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism."

I do hope that helps.

 

Thanks for being my personal Google. Can you get me the definition of "irrelevant" for me and post it here for me? Thanks in advance.

And while you are at it can you show that objective morality is real rather than just copy and pasting definitions from Wikipedia? If not can you post the definition of "aggravating" for me? Thanks again. ;D

 

You asked, and I supplied.

Sorry that you seem disappointed...

 

So you think that giving the definition of something proves that its true?

 

No, I wouldn't see the point of killing someone I didn't see as an emotional or physical threat. Even then, the circumstances I find myself in would make for unfavorable consequences. But back to your question, killing someone simply for the sake of doing so wouldn't be in my self-interest.

 

Thank you Distraff, you helped clarify everything I meant to say.

 

He gave you free will, therefore, you can choose to except him, or reject him! I would remind everyone that Jesus said "the road to hell is wide and many will find it, the road to heaven is narrow and few will find it."