No, I argue that natural rights are outdated in the sense that bleeding people as a cure for the plague is outdated. It's not that people have changed that makes these outdated, it's that it was never a good idea to begin with, which has been acknowledged by philosophers the world over for quite some time now.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Natural rights rely on human nature and behavior.

Advances in medical technology do not.

Try again.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Good point, except that natural rights don't rely on human nature and behavior. The whole idea was that natural law transcends humanity, and then dictates to us how we should behave. For instance, according to Natural Law, everybody has an inherent, self-evident right to liberty. This means that it is acceptable to punish someone who tries to deprive you of your liberty because their behavior isn't inline with the Natural Law and they violated your Natural Rights (which are derived from Natural Law). So your behavior is judged in within the context of Natural Law with the idea that it will force people to act within the frame work of Natural Law. Ultimately meaning that behavior, according to the theory, is supposed to follow Natural Law, and Natural Law is an inherent part of the universe, existing independently of all human life and behavior.

Here's an extremely brief overview -> Natural rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

You and I seem to fundamentally disagree about the function of government. I believe that every human has certain rights and that government only exists to protect those, while from what I understand form your posts, you believe that government provides your rights.

No, you're misinterpreting what I'm trying to get at. All I'm saying is where do rights come from? How do you know what these rights are? You beleive that humans have certian rights, what rights are they and why do they have them? What gave them that right?

I don't think government provides your rights, I'm just saying before we get too excited about the right to bare arms or free speech or anything, we need to look very critically at where these rights come from.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Tree.....

Tell us where YOU think rights come from.

Hogtrot

__________________
.
Visit my military photo album, Vietnam 68-69....

http://www.picturetrail.com/taipan22alpha

Well, Tree.....no comment?


This is as I figured. I suspect Tree was going to attack the principle that our rights exist outside of the BOR, regardless of where they are perceived to have originated.

If I'm not correct about my assumption, then answer the question, please.


hogroar

__________________
.
Visit my military photo album, Vietnam 68-69....

http://www.picturetrail.com/taipan22alpha

Sorry to take so long.

Anyway, I don't know where our rights come from. That's why I asked the question. I'm not sure, however, I also find it extremely difficult to accept an absolutist statement that rests on assumptions warranted solely by "self-evidence" as being a useful guide to governance. If the right to bear arms or free speech or even the right to life is an inherent right, objective right that's fine, and I'm willing to accept that granted that it's founded on something other than opinion.

Besides, no one has of yet actually told me where these rights come from. Why is it so important to defend these rights if you don't even know why you have them?

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

We do know why we have them. YOU were asked to tell us where YOU thought they came from.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Then where do they come from? Why do you have them?

I stated before that I don't know where they come from or if they even exist.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Since we've already told you where we believe they come from, and you dont seem to know or even be certain if they exist, then how can you possibly argue that they dont apply?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

You've merely stated that they are Natural Rights, but you've given absolutely no analysis on how it is possible to come to an understanding of these Natural Rights to be able to base government. You're saying that you have a Right to Bear arms, and that this is simply an inherent right of being human, I'm asking how you know this and what evidence there is to support this. That is the question that actually matters, it's not just what you beleive but what warrants these beliefs. Unless you warrant your statements, they are just meaningless statements, I'm asking for the actual arguement behind them. So you haven't answered my question yet.

I've never argued that they don't apply. I'm just saying if we're going to get so wrapped up in a debate about rights, shouldn't we first really look at the nature of those rights. I'm not saying that they don't apply, I'm just saying that we cannot simply assume that they do apply.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

My apologies - this may not have been discussed in this thread but i know it has been brought up before.

Consider this:

Sound familiar? Its the first part of the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of course.

We believe natural rights - or unalienable rights - come from God. Now you may disagree with the religious aspect of this, but thats really not my problem. The fact remains, that to most people in this world, some sort of God exists, and we base our lives upon this belief.
The nature of those rights is quite simple - the are unalienable. Meaning they exist regardless, and they can neither be given away, nor rescinded. We can only choose not to exercise them or have them forcibly supressed.

Now there are reasons for supressing a person's rights, but most of us also believe those reasons had better be quite severe. Restricting a right simply on the belief that a person MIGHT misuse it is not a valid reason to do so as far as most are concerned.

The core function of the gun control movement is to restrict my right to own a weapon on the flawed premise that because someone else believes that i might misuse it, that right, and others, should be forcibly supressed to prevent that outcome.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

This isn't a high-tech question, Tree.....

Either you believe the Constitution grants rights, or acknowledges them.....there isn't any middle ground here.

All of us who believe rights preexisted the Constitution have our beliefs, and ideas, as to the origins of those rights. There may be some differing opinions......but, the fact is that the writers of the Constitution believed certain rights existed prior to it. Some believe they were God-given, others think "natural" rights, whatever. It really doesn't make any difference where the seed came from.........


........and shouldn't, that is, unless you wish to debate the issue. This seems to be, or at least is a logical conclusion as to where your stand is.

hogpile

__________________
.
Visit my military photo album, Vietnam 68-69....

http://www.picturetrail.com/taipan22alpha

Actually, there is a lot of middle ground here. For instance, maybe rights come from somewhere else entirely and the constitution acknowledges the wrong rights, or maybe there are different kinds of rights which the constitution acknowledges some and grants others. That, of course, is just scratching the surface. There are an infinite number of ways to approach the problem.

First, Natural Rights all go back to be granted by God, at least classically. I've heard that there have been some athiestic apologies on the issue, but I've never actually seen one or heard it thoroughly argued out.

Second, the origin of the rights is extremely important. For instance, let's say in universe one, God gave us the right to liberty. Now if someone tried to infringe on this right, you could arguably have the right to kill them, because you have an absolute and objective right to liberty. However, if your rights are derived, say, from the reflection of a humanistic obligation, then the value of life supercedes the value of your right, which means that you cannot justify killing to protect your rights. The origin of the rights is extremely important in understanding how to implement them.

This doesn't make sense, can you explain?

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.