Topic: Prove to me objective "rights" exist. - page 5. (Read 9591 times)
Natural rights are derived from egalitarianism and the non-aggression principle, but ultimately all that is required is the latter.
Natural rights are superior to law, and laws are subject to them.
Actually, natural rights don't exist. What is a "right" anyway, outside the context of a "right" being declared? What are the requirements for something to be "declared"?
Most societies accepted slavery of those outside of their societies. Typically this went along with the belief that outsiders were somehow less than human. Slavery was never generally held as a universal human right.
It's not a competition, Hawker.
Rights are not a "subsection" of laws. You appear to be thinking of privileges, though these are often incorrectly termed legal "rights" for somewhat obvious reasons.
Natural rights are superior to law, and laws are subject to them. Your right to life is only contingent upon respecting the rights of others.
Laws, including the subsection of laws that are called rights, are government made and can be changed and taken away at any time. For example, break the wrong law and they can hang you as your right to life is contingent on obeying that law.
Rights are not a "subsection" of laws. You appear to be thinking of privileges, though these are often incorrectly termed legal "rights" for somewhat obvious reasons.
Natural rights are superior to law, and laws are subject to them. Your right to life is only contingent upon respecting the rights of others.
My question was "Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?"
And my answer was,
No
But you seem like kind of an idiot, so I can see how you might have missed that.
I did - I guess you feel like a winner for spotting that. Gratz.
Your answer raises the same question in a different wording. What is it about man's relation to man that abhors slavery for the last 300 years but approved of it for 10s of 1000s of years.
My question was "Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?"
And my answer was,
No
But you seem like kind of an idiot, so I can see how you might have missed that.
If your argument is that slavery was OK for biblical law but not for natural law, how come humanity has existed for 10s of 1000s of years, only in the last 300 has the idea that its bad to own a slave been become current. It used be the natural order of things that men could be bought and sold.
This is called selection bias. You are selectively citing the written legal codes of ancient societies large enough to have developed such a thing, while ignoring the ones that didn't.
Can you think of a reason why societies that tolerated slavery might have been more likely to have developed written legal codes?
All societies treated slavery as normal until 300 years ago. So any society that developed writing prior to 300 years ago would of course have "tolerated" slavery much the same way they "tolerated" sex. It was normal - the variations were only in the rules that surrounded it.
What, now we have legal rights, moral rights and ethical rights?
Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?
Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?
No, moral "rights" and legal "rights" are the same thing, since they are not based on reason or objective truth but on the values, or "mores" of a particular culture. Ethical rights are the same as natural rights, which are independently derived from man's relation to man.
The bible is orthogonal to the concept of objective rights -- just yet another bloated, inconsistent legal code for a long-dead society. You might as well be quoting Napoleonic code or the code of Hammurabi.
My question was "Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?"
If your argument is that slavery was OK for biblical law but not for natural law, how come humanity has existed for 10s of 1000s of years, only in the last 300 has the idea that its bad to own a slave been become current. It used be the natural order of things that men could be bought and sold.
This is called selection bias. You are selectively citing the written legal codes of ancient societies large enough to have developed such a thing, while ignoring the ones that didn't.
Can you think of a reason why societies that tolerated slavery might have been more likely to have developed written legal codes?
What, now we have legal rights, moral rights and ethical rights?
Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?
Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?
No, moral "rights" and legal "rights" are the same thing, since they are not based on reason or objective truth but on the values, or "mores" of a particular culture. Ethical rights are the same as natural rights, which are independently derived from man's relation to man.
The bible is orthogonal to the concept of objective rights -- just yet another bloated, inconsistent legal code for a long-dead society. You might as well be quoting Napoleonic code or the code of Hammurabi.
Um, slavery certainly was a moral right. Read the bible.
You're right, I should have said "ethically".
What, now we have legal rights, moral rights and ethical rights?
Surely moral rights and ethical rights are the same thing?
Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).
Anything that would necessarily be able to do the impossible must necessarily *be* impossible. Um, slavery certainly was a moral right. Read the bible.
You're right, I should have said "ethically".
This devolving into theology is the last thing I wanted.
"Can God move an immoveable object?"
This is an easy question with an easy answer.
If one defines God as "omnipotent," then obviously yes, God can move an immoveable object.
I've heard the question phrased differently:
"Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"
Also an easy question with an easy answer; yes.
"But if he creates the rock and can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent! And if he can't create the rock, he's still not omnipotent!"
Clearly, whoever asked this question to begin with doesn't know what omnipotent means. Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).
Easy peazy.
This is an easy question with an easy answer.
If one defines God as "omnipotent," then obviously yes, God can move an immoveable object.
I've heard the question phrased differently:
"Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"
Also an easy question with an easy answer; yes.
"But if he creates the rock and can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent! And if he can't create the rock, he's still not omnipotent!"
Clearly, whoever asked this question to begin with doesn't know what omnipotent means. Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).
Easy peazy.
think of it more like a koan
And here I've been, spending hours flapping my wrist in the air and drawing conclusions.
"Can God move an immoveable object?"
This is an easy question with an easy answer.
If one defines God as "omnipotent," then obviously yes, God can move an immoveable object.
I've heard the question phrased differently:
"Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"
Also an easy question with an easy answer; yes.
"But if he creates the rock and can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent! And if he can't create the rock, he's still not omnipotent!"
Clearly, whoever asked this question to begin with doesn't know what omnipotent means. Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).
Easy peazy.
This is an easy question with an easy answer.
If one defines God as "omnipotent," then obviously yes, God can move an immoveable object.
I've heard the question phrased differently:
"Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"
Also an easy question with an easy answer; yes.
"But if he creates the rock and can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent! And if he can't create the rock, he's still not omnipotent!"
Clearly, whoever asked this question to begin with doesn't know what omnipotent means. Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).
Easy peazy.
think of it more like a koan
Immovable object = Object that cannot be moved
It's not an argument so much as a question. I am trying to discover if you can reason about abstract concepts or will just repeat platitudes.
It's not an argument so much as a question. I am trying to discover if you can reason about abstract concepts or will just repeat platitudes.
You are not thinking correctly or deep enough. Throughout history, there have been many feats that have been deemed impossible--which are now possible. Immovable objects are no different. What was once considered immovable is now movable; what is now considered immovable may soon be movable. If you start with the premise that God is the author of life and the creator of the universe, it does not stand to reason that he cannot move a so called immovable object.
But I would like to ask you a question--do you believe in prophecy?
I don't think that is really your first premise. At least these three points must come first:
1) I exist
2) The universe exists
3) Other things like me (that move around and grow and such) that I will call "life" exist
The word belief/believe has a different meaning for you than it does for me. We should avoid it. I have never come across a scenario for which prophecy was the most plausible explanation for what I observed.
"Can God move an immoveable object?"
This is an easy question with an easy answer.
If one defines God as "omnipotent," then obviously yes, God can move an immoveable object.
I've heard the question phrased differently:
"Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"
Also an easy question with an easy answer; yes.
"But if he creates the rock and can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent! And if he can't create the rock, he's still not omnipotent!"
Clearly, whoever asked this question to begin with doesn't know what omnipotent means. Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).
Easy peazy.
This is an easy question with an easy answer.
If one defines God as "omnipotent," then obviously yes, God can move an immoveable object.
I've heard the question phrased differently:
"Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"
Also an easy question with an easy answer; yes.
"But if he creates the rock and can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent! And if he can't create the rock, he's still not omnipotent!"
Clearly, whoever asked this question to begin with doesn't know what omnipotent means. Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).
Easy peazy.
Immovable object = Object that cannot be moved
It's not an argument so much as a question. I am trying to discover if you can reason about abstract concepts or will just repeat platitudes.
It's not an argument so much as a question. I am trying to discover if you can reason about abstract concepts or will just repeat platitudes.
You are not thinking correctly or deep enough. Throughout history, there have been many feats that have been deemed impossible--which are now possible. Immovable objects are no different. What was once considered immovable is now movable; what is now considered immovable may soon be movable. If you start with the premise that God is the author of life and the creator of the universe, it does not stand to reason that he cannot move a so called immovable object.
But I would like to ask you a question--do you believe in prophecy?
Jump to: