Some Musings about Rights

[Dennis The B]

Rabbi wrote:

OK, let's get to the meat of argument, that rights are inherent in human beings.
I disagree. It is patent and obvious that in every culture and society outside of Western Europe and those influenced by it (like ours) that people do not have rights. This is different from, say, intelligence, where we can say that intelligence is inherent in people because we can see evidence of it everywhere.
We do not see evidence of rights, we do not even see evidence that people subscribe to a theory of rights. In fact there was no theory of human rights prior to the Enlightenment. So the entire natural rights idea is simply an artificial construct of Enlightenment philosophers. It is certainly unproven and unprovable.
My premise is not only not flawed, it is the only realistic explanation for what we see around us. Yours otoh is fantastic, relying on tooth fairies and soothsaying while ignoring the evidence we see around us in actual societies.

Au contraire, Rabbin.

Disagree all you like, but rights are inherent in human beings. The innateness of rights is what separates us from all other forms of life. All lower forms of animal life are incapable of recognizing the rights of individuals.

As to the recognition of human rights prior to "The Enlightenment", you are absolutely wrong. The so-called "Enlightenment" or "Age of Enlightenment" was primarily a phenomenom of the mid-eighteenth century. However, even given an earlier start date (Descarte's treatise on "The System", in mid-seventeenth century France, e.g.), it does not follow that rights are not innate in the human being.

"The Age of Enlightenment" only documented what man had already known since the dawn of civilization. As a matter of fact, basic human rights were forced to be recognized by King John of England, in the thirteenth century, in the form of the Magna Carta. That certainly predates "The Age of Enlightenment" by some four-hundred years. And, the third generation of Stoics (Seneca, The Younger, e.g.) wrote that man's soul sought freedom, hence the term "sui juris"; that slavery was an unnatural condition.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your argument seems to be, "rights are inherent in men, therefore men have rights." It doesn't get more circular than that.
And while there are some mentions of pre-Enlightenment rights, there is nothing corresponding to "all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Interesting you bring up the Magna Carta. England is of course the source for our ideas about, e.g. self defense. And look at what they have now, virtually no right of self defense. So societal change can be the only explanation for this.
The example from Seneca is simply not germane. It is confusing desire with rights.

 

[5Wire]

...

 

[BarbC]

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[handejector]

I am not sure that posting a hot air ballooon pic and a cymbal is entirely necessary.

If one does not appreciate the viewpoints and opinions of another member, one is free to state his/her opinion in rebuttal.
If one is here to convert all others to their viewpoint, one will find that one is wasting much of his/her time.

_________________________________________
As Rule #3 states-
3. Do NOT descend into personal attacks on a member.
Naiveté, or viewpoints different from yours are no reason to call a member an idiot or moron.
If a poster is obnoxious, report him and ignore him. Do not feed trolls.
NO LYNCHINGS or MUGGINGS.

Learn to use the "IGNORE" feature for posters that ANNOY you. In the "User CP", under "Settings & Options", Click "Edit Ignore List".
_____________________________

I also believe that some of you will argue about something, somewhere, at some time as long as two people exist on earth.
If one does not like to argue, one should not engage in arguments, particularly those that will not alter your existence one iota if you step away from your keyboard.
I also think one should not present an argumentative image, unless one wants to be perceived as argumentative. I see a location of "Nastyville, Tennishoe" for one of the posters in this thread. Since I don't believe that is a real location, I must assume some place or some group is being insulted before we even begin.

 

[5Wire]

I am not sure that posting a hot air ballooon pic and a cymbal is entirely necessary.

If one does not appreciate the viewpoints and opinions of another member, one is free to state his/her opinion in rebuttal.
If one is here to convert all others to their viewpoint, one will find that one is wasting much of his/her time.

_________________________________________
As Rule #3 states-
3. Do NOT descend into personal attacks on a member.
Naiveté, or viewpoints different from yours are no reason to call a member an idiot or moron.
If a poster is obnoxious, report him and ignore him. Do not feed trolls.
NO LYNCHINGS or MUGGINGS.

Learn to use the "IGNORE" feature for posters that ANNOY you. In the "User CP", under "Settings & Options", Click "Edit Ignore List".
_____________________________

I also believe that some of you will argue about something, somewhere, at some time as long as two people exist on earth.
If one does not like to argue, one should not engage in arguments, particularly those that will not alter your existence one iota if you step away from your keyboard.
I also think one should not present an argumentative image, unless one wants to be perceived as argumentative. I see a location of "Nastyville, Tennishoe" for one of the posters in this thread. Since I don't believe that is a real location, I must assume some place or some group is being insulted before we even begin.

I got the message. No argument here. Discussion didn't work.

 

[Dennis The B]

Your argument seems to be, "rights are inherent in men, therefore men have rights." It doesn't get more circular than that.
And while there are some mentions of pre-Enlightenment rights, there is nothing corresponding to "all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Interesting you bring up the Magna Carta. England is of course the source for our ideas about, e.g. self defense. And look at what they have now, virtually no right of self defense. So societal change can be the only explanation for this.
The example from Seneca is simply not germane. It is confusing desire with rights.

Your only rebuttal has to been to deny that human (or natural) rights didn't exist until "The Age of Enlightenment" began to discuss, and define, the term. Lack of definitive terminology does not mean that something does not exist. And Seneca the Younger's discussions centered around slavery, which is a denial of rights by definition.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your only rebuttal has to been to deny that human (or natural) rights didn't exist until "The Age of Enlightenment" began to discuss, and define, the term. Lack of definitive terminology does not mean that something does not exist. And Seneca the Younger's discussions centered around slavery, which is a denial of rights by definition.

No, my rebuttal has been that your argument does not pass muster first becaues it is circular. Second, because the entire notion of universal human rights was unknown until the Enlightenment and third because it is obvious from looking around us that it does not exist as most people do not enjoy even a modicum of what we would consider human rights.
Further, you have failed to outline where these rights come from, what they consist of, and what their parameters are.
As for lack of terminology indicating non-existence, please show an example of such a thing. Leave off scientific terms like gravity and electricity which are physical phenomena rather than political ones.

 

[Dennis The B]

No, my rebuttal has been that your argument does not pass muster first becaues it is circular. Second, because the entire notion of universal human rights was unknown until the Enlightenment and third because it is obvious from looking around us that it does not exist as most people do not enjoy even a modicum of what we would consider human rights.
Further, you have failed to outline where these rights come from, what they consist of, and what their parameters are.
As for lack of terminology indicating non-existence, please show an example of such a thing. Leave off scientific terms like gravity and electricity which are physical phenomena rather than political ones.

You will not define my terminology or definitions. I do not recognize "The Age of Enlightenment" as the start of human (natural) rights definition. Neither do others who have studied human rights.

Human rights are innate, and they are part of our essence. They don't come from another person, or some political division.

To the contrary, the limiters on our rights were defined in an earlier post, and I will not restate them. Go back and reread.

Further, you don't get to eliminate physical phenomena, since they define reality. Man saw stars, volcanoes, the ocean tides, etc., long before their scientific definitions were formed. Man recognized the right of others to live their own lives, for their own sakes, long before "The Enlightenment".

 

[The Rabbi]

You will not define my terminology or definitions. I do not recognize "The Age of Enlightenment" as the start of human (natural) rights definition. Neither do others who have studied human rights.

Human rights are innate, and they are part of our essence. They don't come from another person, or some political division.

To the contrary, the limiters on our rights were defined in an earlier post, and I will not restate them. Go back and reread.

Further, you don't get to eliminate physical phenomena, since they define reality. Man saw stars, volcanoes, the ocean tides, etc., long before their scientific definitions were formed. Man recognized the right of others to live their own lives, for their own sakes, long before "The Enlightenment".

You have veered out of rational discourse. I presented very valid objections and you have failed to address a single one.
I was hoping this would be an intelligent informed discussion. I guess not.
Good luck to you.

 

[Dennis The B]

You have veered out of rational discourse. I presented very valid objections and you have failed to address a single one.
I was hoping this would be an intelligent informed discussion. I guess not.
Good luck to you.

No. To the contrary. You attempted to frame the discussion to keep any mention of rights prior to "The Age of Enlightenment"; as if that period in the late 18th century were the "be all, start all" recognition of human or natural rights. And you further attempted to limit any discussion of rights to a strictly political context, when you are very well aware that rights span the moral, religious, and political contexts. There is no fixed boundary in these types of discussions.

You sluffed off the citation of the Magna Carta, as though its eventual demise in the 19th century, counted for nought in the previous six-hundred years.

That Seneca, and the other Stoics did not use the term rights, somehow made their discussions and dissertations on slavery not germane to the discussion.

I addressed every one of your objections rationally, and with adequate citations in history to more than support my end of the discussion.

As an aside, you remind me of several of my philosophy and political science professors. They also had egos the size of the Milky Way, and were so bound up in their own self-importance, that they ignored the reality of the world.

 

[The Rabbi]

The word is "sloughed." And I discounted it because it is particular to Englishmen (specifically nobles) and lacks any assertion of "natural rights" such as found later.
Your entire response is a confirmation to what I wrote above.
Thanks for playing!

 

[Dennis The B]

You may want to check a dictionary...

...since "sluff" is a well-recognized substitution for the word "slough", and the etymology of the word is in Middle High German, and predates the thirteenth century.

Please keep to the original response, and not distract from the basic argument by magnifying differences in word usage.

As was so eloquently stated in a "Braveheart" dialogue:

Stephen: In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God. [looks to the sky]
Stephen: Yes, Father!
[to Hamish]
Stephen: The Almighty says, "Don't change the subject, just answer the f***in' question."

Your distractions are an embarassment to your arguments.

 

[The Rabbi]

A little knowledge is an absurd thing.

 

[Dennis The B]

Contumeliam si dices, audies.