Do inalienable rights exist?

[Jeremy]

Vote in the poll: Do rights exist?

[MRoCkEd]

You asked two different questions.

[Jeremy]

You asked two different questions.

If somebody thinks we have alienable rights and not inalienable rights, they can make a post in the thread. Stop making excuses so you don't have to vote lol

[Athan]

Ok... who voted "no"?

[FrankRep]

My rights come from God. Yes.

[Jeremy]

Ok... who voted "no"?

i made the poll public ;)

[Standing Like A Rock]

Define "we."

[Athan]

Dammit Scofield! Your doing it wrong! :mad:

[Objectivist]

Lol.

[LibertiORDeth]

Ok... who voted "no"?

Me?

[Jeremy]

Define "we."

humans

[Standing Like A Rock]

//

[Standing Like A Rock]

humans

Is that the most specific answer you can give me? I assume you mean ALL humans with that statement.

[youngbuck]

I assume you mean ALL humans with that statement. Duh!

[Standing Like A Rock]

Duh!

Well he did not specify.

[Jeremy]

Is that the most specific answer you can give me? I assume you mean ALL humans with that statement.

"so what if someone infringes on my rights, do they lose there's?"

is what you're going to say

stop trying to complicate it, just answer it lol

[sevin]

Define "rights."

[Standing Like A Rock]

"so what if someone infringes on my rights, do they lose there's?"

is what you're going to say

stop trying to complicate it, just answer it lol

Then I will regrettably have to answer no.

[Jeremy]

Define "rights."

Depends if you believe in God or not.

[tmosley]

Our rights come from our willingness to fight, kill, and die for them. It is possible to "alienate" any right, simply by killing the person exercising it in such a way that no-one knows about it, or will try to avenge him. In practice, that is very difficult to enforce on any sort of scale beyond a few individuals.

Therefore, I would vote yes on both counts, though "inalienable" rights is only a conditional yes.

[Jeremy]

Then I will regrettably have to answer no.

So you weren't born with a natural right to life?

[tmosley]

God gives men nothing but life. That should be enough for anyone.

Your rights (and everything else in this world) are up to you, not God.

[apropos]

Inalienable rights....sounds like someone's been reading Hobbes. Let's say I could use some convincing on his argument for inalienable rights.

You know, the curve ball to inalienable rights is the belief of an afterlife. Martyrs, saints...Jesus, for that matter, rejected their inalienable rights and died willingly, giving up their rights as completely as anyone can. Hobbes thinks you can't give up inalienable rights because they are founded in self-preservation. But we have some high-profile cases that point to the other.

[Jeremy]

Inalienable rights....sounds like someone's been reading Hobbes.

You know, the curve ball to inalienable rights is the belief of an afterlife. Martyrs, saints...Jesus, for that matter, rejected their inalienable rights and died willingly, giving up their rights as completely as anyone can. Hobbes thinks you can't give up inalienable rights because they are founded in self-preservation. But we have some high-profile cases that point to the other.

I am using the term "inalienable rights" to mean natural rights. In other words, a government can't decide you no longer have the right to live.

[apropos]

I am using the term "inalienable rights" to mean natural rights. In other words, a government can't decide you no longer have the right to live.

Sure. It follows that inalienable rights are beyond the ken of this or that government.

However, natural rights (that is, inalienable rights that even the holders are forbidden to surrender, else they be considered "ignorant") are self-preservation and the pursuit of peace, as long as other parties are willing...according to some. This is unspoken foundation of modern politics. I guess my thought on the matter is, are there times where self-preservation takes a back seat to something else? Thus making inalienable rights alienable?

[ClayTrainor]

Depends if you believe in God or not.

no it doesn't.

For example, You have a right to freedom of speech because you have a flappy piece of meat in your mouth that makes unique noises when your neck muscles vibrate.

We can debate all day as to why you're alive and have a flappy piece of meat in your mouth, and it matters not when discussing rights. The most important aspect is to recognize that these rights did not come from government, or any living man. I don't really care if you recognize a supernatural entity or not, as long as you recognize that rights are inherent in our nature, not granted, or given by anyone of this realm.

I voted yes, rights exist as our very nature. We have a right to life because we are alive.

[apropos]

no it doesn't.

You have a right to freedom of speech because you have a flappy piece of meat in your mouth that makes unique noises when your neck muscles vibrate.

Animals also have said flappy piece of meat in their mouths. Studies show the vocabularies in certain species are as complex as human speech. So with tongues and vocabulary, do animals have a right to free speech? And additionally a right to life?

If so, it means the burger you had recently equates to accessory of first-degree premeditated murder.

[Dunedain]

Only might can make rights inalienable, but generally takes them away instead. Might makes right. Sad to say but it is the structure of nature. Wishing for a thing does not make it so. The only God given rights we have are the right to conception, persuit of happiness, and death, nothing more nothing less. Right to life is a man-made right...it's up their with the right to health care.

[Dunedain]

So you weren't born with a natural right to life?

The only ones with the right to life are those capable of defending it.

[lynnf]

not only do we have inalienable rights, meaning they can't be separated from us, but
those sorry assholes will be sorry one day for abusing them.


to quote scripture (Malachi 3:19)

19
For lo, the day is coming, blazing like an oven, when all the proud and all evildoers will be stubble, And the day that is coming will set them on fire, leaving them neither root nor branch, says the LORD of hosts.
20
But for you who fear my name, there will arise the sun of justice with its healing rays;


-----------------------------------

lynn

[apropos]

Does everyone, weak or strong, capable or incapable, have the right to try and keep themselves alive (i.e. self-preservation)?

Can self-preservation be surrendered? If it cannot be surrendered knowingly or unknowingly, that is an inalienable right.

How do we explain those people who threw themselves off cliffs in 1940s Japan? Not morose, but necessary obstacle to the answer.

[Dunedain]

Does everyone, weak or strong, capable or incapable, have the right to try and keep themselves alive (i.e. self-preservation)?

Yes.



How do we explain those people who threw themselves off cliffs in 1940s Japan? Not morose, but necessary obstacle to the answer.

They still possessed the right to self preservation, but they did not exercise it.

[sevin]

Does everyone, weak or strong, capable or incapable, have the right to try and keep themselves alive (i.e. self-preservation)?


Yes.


Can self-preservation be surrendered? If it cannot be surrendered knowingly or unknowingly, that is an inalienable right.

How do we explain those people who threw themselves off cliffs in 1940s Japan? Not morose, but necessary obstacle to the answer.






They still possessed the right to self preservation, but they did not exercise it.

Exactly!

[apropos]

They still possessed the right to self preservation, but they did not exercise it.

Then the right to life can be surrendered or rejected and is alienable, correct? Inalienable means it cannot be separated, surrendered, or transferred. To have the ability to exercise a right or not infers that this right can be surrendered or transferred consciously. Did these folks surrender, separate, or transfer their right to life? If so, the right to life cannot be said to be inalienable, unfortunately.

[sevin]

Inalienable means it cannot be separated, surrendered, or transferred.

I didn't know that's what "inalienable" meant. I thought it just meant that people are born with rights. Whether they choose to surrender them is another issue.

[apropos]

I didn't know that's what "inalienable" meant. I thought it just meant that people are born with rights. Whether they choose to surrender them is another issue.

It's a difficult question. Inalienable means you are born with rights and die with rights, but cannot give up those rights. You cannot give up your freedom of speech, even if you personally wanted to or specifically said you gave up the right. to someone that would hold you to it You would nevertheless still possess that freedom of speech. Inalienable is as much a part of you as your brain or heart.

The question is: is this rhetoric, or is this true?

[heavenlyboy34]

the question is a little too broad. Individual rights exist (as individuals can own property, and rights stem from this fact-viz. self-ownership)-collective rights are imaginary.

[ClayTrainor]

Animals also have said flappy piece of meat in their mouths. Studies show the vocabularies in certain species are as complex as human speech. So with tongues and vocabulary, do animals have a right to free speech?

Are you going to stop a pack of wolves from howling, in the middle of the night? Of course they have the natural right, and wolves recognize their own right to free speech but not yours.

If i drop you off naked in the woods, with no technology, and you encounter a hungry pack of wolves, will they recognize your natural right to life, if you beg? Nope, not a chance.... Species don't tend to recognize the rights of other species, and humans are no exception.




And additionally a right to life?

If so, it means the burger you had recently equates to accessory of first-degree premeditated murder.
I'm on team people ;)

I don't think a human society should recognize an animals right to life, just as i don't think a wolf society would recognize human rights.

[Imperial]

I'm on team people

I don't think a human society should recognize an animals right to life, just as i don't think a wolf society would recognize human rights.

So that is a completely arbitrary standard, right? As in, I could similarly divide myself by race by your logic?


If i drop you off naked in the woods, with no technology, and you encounter a hungry pack of wolves, will they recognize your natural right to life, if you beg? Nope, not a chance.... Species don't tend to recognize the rights of other species, and humans are no exception.

So just because we don't respect each other's rights now we don't have to? So if a society is racist to one group of people and discriminatory that should be ok if its been the status quo, correct?

[ClayTrainor]

So that is a completely arbitrary standard, right? As in, I could similarly divide myself by race by your logic?

Like i said, i'm on team people, because i live in a Ape hive (city), and my survival is dependant on voluntary interactions with other apes, of my species.

I recognize natural rights as inherent in life and existence itself. It's just a matter of which rights we respect, and that's where i draw the line at team people.

I suppose you could say i do not respect animals "right to life", because i do recognize them. I believe they have a right to exist, a right to life and a right to freedom of speech, etc.




So just because we don't respect each other's rights now we don't have to? So if a society is racist to one group of people and discriminatory that should be ok if its been the status quo, correct?

It's perfectly okay for individuals to be racist if they so choose, although i personally think it's disgusting and will not respect it. They can express themselves in ways that don't violate the individual rights of other individual humans, if they choose, but it's not okay to violate any of the individual rights of humans, using force. Natural rights are inherent in our nature, and you're either on Team people or you aren't. Those who use the threat of violence, or violence itself (government), to violate human natural rights, are the unlawful ones who should be detained.

[Dunedain]

Then the right to life can be surrendered or rejected and is alienable, correct? Inalienable means it cannot be separated, surrendered, or transferred. To have the ability to exercise a right or not infers that this right can be surrendered or transferred consciously. Did these folks surrender, separate, or transfer their right to life? If so, the right to life cannot be said to be inalienable, unfortunately.

People don't have the right to life (I stated this a few posts back). People die all the time without consent so it obviously isn't an inalienable right. You only have the right to self-preservation which no one can take away and you can't give away. Even jumping off a cliff doesn't surrender your right. You could hit the ground and scream somebody help me in an attempt at self-preservation.

[erowe1]

This is essentially a corollary to the question: Does God exist?

The only answer consistent with atheism is that rights (inalienable or otherwise) do not exist. Whereas theism practically always entails some moral law (i.e. that there are rights and wrongs).

[Jeremy]

This is essentially a corollary to the question: Does God exist?

The only answer consistent with atheism is that rights (inalienable or otherwise) do not exist. Whereas theism practically always entails some moral law (i.e. that there are rights and wrongs).

Ayn Rand would slap you.