Guns As A " God-given Right"

[NotreDame]

Natural rights are not real.

At least, they are not demonstrably real outside of a context where one takes the dogmatic claims of the Church for granted or some similar religious tradition.

 

Hmm....  I believe most of the original and subsequent proponents of natural rights have been deists, so they would take issue with your statement. 

 

However, if you were to amend the above by replacing "dogmatic claims" with "belief in a supreme being"... Well, I agree and that's what I and, I believe, Socrates were saying earlier.

 

[4588686]

Hmm.... I believe most of the original and subsequent proponents of natural rights have been deists, so they would take issue with your statement.

However, if you were to amend the above by replacing "dogmatic claims" with "belief in a supreme being"... Well, I agree and that's what I and, I believe, Socrates were saying earlier.

Right. However all Natural Law proponents I have met or read have claimed that these natural rights are discoverable by the natural light of human reason. Which is a claim that has yet to be substantiated.

[Anomaly]

Right. However all Natural Law proponents I have met or read have claimed that these natural rights are discoverable by the natural light of human reason. Which is a claim that has yet to be substantiated.

I would opine that a developed concept of human rights grew outside of religion. Religions recognize a God as the only source of human rights(if any), and thus subject to whomever speaks convincingly as God's spokesperson.

Ultimately, human rights are what can be reasonably expressed and enforced within society.

[4588686]

[quote name="Anomaly" post="2672414" timestamp="1399911772"]

I would opine that a developed concept of human rights grew outside of religion. Religions recognize a God as the only source of human rights(if any), and thus subject to whomever speaks convincingly as God's spokesperson.

Ultimately, human rights are what can be reasonably expressed and enforced within society.[/quote

I think that's very well said

[PhuturePriest]

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

 

 

[NotreDame]

Right. However all Natural Law proponents I have met or read have claimed that these natural rights are discoverable by the natural light of human reason. Which is a claim that has yet to be substantiated.

 

Not sure of your point. They can both come from God and be discoverable by reason.  The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

I would opine that a developed concept of human rights grew outside of religion. Religions recognize a God as the only source of human rights(if any), and thus subject to whomever speaks convincingly as God's spokesperson.

Ultimately, human rights are what can be reasonably expressed and enforced within society.

 

If you are in any way referencing the previous few posts, let's be clear that human rights aren't the same thing as natural rights.  Apples and oranges.

[4588686]

Not sure of your point. They can both come from God and be discoverable by reason.  The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

Right.  And my point is, as I said a few posts ago "At least, they are not demonstrably real outside of a context where one takes the dogmatic claims of the Church for granted or some similar religious tradition."

 

So, if you, or any advocate of natural rights, has any sort of sound argument for their existence that isn't contingent on religious presuppositions, I'd love to hear them.  

[ardillacid]

Right.  And my point is, as I said a few posts ago " :cheeese: :cheeese: :cheeese: :cheeese: :cheeese: :cheeese:

 

[4588686]

 

 

 

I'm going to murder you someday

[4588686]

In basketball.  I'm practicing a lot.  Hahahaha

[4588686]

plz undestand humor nsa, thank

[ardillacid]

Please do not joke about the basketball culture. There are people getting hurt on the courts everyday. I jammed a finger last week. :stubborn:

[NotreDame]

Right.  And my point is, as I said a few posts ago "At least, they are not demonstrably real outside of a context where one takes the dogmatic claims of the Church for granted or some similar religious tradition."

 

So, if you, or any advocate of natural rights, has any sort of sound argument for their existence that isn't contingent on religious presuppositions, I'd love to hear them.  

 

As both socrates and I have already said, in our view*, without God rights are arbitrary...

 

...or to quote Dostoevsky: everything is permissible.

 

...or to paraphrase anamoly's last post: might makes right.

 

(*better men than I would argue the opposite point of view, but this is how I feel.)

Edited May 13, 2014 by NotreDame

[4588686]

As both socrates and I have already said, in our view*, without God rights are arbitrary...

 

...or to quote Dostoevsky: everything is permissible.

 

...or to paraphrase anamoly's last post: might makes right.

 

(*better men than I would argue the opposite point of view, but this is how I feel.)

 

 

Right.  And as I have pointed out since you can't demonstrate that any of these claims about natural rights are real and since God has not yet seen fit to comment on these discussions your claims about rights are immaterial.  They don't determine what rights people actually have.  Now maybe you consider human constructed moral and social systems are arbitrary.  That's fine.  But sadly that's all we have.  The only other option is to appoint Socrates philosopher king so he can reach into his invisible bag-o-rights and tell us what God wants us to do.  Those types of non-open societies seem to produce a lot of misery.  So I vote no on that, whatever an academic ethicist would make of the meta-ethical foundations of an secular, open society.  

Edited May 13, 2014 by Hasan

[4588686]

And Dostoevsky wrote that as a supporter of the reactionary and intently corrupt Tsarist system.  But, hey, he could pull the God card to justify his intensely oppressive and cruel social system and I guess that's what's important.

[Credo in Deum]

A wise man once said that his momma said; "life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." Now we don't know whether or not life is truly like this; however, we can deduce that his momma sure did care about his schooling.



PS. I hate almonds!

Edited May 13, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[NotreDame]

And Dostoevsky wrote that as a supporter of the reactionary and intently corrupt Tsarist system.  But, hey, he could pull the God card to justify his intensely oppressive and cruel social system and I guess that's what's important.

 

And once the tsar fell, his replacements threw away the God card and set up the most miserable, murderous society the world had ever known.  That God-less society gave birth to many more and all devolved into miserable, murderous totalitarian pits. 

[NotreDame]

Right.  And as I have pointed out since you can't demonstrate that any of these claims about natural rights are real and since God has not yet seen fit to comment on these discussions your claims about rights are immaterial.  They don't determine what rights people actually have.  Now maybe you consider human constructed moral and social systems are arbitrary.  That's fine.  But sadly that's all we have.  The only other option is to appoint Socrates philosopher king so he can reach into his invisible bag-o-rights and tell us what God wants us to do.  Those types of non-open societies seem to produce a lot of misery.  So I vote no on that, whatever an academic ethicist would make of the meta-ethical foundations of an secular, open society.  

 

It sort of feels like you want to argue, but you aren't actually addressing anything I've said - or rather you are arguing against things I never said.  Still, I'm happy for you that you got to use some college words.