The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

Whether you realize it or not that claim is implicit in (or the premise of) your position/argument. With that in mind, perhaps it's time you reassessed it.

The laws in my country (USA) and most, if not all, republics are constrained by more than just the consent of the community from which government derives its powers. They are also constrained by their constitutions and the rule of law.

As for your refusal to acknowledge the existence of the natural rights inherent in the individual I guess we've made our positions clear to one another and we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm afraid you, like kokomojojo, will have to deal with the fundamental point of the debate namely, the origin of natural rights...

In case you missed it, I opened this debate - I've been dealing with the fundamental point of origins from the opening post forward. We've also dealt with the matter of origins from several different angles, whether we're talking about their origins in the individual, their origins in Roman civil and Medieval Catholic canon law or their origins back all the way to Classical Antiquity.(again, I refer you back to the opening post).

Of course, I have already demonstrated the fundamental flaw in the premise to your position/argument, as I have demonstrated it to others. All rights/powers are inherent in the individual and are conferred to government - government possesses no inherent powers/rights. I could even demonstrate it from a Nominalist* perspective by pointing out that the only thing that exists in fact is the individual, and "society" and "government" are merely abstract constructs/concepts that are clearly incapable of possessing power/rights, much less conferring them to individuals. Pertinent to the subject of this thread, William of Ockham could have pursued that line of argument in Dialogus, too, but both of us have found it unnecessary, if not superfluous, to do so.

Oh, by the way - did I happen to mention that I am exercising one of my inherent natural individual rights at this very moment?



Why, yes - I just did, and look - I'm still exercising it!

I don't know how anything could possibly be more plain...

*Nominalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

No one, including yourself, has refuted my position/argument, and while I haven't had the time and opportunity to read through your lengthy exchanges with koko, I've found Pisa's observations and arguments far more compelling on several levels than your own.

 

cancel

 

OK, three propositions to consider...

Agreed so far. Look at the predatory natural world as objective reality, in which all (non-human) creatures' behaviors are directed by survival instincts. Your last sentence is also correct.

Here we diverge: humans bring something more TO nature than instinct-driven behavior alone, namely, the capacity to conceive of God, justice, and a yearning to travel to other worlds. Yet we exhibit all the characteristics of instinct-driven animals as well.

Inherent but not absolute? See above for an explanation of why 'individual rights' are neither inherent or absolute. ie, animals have neither inherent or absolute natural rights, while humans invent the concept of natural inherent rights to provide a basis for rule of law, in order to free ourselves from the law of the jungle (based on survival instincts in a predatory world).

Addressed above.

I'm proposing something more complex than a simple awareness of justice (by humans), namely the capacity to apprehend the divine, and to create technology which after successive human generations leads to advancing scientific discovery and artistic expression. Such capacities grant us the choice to free ourselves from instinct-directed survival directed behavior alone, to which the animal world is mostly confined. (Dolphins jumping out of water for sheer pleasure is not indicative of the level of thought accessible to humans).

Absolutely! Sometimes it's simply irresistible.....and drives whole societies to insanity, eg, insisting women be dressed in tents in public...

Yet (in my view) science advanced despite the Ptolemy delusion...and political theory advanced despite the 'inherent natural rights' delusion eg the creation of the UNUDHR, ratified in 1948, which is a statement of desirable conditions and outcomes in cohesive human communities, which unfortunately cannot currently be defended BECAUSE of the 'individual natural rights' delusion.

With the above paragraph, the debate reverts to political ideology. I need to establish the basis of "inherent rights" before we can proceed.

[Note: a strong majority of China's 1.4 billion people now take pride in their nation's achievements in the last 3 decades, which they recognize is the result of their government's "socialist" policies; therefore your last sentence is mere political rhetoric].

 

Note: the part of your post relating to 'inherent rights' is covered in post #304; that debate (the topic of the OP) has yet to be decided.
Here I will only correct your economic fallacies.

You said

Explanation:
Your view is that taxation is theft. The mainstream view is that government money is "taxpayer's money" .

Therefore you are saying that government spending is theft, because government spending must be funded by taxpayers, as is repeated ad nauseam in the press.

My comment related to market-determined value as measured by money; value in this sense is hotly debated in economic theory eg the labor theory of value.
In any case your reply is a non sequitur because you adopted a different meaning to the word 'values' (plural), namely, morals, beliefs, etc

er...materials + know how (via education) + labor = wealth.

So where exactly DOES the nation's currency come from? Hint: notice Japan doesn't create US currency, or vice -versa.

Flat earth economics par excellence. While the government's "printing press" can enable government to purchase whatever is for sale (in the nation's currency), that does not mean the printing press could make us all fabulously rich. The limit IS the available resources. [In Zimbabwe, farm output collapsed due to political causes, and the government mistakenly thought an increase in the money supply - to enable purchase of higher priced food - would solve the problem].

Yep, sadly he is indeed just another deluded classical economist.

"In classical economics, Say's law, or the law of markets, is the claim that the production of a product creates demand for another product by providing something of value which can be exchanged for that other product. So, production is the source of demand."

It's so back to front it's laughable. Keynes' dispelled it by pointing to the difference between aggregate demand and effective demand (which depends on people's spending power).

 

Well here is the punch line, notice there is no rebuttal because he knows he already conceded the argument in triplicate! [re: 'right to life']
[emphasis added]

EXCERPT:

The rest is HERE

 

I notice Talon saying he hasn't had time to follow our debate; likewise I haven't had time (until now) to reply to your above post from a couple of days ago, so here is the reply now (to disprove your latest outburst that I have conceded the debate).

You bass your entire hysterical response on my use of quotation marks; I showed there are two accepted usages of quotation marks.

Before that, Dairyair pointed out that the Founders were either hypocritical, or didn't understand the meaning of 'inherent natural rights'.

Pisa joined the debate saying that inherent natural rights are products of human societies and are not inherent in nature, but he is now back-peddling a a rate of knots since he has realized the implications of that proposition.

I have examined Pisa's changing argument in detail in post #304, and look forward to Pisa's reply.

We may be yet able to nail down the "inherent individual natural rights" delusion...we shall see.

But with you I don't hold any such hope; your 2nd outburst above - with 6 exclamation marks no less - shows you are incapable of unbiased examination, hence your desperation to claim I am falsifying my own argument that "...the only "inherent rights"*** are protecting one's own life" (via instincts endowed by nature).

***note the quotation marks there are intended to indicate refutation of the generally accepted understanding of the term, any amount of dissembling on your part not withstanding.

Indeed the existential drama of human life is involved in this debate; and I need not say that any conscious being looking at planet earth from a distance would conclude that human beings are insane.....

Nevertheless I will look at a couple more propositions from your post #299.

Understanding involves conscious thought, by definition.

The 'law of the jungle' is a phrase in common usage which is employed to distinguish between instinct-driven modes of behavior observed among all creatures in nature, compared to human relations which are governed by human-created rule of law.

The so-called 'law of nature' (aka the law of the jungle) - manifested by instinctive survival behavior in all creatures - ie, the term itself, is merely a human construct just as is human-created rule of law in human societies, even while instinct itself is inherent. Spot the difference?

This is the key to understanding the entire debate.

 

Self defense is the rule of law, that is why we have guns and it is legal to carry them in public.

see:
This article is about the concept in Nineteen Eighty-Four. For the distortion of language inspired by this concept, see Doublespeak. For the Akala album, see DoubleThink.

Doublethink is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one's own memories or sense of reality.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

the model did not create the instinct.
observing the instinct created the model
your whole basis is bassackwards
there is no rule of law against survival, except in your 'utopian dreamworld' commie overlord model.

Yes and you failed. Now you argue yourself into even deeper rabbit hole.

As I said if you want to make a claim right to life is a human construct rather than a 'law of nature', oh wait you already admitted that so now you have to prove man created instinct!

 

I said: "I don't claim all power/rights are inherent in government".

In fact I am claiming NO rights are inherent.....in nature OR government.

1. In nature, only instinct is inherent.

2. In government - which is a function humans have brought to nature, and which is in opposition to the 'freedom' of individual creatures living in anarchic, instinct-driven nature - 'rights' are proposed in order to satisfy certain human desires - a point Pisa made during his contribution to the debate (but from which he proceeds erroneously).

Well you are free to adopt that stance. But I will need proof that the concept of "individual natural rights" are anything more than human constructs (quotation marks there are intended to refute, or question the concept, a point Kokomojojo can't grasp, or more likely refuses to accept).

We are dealing with it...but he is lost, obviously...

Well ...you certainly opened a can a worms, and here we are up to page #13......

As for professor Tierney, your foundational source, we have already discovered the experts (in academia) do not agree....

Just restating Tierney?

Have I ever said government possesses inherent rights?*** No...and please don't keep adding powers to rights; powers are different entities. Government certainly possesses power - initially endowed by the community's desire to live by rule of law...law agreed to, or consented by, the majority.

(***If so, it was very sloppy of me, and I doubt you can quote me ever saying it.)

"In metaphysics, nominalism is a philosophical view which denies the existence of universals and abstract objects, but affirms the existence of general or abstract terms and predicates. There are at least two main versions of nominalism"

OMG....."denies the existence of....abstract objects, but affirms the existence of...abstract terms and predicates".
...and there are two main versions of it, no less. No wonder academia ties itself up in knots, when dealing with propositions such as that one...

For my part, I'll continue to believe government actually exists (when it is inplemented by men)....despite the intellectual contortions of Nominalism, which apparently enable you to say:

Ah.. the source of Thatcher's famous dictum: "there is no such thing as society"?

But I have shown government certainly does exist when it is created (!); and clearly possesses powers conferred by the community. As for individuals, they possess unconscious instincts, as well as conscious (and unconscious) desires, regardless of government; and individuals certainly don't need these inherent properties (instinct and desire) to be conferred by government.

??.... you are writing words with a computer, people in China do it too, though the government there is more concerned to maintain a cohesive community, and get on with developing the nation's resources and infrastructure than your nation is ... which is why Biden just this week has been forced to explicitly appeal to Congress for more funds to compete with China...! And yet the Repubs are still denying the need for those funds, not realizing they will be left in China's wake....or more likely, preferring to resort to funding an ever expanding military-industrial complex, to deal with the problem.

If China is smart, they will create a nation with modern green clean infrastructure and high living standards for all, while the US has its roving military on overseas adventures, with crumbling infrastructure and inner city ghettos ("with neighborhoods like war zones") at home, courtesy of the "inherent individual rights" delusion.

Stay tuned, if Pisa replies to #304.

 

So you are claiming instinct is inherent in nature, exhibits NO will to survive is NOT a permanent part of, NOT essential, and NOT a characteristic attribute of the human condition.

Therefore NOT an inherent right?

Humans live in and are part of nature! wtf?

Explain that double talk nonsense you are pedaling!

 

Here you are conflating survival instincts which are automatic in all creatures including humans, with self-defense actions which, while inherent, are managed in different ways in human law depending on the particular government. That's why some governments severely regulate the possession of guns, the inherent instinct for self-defense not withstanding.

Whoa..what exactly does that mean?

Which model are you talking about, given that instinct is inherent in nature?

Again, what exactly does that mean, given instinct is inherent in nature at least since predation appeared on earth, as a means of survival, facing individuals in predator species.

I have never claimed there is "rule of law against survival"; that you think I have done so is a fantasy of your own creation (along with and consequent to your "inherent natural rights" delusion). Deal with that fact quickly... or become irrelevant to the debate,

I have never claimed the desire to live - and stay alive - is a human construct. Spot the difference?

ie, the "law of nature" IS the desire/will to live, driven by survival instincts inherent in animals, and added to by humans with man-created rule of law (which proposes inter alia the right to life, liberty and various other things depending on the particular human society) in order to manage the anarchy of nature.

Addressed above; to conclude where I began:

You are conflating survival instincts which are automatic in all creatures including humans, with self-defense
actions which, while inherent, are managed in different ways in human law, depending on the particular government.

Instinct IS the will to live, as addressed above.

Problem? Humans bring something special to nature, via the cerebral cortex; addressed in my post to Talon.

 

again you agree self defense for survival IS inherent on its own merits, as you just stated, and went on to differentiate it from human law.

How many more times are you going to shoot yourself in the fEEt?



laughable!

 

First thing first: please don't call Pisa a "he" ever again. It makes Pisa sad.

Why predatory?

Not all behaviors are directed by survival instincts.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/animal_instincts

Why do you think that all animals are always automatically and exclusively instinct-driven? Animals display a wide range of emotions, and can even get depressed to the point of ending their own lives.

Birds brought something more to nature than plants, aren't birds natural? Mammals brought something more to nature than fish, aren't mammals natural? We are mammals, aren't we?

I can temporarily pretend that premises I don't agree with are true in order to be able to explore and understand other points of view, so I'm open to a discussion about natural rights in a "humans are not nature" framework, but my own opinion is that everything that exists, including humans, is nature.

Of course animals have natural inherent rights. Look at alpha males in groups of mammals, or the alpha females in groups of hyenas.

What you perceive as a boundary between nature and human is, in my opinion, just a natural consequence of the very natural process of evolution.

Very little is known about the human brain, but it seems like decision-making processes happen in the unconscious mind. So much for conscious free choices, then.

To be clear, I don't say we don't have the ability to choose, just that our choices are not as free as we'd like to believe.

What you propose is not realistic, seeing how our poor brains would be overwhelmed by surges of conscious activity at levels handled so far by the unconscious and primitive mind, like routine activity or immediate responses to changes in environment. You don't take into account the physical limitations and the actual wiring of the brain. Self-awareness has its limits.

Going out on an off topic limb here, I'd like to add that both the "apprehension of the divine", as you call it, and idealistic non-theistic philosophies like Buddhism or Marxism, are in fact attempts to save humanity from its own limitations, albeit in different ways. Humans have spent most of their history yearning for the impossible.

Yep. That's where denying women their natural inherent rights leads to

Other branches of science, yes. Astronomy, not so much.

Most human communities today are not cohesive. Even cohesive human societies are not cohesive between them. One law for all can't work.

Let's forget "inherent" for a moment and concentrate on "inevitable". Individual human rights are inevitable, though the actual rights can vary greatly from one society to another, because societies can't function properly if individuals can't function properly. Individuals who can never fulfill at least basic desires will not function properly.

[Note to Note: China's greatest achievement was opening up to foreign investments. China is riding on the back of advanced societies, those that are upholding individual natural inherent rights. So there]

 

You will have to ask God...I don't know why biological life on this planet is based on survival of the fittest, evolutionary processes, including predation both within and between species. And humans were not always at the top of the food-chain.

But I can see this is a point of departure in our exploration of the OP's topic: origin of the idea of natural rights.

Note: even the OP contains a clue; we are examining an idea, not a reality....hmm, perhaps that explains the tortuous concept of Nominalism: which "denies the existence of....abstract objects, but affirms the existence of...abstract terms and predicates".

Of course, like sheep wandering freely and grazing in green pastures (I can hear that lovely music by Bach: sheep may safely graze)
But a good number of those sheep will be dead the next morning - courtesy of the local predators - unless the shepherd takes care of them.

What I DO think is the survival instinct, manifesting as the will to live within a predatory world, is inherent.

yes...but humans are the first species on the planet to bring BOTH an awareness of the divine AND the capacity to think, act and create, as a consequence of that awareness, independently of instinct. Other creatures are restricted to observing and experiencing life, when they are not preying on, or being preyed on - which is instinct driven behavior (to stay alive). [I recall a conjecture re the horror of the lives of predators, eg, the big cats, who have to kill in passion and exertion, while beholding the agony and screams of their prey, in order to stay alive].

Addressed above: more accurately, humans are children of nature, BUT with the capacity to transcend nature.
[I saw a veganism rally yesterday, claiming meat-eating is the reason for the pandemics which will increasingly ravage our world as we encroach more and more on the natural world, to grow meat. David Attenborough warns of the destruction of the planet's biodiversity that is happening both through land clearing and instensive farming of animals].

Note my underlined. Alpha behavior is an instinctive element of procreation in species, designed to enhance superior gene propagation.

I note you have now completely reversed your original proposition (from when you first entered the debate): namely:
"inherent natural rights are products of human societies and are not inherent in nature".

Of course, you are entitled to change your mind; as Keynes famously said; "when the facts change, I change my mind".....but in this case the facts haven't changed, as examined above (and following).

I have been at pains to show - rather than positing a "boundary" between animals and humans - in fact humans are the first species with the capacity to transcend nature, as I have already examined in detail above, to repeat; humans possess "BOTH an awareness of the divine AND the capacity to think, act and create, as a consequence of that awareness, independently of instinct"

The debate about free will versus determinism is unresolved; nevertheless, eg, a community can decide to stick with a Marxist government if it proves capable of raising living standards faster than any government in history....and I can consciously decide to support that choice. Whether such choices are "free" or not, is like arguing about how many angels can stand on the the head of a needle - which apparently exercised debates among churchmen in the middle ages....

Agreed.

Addressed above. Capacity for awareness of the divine AND the ability to act/create, based on that awareness - a species-wide capacity (of homo sapiens) is the important thing which distinguishes us from the animals. What we ARE limited in, is the capacity to understand the divine ("God") ie we can't really understand an infinite universe, or the existence of a creator God who "caused" the big bang...

You are not "going out on a limb"; what we are discussing is essential for an examination of...the IDEA...of "inherent natural rights". (Note for kokomojojo: both of the accepted uses of quotation marks are shown in that sentence...).

As for what is "impossible", that has obviously changed through the centuries...

Thanks for the chuckle....but, I think your earlier analysis of the topic of the OP was more correct when you spoke of human desires, as opposed to "inherent rights".

Your last sentence there is foggy. Rule of law is what it is; of course some individuals will ignore the law or choose to become criminal (the debate re free will vs. determinism not withstanding).

...well, the topic of the OP is the (origin of) the idea of "inherent rights"...but I'll play:

Note my underlined.....you mean like the individuals subject to systemic disadvantage, as in "You are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones, your schools and hospitals are broken..." : Trump's own observations re life in the US inner-city ghettos.

The remainder of the post is off topic, but I will keep it brief..

We are all "standing on the shoulders of giants" who lived in the past:

"In a letter to Robert Hooke in 1675, Isaac Newton made his most famous statement: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”. This statement is now often used to symbolize scientific progress. Robert Merton examined the origin of this metaphor in his On the Shoulders of Giants(Merton, 1965)."

China invented paper, block and movable-type printing, and the compass, obviously all part of the chain in the history of scientific discovery.

Of course Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian and Islamic science were overtaken by European science, as empires rose and fell; and back to today, the US prohibited Chinese (but not Russian!) participation in the ISS, forcing China to build its own - which may well be the ONLY space station in operation when the ISS is decommissioned in the middle of the decade.

 

Not "on its own merits"; survival instincts, and the will to survive, are nature's inherent basic mechanisms for supporting biological life. Nothing to do with the "merits" of self defense, as proved by the fact that some governments ban the ownership of guns (and demonstrably have safer communities as a result of such bans).

See above; self-defense is a manifestation of nature's inherent survival instincts and is automatic, whereas the 2nd amendment is human law, which is now anachronistic (since the US is no longer a frontier society, and has its own standing military) and should be repealed because of its direct harm to the community.

 

[/QUOTE]
Yes and his marxist socialism has been thoroughly debunked and take note he has abandoned all but one of his theories in argument, and the one he hopelessly clings to he already conceded by his own contradictions.

 

Just because the title opens the door for debate using the word 'idea' hardly means that in substance it in fact is just an idea.

you dont know what merits means?

Clearly you dont here you are proving yourself wrong again.

nonsequitur fallacy

So when are you going to aim higher?
Clearly you dont remotely understand the meaning of the words you are using.

You mean the UK is no longer frontier this country has a constant flow of immigrants, you dont.

There you go,

THIRD COUNT OF FALSIFYING THE EVIDENCE

This bait and switch operation completely explained and detailed in my post http://www.politicalforum.com/index...natural-rights.586793/page-12#post-1072599864
There is NO double quotes and even if there were its meaningless the way you wrote it.

 

True...though it does mean the debate IS open....and I will show that "inherent natural rights" is an idea rather than a substance, or objective reality.

I know that survival instincts - and the will to live - are inherent, regardless of their "merit" according to any human observer.
I know any action of self defense in animals is largely automatic, unconscious, and instinctive.
I know that humans can consciously choose methods of self-defense, even though the impulse to self defense is inherent and instinctive.
I know that survival instincts, the will to live, and the impulse to self-defense, are not "rights" that need to be stated in a legal code in order to exist, because they are natural conditions of biological nature, just as gravity is a natural condition of physics.

Next, I contend men have created "rights" because they desire to be free from (social and economic) oppression by other individuals or groups.

eg, consider the "right" to life and liberty.

While the will to live is inherent, life and liberty (the natural condition of all creatures until confronted by a predator or a famine) are incompatible with systemic social and economic disadvantage, eg, in a rigid class structure, or systemic unemployment - which is the systemic denial of above-poverty participation in the nation's economic development.

[Hence the ongoing search for a system of government that can eliminate entrenched class structure and unemployment].

You need to show WHY I am wrong.

You brought up the ridiculous notion that self-defense necessitates the legal "right" to own a gun.

You need to specify HOW I am failing to understand the meaning of words. Here it is again:

"self-defense is a manifestation of nature's inherent survival instincts and is automatic,"

Perhaps better stated as:

"self-defense, ie, in the action (but not in the form eg, whether by fists or guns, etc) is a manifestation of nature's inherent survival instincts and will to live, and is automatic,"

[But Jesus said "turn the other cheek", was he mad?]

The frontier was the land stolen from the native inhabitants; the British were an additional problem. But now there is no frontier and the US has a standing military.

"Inherent rights" signifies the words inside the quotation marks are an idea, not a substance (in my estimation) because I chose that particular accepted usage - one of at least two accepted usages of quotation marks.
Now you have to actually attempt to refute the two items I specified above, before claiming the "THIRD COUNT OF FALSIFYING THE EVIDENCE".

 

@a better world you believe in god? Are you Christian?

 

Modern eineeweenee believers believe in t he backwards if not insane belief that the model creates the condition!

Blood is intrinsic to the human condition, it isnt 'created' [by man], and it does not lose its intrinsic status just because 'man labeled it' blood.

Political legalization of inherent nature of man.

corruption is also an inherent nature of man.

Not when it is something someone else aleady said, then it indicates you are quoting a point made from another source without a stipulation, and you made no stipulation in the 'original' quote under contention. You continue to try to cheat and reference posts made 15 posts later to cya for the mistake.
STRIKE 5, want to try for 6?

Like I said you have no clue how to apply these words to the subject under discussion. Its truly the height of foolishness to claim its both intrinsic and nothing more than a construct at the same time.

 

LOLZ

 

Do I "believe" in God? (Forget the "Christian" bit, which is irrelevant; the institutional Church has scant relationship to the teachings of Jesus Christ, a fact which explains the blood-soaked history of the Church).

My subjective experience of the world is hardly relevant to a discussion about the objective reality of inherent natural rights.

As to belief - in distinction to experience open to us all: the poet Wordsworth put it this way:

"I wandered lonely as a cloud; the sounding cataracts haunted me like a passion"......

Powerful words, suggesting a glimpse of an infinite universe with a divine creator, perhaps...

 

The objective reality of nature exists, namely, biological life which is part of a 'global' (universal) food chain directed by survival instincts possessed by all creatures.

Nothing to do with "the model creates the condition"...though YOUR delusional model of "inherent natural rights" certainly explains your attachment to the self-defeating and anachronistic 2nd amendment....

Quite so, and your erroneous conclusion is........that our 'tooth and claw' natural world requires invention of fictitious "natural rights", in order to be able to, or before we can, defend ourselves from our neighbors?

And will you dare to expand on the "inherent nature of Man"?

What a chimera is Man! What a novelty, a monster, a chaos, a contradiction, a prodigy! Judge of all things, an imbecile worm; depository of truth, and sewer of error and doubt; the glory and refuse of the universe.” ― Blaise Pascal, Pensées.

Courtesy of the evolved combined reptilian, mammalian and cortex brains....

Yes, Pascal was aware of that....

...please can I put your words in quotation marks to indicate your words are nonsense...

guess what, YOU don't get to say whether I can do that or not, because it is accepted practice in english usage.

Which is your response to this:

"self-defense, ie, in the action (but not in the form eg, whether by fists or guns, etc) is a manifestation of nature's inherent survival instincts and will to live, and is automatic," (ie when self-defense is necessary, whereas the will to live is an eternal constant).

I am establishing objective reality, as a first step in examining the idea of "inherent rights".

I have distinguished between the idea of self-defense as a "right", and self-defense as a natural manifestation of inherent survival instincts, and the inherent will to live.

Nowhere have I claimed instinct is a construct, only that the idea of inherent rights is a construct.

You first have to show how or where the application of words (in my bolded sentence above, including the additional explanatory words) is wrong, rather than merely stating it is wrong.

 

thats where this is at, I have already explained this several times, if you want the explanations go back and look up all the words I used that you are simply ignoring the meanings, in pretense I did not rebut the craziness you posted.

well then why didnt you say you were using 'funnel' logic, of course, with a big enough funnel ALL/ANY CONSCIOUS THOUGHT is a 'construct'.

You finally figured out a way to cya, congratulations!

 

You have yet to show whee this construct is wrong:

"self-defense, ie, in the action (but not in the form eg, whether by fists or guns, etc) is a manifestation of nature's inherent survival instincts and will to live, and is automatic," (ie when self-defense is necessary, whereas the will to live is an eternal constant).

Don't need a funnel: the CONTENT of any particular conscious thought by individuals IS constructed, only the capacity to indulge in abstract thought is inherent.

That's one reason you and I are disagreeing.....meanwhile the will to live remains inherent in both of us, just as it does in all creatures.... regardless of our human disagreements over 'constructs' resulting from our exercise of the capacity for abstract thought.