I can see why LHOD would prefer not to be a part of this kind of conversation.
Rights are ideas. I have an idea that people should be able to worship how they want. I have an idea that people should be able to speak their minds without government censorship. These aren’t things with a concrete existence, like a planet, or DNA. I can’t hand you a bag containing twelve ounces of freedom of conscience. Rights only exist because we think they exist. But you’ve been insistent that rights existed before anyone could think of them - they exist, apparently, independent of the human species as a whole. So while you’ve explicitly distanced your position from anything religious, I can’t really see any way to make sense of it outside of an essentially supernatural context.
Exapno Mapcase, do you realize that all logic is necessarily rooted in axioms?
You can’t have rationalism without logic, and you can’t have rational morality without moral axioms.
~Max
There are four of us by my count that recognize that in this thread.
Yes you can. But your definition of “rational” (and perhaps even “morality”) might differ from mine, and others.
Platonism doesn’t necessarily mean things exist in a supernatural context. Think about numbers as they describe the relationship between material objects. Two planets is more than one planet. Before humans ever existed to recognize that two planets is more than one planet, two planets was still more than one planet. The concept of “more than” is still valid and does not depend on human recognition. That is the sense in which an abstract concept is said to “exist” eternally.
As applied to humans and rights, science tells us that there was a time before humans existed to which rights could be applied. Can human rights possibly exist at a time that humans do not exist? This results in two schools of thought: yes or no. To say platonic human rights cease to exist when humans cease to exist is trivial. The other answer is that yes, human rights and all other abstract concepts really do exist in some supernatural realm.
~Max
No. You have to agree to have a common language with rational morality. It’s like trying to do math where some people choose to interpret 3 as 21.6 and insist that they must be treated equivalently.
Rational as in rationalism as in logical deduction from premises.
~Max
What we consider as natural human rights did not and do not exist for most of humanity. You can test your hypothesis by traveling to many parts of the current world and see how powerful the concept actually is. That’s a ridiculous poor standard for something that is universal and transcendent.
We may be talking past each other. I’m saying that it’s entirely rational to think, say, “hurting people is wrong” because one thinks that this idea, accepted by all, would result in a better life for one’s self and others. That doesn’t require a “moral axiom”, unless “good things are good and bad things are bad” is a moral axiom.
Reduced enough, there are many arguments that rely on first principles. But here’s the thing, you assert that the origin controls the validity - but that’s not so. Because natural rights are intertwined in the country’s founding, and integrated through much of the legal jurisprudence, the origin of those rights has no impact to their validity. For the purposes of the US, there are natural rights, and they control in some areas. The origin is irrelevant to that.
From a conceptual standpoint, the existence of natural rights is a philosophical question. And like I said, I think it’s interesting. But from a legal standpoint, it makes no difference because that is the way our country is setup. Even if we were to agree that there are no natural rights from a philosophical perspective, they would still exist as a matter of law.
One way that I think of it is that if there were no natural rights, or human rights, then there could be no violation of those rights. Then dictators who commit genocide are not actually violating anyone’s rights, etc. I don’t accept that because it doesn’t comport with my view of how human rights work. Do these victims of genocide have enforceable human rights? No, not really since they’re dead. But they had those rights, and they were violated. And ultimately, it doesn’t make a whit of difference for those people.
Where it does matter is in our system of laws and to that point, the fact that these natural rights are incorporated into our system of laws is sufficient for me, independent of their origin.
[Max buries his face in his palm.]
Anyways, are we all agreed that Constitutional rights (those natural rights which the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting) apply to all people within the jurisdiction of the United States?
And that armed and uniformed masses of invaders are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
~Max
Fine, let’s look at post #49.
You state explicitly that inalienable rights exist and that they exist for all humans. My direct question to you and others has always been: “where do these inalienable rights” come from? They manifestly do not come from individuals discussing with one another what rights they should possess. Those are legal rights that may or may not exist, change, grow, become obsolete, etc. I say that those legal rights are all that exist. Any larger body of inalienable rights that are universal is simply imaginary, a feel-good tale we tell ourselves, not unlike religion. Nothing in your posts provides any evidence that they are anything else.
This is an absolutely fundamental difference, not merely one of semantics. It is as fundamental as religion vs. atheism.
[ol][li]What does not result in a better life for one’s self and others is wrong.[/li][li](Hurting people does not result in a better life for one’s self and others.)[/li][li]Therefore, hurting people is wrong. Q.E.D.[/ol][/li]In strict deductive logic, both of those premises (1 & 2) are axioms until you support them with deductive arguments.
~Max
Okay, I see what you’re saying. But it doesn’t need to be a supernatural (or “natural”) axiom to be “rational”.
A rational argument or conclusion is what you get when you apply logic to axioms. The set of axioms is not provable by definition.
Did you look at the part beginning with “very crudely”? It was very crude, so if it’s not making sense, lemme know–but that’s the crux of my argument there, the non-supernatural basis for turning “is” into “should,” a system that may be described fairly elegantly with rights, but may also be described with preference utilitarianism or other systems.
This is interesting.
If the US passed an Amendment that said “The right to bear arms is NOT a natural right”, you’d then feel “Huh, I guess the right to bear arms is NOT a natural right”?
The problem is, the part beginning with “very crudely” entirely misses the problem people are expressing with the concept of “natural” rights. There’s no part of what you wrote there that I disagree with, except the part where you think its relevant to the discussion.
You can declare it’s not relevant to the discussion, but that doesn’t move the discussion forward.
Rights are statements about what you should or should not do regarding other people. I explained how “should” statements derive from self-reflection, from the definitions of desire, and from logical extrapolation from one’s own desires to those of others. Where are you seeing the irrelevancy?