Topic: Prove to me objective "rights" exist. - page 4. (Read 9639 times)

There is one huge difference.

People in 1012 saw the same green that we do.  We know this from their literature.

They didn't see the same natural rights that we do.  Their natural rights included the right to own slaves.

So the use of colour analogy doesn't work.

We sense what is wrong or right, without laws. Agreed. And I see how you're analogizing psychopaths to color blind people. Agreed. I would say that evolution has evolved us that way.

But there is a difference in evolution evolving us to behave a certain way vs. evolution evolving us to sense something that was already there in the first place (wavelengths of photons).

You can alter your behavior and deviate from the norm regardless of what you see, but the colors associated with a wavelength cannot be altered. Behavior does not have to follow what you consider natural laws governing behavior. But the spectrum of light must follow how light works.

Let's go back a few hundred years. We didn't know the physical nature of color. But we had color vision. We could distinguish objects reliably based on their color. And we could guess that it was something about the light coming from those objects, but that was about it. In that context, it would certainly be rational to believe that colors actually exist as properties of the real world, right?

But what would count as a testable experiment to prove the existence of colors? Remember, at the time, there was nothing other than human vision that could measure them. And we had no idea what green actually was, other than that people said grass looked green to them.

The situation with natural rights is currently about the same as it was then for color. So what would have convinced you back then that colors actually exist?

If you want, you can assume that you lack color vision. Because even though you don't lack the ability to sense natural rights, you will probably stubbornly insist that you cannot sense them and the fact that almost everyone else agrees that torturing children for pleasure is wrong is just a mysterious coincidence. All I can say to that is what I would say to the person who insists a green cube and a red cube look the same -- you are either lying or you lack a sense the rest of us have.

You are confusing context. Newton's law of gravity fails and is not a natural law. It's a law that works within a context. Einstein's General Relativity is more general.

If you look at crime statistics, you'll see how often your idea of natural laws fail.

That's news to me.  Do you have a source for this?

Nonsense.  The second law of thermodynamics is not followed one hundred percent, yet it still exists.  Same goes for Newton's gravity.

In order for something to be a crime, it has to be illegal. In order for it to be illegal, a set of laws must be written. This is unlike natural laws, where the laws need not be written for the laws to be followed.

Natural laws are followed one hundred percent, or the natural law does not exist.

Crime exists because the laws are not followed one hundred percent. Hence, it is only a law declared by humanity, rather than a natural law.

Look, crime exists.  That doesn't invalidate all legal theory.

Elaborate further on this otherwise I don't know how to answer.

So you're saying:

1. Slavery didn't exist.
2. Slavery then existed.
3. Slavery now doesn't exist.

I don't follow. That's like saying:

1. Light didn't exceed the speed of c.
2. Light then exceeded the speed of c.
3. Light now doesn't exceed the speed of c.

Therefore, light cannot exceed the speed of c.

This can easily be done for natural rights, but first we have to agree on what constitutes a testable theory. For example, before we understood the physical natural of color, what would you consider a testable theory for the existence of color and the ability of human beings to distinguish things on the basis of color? Or would you argue that it was irrational and unscientific to argue that colors exist and that humans had color vision until we understood the physical nature of color?

Well the obvious testable prediction is that slavery is not a natural right.  The observable evidence is that slavery did not exist in pre-neolithic, hunter-gatherer societies.  It arose along with the growth of agricultural civilization.  And it has since waned with the end of growth and the decreasing relevance of human labor.

The evidence is right there in front of your face.

Let me repeat myself just so I make myself clear.

Natural laws are the laws of the Universe. They exist as theories. Theories make predictions and are then validated through testing. This continues for the life of the theory. Show us your testable theory.

If you don't have a theory, then what you have is something declared by a body of people. An example is a constitution. Constitutions are man made laws.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Natural laws are the laws of the Universe. They exist as theories. Theories make predictions and are then validated through testing. This continues for the life of the theory. Show us your testable theory.

If you don't have a theory, then what you have is something declared by a body of people. An example is a constitution. Constitutions are man made laws.

That's isn't true.  In fact, I don't know of any ancient society of which you could assert that.  Can you point to one?

In fact, I can say categorically that English slavery and Biblical slavery were based within their own societies.

You have to accept, your natural law included a right to own slaves.

Anyone who wishes to benefit from them. For example, slaves.

Newton didn't declare gravity. He proposed a theory which makes testable predictions.

I'm still waiting for your theory which makes predictions which can be tested.

Quote from Wikipedia:


Egalitarianism is:

1. A trend of thought. That does not make it objective.
2. Is either a political doctrine or a social philosophy which advocates... Again, that does not make it objective.

Honestly, it kind of sounds like you would argue that gravity didn't exist before Isaac Newton "declared" it.

Is there some other point to this line of reasoning?  For whose benefit does the concept of natural rights need to be "declared"?

Ahhh. NAP! How is it that NAP exists without it being declared? And again, what are the requirements for something to be declared?