Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Current Topics
Winning
by perotista - 01/17/22 08:21 PM
Texas hostages
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 08:08 PM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 08:06 PM
The long and winding road to Dumbass
by chunkstyle - 01/17/22 05:28 PM
Gerrymandering
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 12:13 AM
Round Table Winter 2021
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 12:00 AM
National Commission to Investigate the January 6
by pondering_it_all - 01/16/22 12:02 PM
Lindsey v. Mitch: Senate cage match
by logtroll - 01/15/22 05:11 AM
Don't look up
by jgw - 01/14/22 10:42 PM
Complexity Science
by Jeffery J. Haas - 01/12/22 06:34 PM
What's for dinner?
by pondering_it_all - 01/02/22 09:37 PM
RoundTable For Fall 2021
by Mellowicious - 01/02/22 04:21 AM
Divorce: American Style
by pdx rick - 12/31/21 01:56 AM
Gimme some of that good ol time religion
by pondering_it_all - 12/23/21 08:19 PM
F.D.A. Will Permanently Allow Abortion Pills by Mail
by Mellowicious - 12/22/21 09:03 PM
Joe Manchin thread
by perotista - 12/22/21 08:33 PM
A Fungus Amungus
by logtroll - 12/22/21 01:00 AM
Texas abortion law guy responds
by Mellowicious - 12/19/21 02:06 AM
Popular Topics(Views)
9,783,870 my own book page
4,858,406 We shall overcome
3,972,850 Campaign 2016
3,616,472 Trump's Trumpet
2,870,963 3 word story game
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 22 of 29 1 2 20 21 22 23 24 28 29
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Just food for thought.
Quote
The question of which (if any) rights are natural and which are merely legal is an important one in philosophy and politics. Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that the only rights that exist are legal rights, while proponents of the concept of natural rights say that documents such as the United States Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights demonstrate the usefulness of recognizing natural rights. The focus of natural rights in the United States Declaration of Independence is expressed in the legal philosophy known as Declarationism.

The theory of natural law is closely related to the theory of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government � and thus legal rights � in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by some anarchists to challenge the legitimacy of all such political establishments[citation needed].

The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[2] Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law.

The idea that animals have natural rights is one that has gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century[3], and as such, even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous.While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of Late Antiquity, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

Ancient history

The Stoics held that no one was a slave by their nature; slavery was an external condition juxtaposed to the internal freedom of the soul (sui juris). Seneca the Younger wrote:
� It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined.[4] �

Likewise, the notion of inalienable rights was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler "the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being." Islamic rulers could not take away certain rights from their subjects on the basis that "they become rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter."[5] These ideas may have later influenced John Locke's concept of inalienable rights through his attendance of lectures given by Edward Pococke, a professor of Arabic studies.[6]
Source


Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
Originally Posted by issodhos
Please understand, Phil, I do appreciate that several of you deigned to descend from Mt. Olympus, even if only briefly, to bestow upon this mere mortal the perceived wisdom of your paradigm. Your proclamation is again noted.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Your posts display all the arrogance and logic of Ann Coulter, NancyVideo, and Rush Limbaugh.

Of course, I know that the seemingly irksome statement quoted above was tongue in cheek!

Last edited by loganrbt; 05/22/09 06:11 PM.

"The white men were as thick and numerous and aimless as grasshoppers, moving always in a hurry but never seeming to get to whatever place it was they were going to." Dee Brown
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
Greger, no one is "bashing" issodhos nor anyone else, we are, however, challenging some assertions and that is what this board does so well.


Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by issodhos
Allow me to first repeat, with emphasis added, what I have previously written, which was, “My view is that rights are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them.” Please note that I did not write that they pre-existed man. I also wrote that “rights are integral to the human mind” which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not ‘natural’ man, but the nature of man.
Yours,
Issodhos

Is there any reason why we would regard the above statment as anything other than a statement of your own personal opinion?


"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
The nature of man is the same as the nature of a leopard; we are simply more highly sophisticated in our ability to abstract it beyond all relationship to the natural world in which we live. Sadly, we will destroy most of life on this planet in the process of exercising our invented rights, increased over time to feed the egos that make us the tragic creatures we are.

Oh. And yes, that is simply my opinion.

Last edited by loganrbt; 05/22/09 08:55 PM.

"The white men were as thick and numerous and aimless as grasshoppers, moving always in a hurry but never seeming to get to whatever place it was they were going to." Dee Brown
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
That, my friend, is more than just an opinion. It's a wise observation and a clear prediction of the future.
Man has the ability to change it.
But he wont.


Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by loganrbt
The nature of man is the same as the nature of a leopard; we are simply more highly sophisticated in our ability to abstract it beyond all relationship to the natural world in which we live.

Rubbish. The natures are quite different. Though I prefer lions as an example.:-)
Originally Posted by issodhos
Using the words or the Declaration of Independence that recognizes and references pre-existing natural Rights, can we say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all lions are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Lions, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--" and have it hold meaning?. When we read that all lions are created equal, this means that all lions are born with the same Rights as all other lions -- neither more nor less.

I would postulate that for individual lions to have Rights, lions as a whole must know that each lion has the Right to life. Lions as a whole must recognize that if they infringe upon the Right to life of another non-aggressor lion (by killing it for example), they could be held accountable by other lions for having done so. Is there any evidence that lions hold each other accountable for killing other non-aggressor lions? Not that I know of. Do lions aggress against and kill other non-aggressor lions? According to researchers, male lions will kill the cubs of other male lions, so yes, they do. In doing so are they held accountable by other lions? No, because it is the nature of a male lion to kill the cubs of other male lions. I would suggest that because a lion cannot recognize the Rights of other lions, neither it nor any other lion can have Rights as expressed and recognized by a human for other humans.
Do Animals have Rights?
Yours,
Issodhos

Last edited by issodhos; 05/22/09 11:08 PM. Reason: typo

"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
But lets get history correct. Early humans had first to develop a sense of "self" before either ownership or rights could be conceived of. That took many millenia to come about. As it developed, most small hunter-gatherer clusters evolved into chiefdoms which is when the first concept of differentiation of role and place occurred.

I am amazed at how you or anyone else knows when "the first concept of differentiation of role and place occured", Phil. How far back must one go to establish such a thing? Ida ? Lucy ?

[quote=Phil Hoskins]The concept of rights sprang from the ego developed mind of man and those with an interest in stability and order found it expedient to use the state to enforce claims of right.

In other words, it �sprang� from the nature of man who eventually recognized that securing those rights was a valid reason for instituting governments among men.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by Ardy
Originally Posted by issodhos
Allow me to first repeat, with emphasis added, what I have previously written, which was, “My view is that rights are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them.” Please note that I did not write that they pre-existed man. I also wrote that “rights are integral to the human mind” which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not ‘natural’ man, but the nature of man.
Yours,
Issodhos

Is there any reason why we would regard the above statment as anything other than a statement of your own personal opinion?
Is there any place in the quote where I attribute it to another?
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by issodhos
Originally Posted by Ardy
Is there any reason why we would regard the above statment as anything other than a statement of your own personal opinion?
Is there any place in the quote where I attribute it to another?
Yours,
Issodhos

So, I just want to be clear that what you are saying is your opinion about the subject... and when you say
Originally Posted by issodhos
In other words, Rights are "inherent".
Yours,
Issodhos

YOu are not stating a fact, you are stating an opinion
it is your own personal definition that human rights are inherent.

And that reality appears to make your opnin on this subject notional in the followinng meaning of the word...
"Speculative, theoretical, not the result of research."
link

Ardy




Last edited by Ardy; 05/22/09 11:46 PM.

"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Page 22 of 29 1 2 20 21 22 23 24 28 29

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
1 members (perotista), 37 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SuZQ2, KevFilthyANML, Risky, Gladys G. Jackson, Beach Baby
6,297 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums61
Topics17,274
Posts313,886
Members6,297
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.27 Page Time: 0.017s Queries: 36 (0.008s) Memory: 3.0487 MB (Peak: 3.2529 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2022-01-17 22:01:16 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS