Freethought & Rationalism Archive

August Spies · 02-04-2003, 08:21 AM

But if I'm wrong, if a god could give you rights, I'll bet I could give you rights the same way.

okay ill bite. I bet you can't. Almost all objective morality arguments are based no a belief in some kind of god. From Plato to Locke. How can YOU give us rights? Ill assume you meant you could give us an argument for it, but still how can morality be objective if it was nt decided by a higher intelligence?

Locke was one of the first to create the idea of the capitalistic, bourgoise society.

sounds like he deserves insults to me.

He was also one of the constitutionalists, and his idea that man has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's) is the basis of the US constitution.

Its been a while since I read Locke, but it "pursuit of happiness" was NOT one of his natural rights. His was "property" (just a small error)

His argument is based from God, merely because during his time period very few people did, and he is a man of his time.
well as I indicate above, I disagre. I think his idea of natural rights is inseperable from his view of God. He did not write a "rights theory" and then decide to throw God into it so people would like him. His theory was based on a God.

Harumi · 02-04-2003, 11:39 AM

Abe Smith: I didn't write the first bolded print, so I won't begin to argue that, as my thoughts are still unsettled on the matter.

Yeah, Locke was for property, and that was one of his main points. As one of the benefitters of the type of society he created though, I'm quite thankful for it. So yay for bourgoise, boo for any other system...until I lose some money of course!

I think pursuit of happiness was part in parcel with his idea that men have the right to life. And property. Since God gave those rights, we're essentially his property (that really stuck in my throat, I was pissed) and I guess, we're supposed to live. For those who don't feel like it, I guess that trying to pursue happiness would lessen that or something, so they'll continue to live. I might have mixed that up with liberty, which is sad, because I'm reading it right now.

His entire thing for natural rights is based off of God. I agree. But that isn't because he's stupid, but because he was a man of his time. People back then didn't really question such a thing, and since we don't have the scientific theories to back up the statements now, I can understand. That was what I was trying to say. Sorry for being unclear.

Hobbs · 02-04-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
Its been a while since I read Locke, but it "pursuit of happiness" was NOT one of his natural rights. His was "property" (just a small error)

As I recall, Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" for "property" as he was cribbing from Locke, primarily because saying people have a right to property sort of obligates the government, or other people, or someone, to make sure that everyone has property. (Or, in later terms, guaranteeing that everyone had ownership of means of production?) That seemed a rather daunting task, especially in a place where some people were property. "Pursuit of happiness" is a lot easier to offer.

dangin · 02-04-2003, 02:04 PM

Ahhhh Bullshit.

You don't have any rights. Invoke your right to life when a bullet is speeding at your head. It won't work, I suggest ducking.

The right to happiness? That is an illusion. You can be tortured in a dungeon and hacked to pieces slowly, and if you have the mental faculties, you can convince yourself you are happy. Or you could live the life of Hugh Hefner and be a miserable prick.

And the right to liberty? You kind of have it, but if you kill someone you will lose it, or if a sick fuck abducts you, you can't invoke the right, you better hope you have a good detective on the police force in your area.

What we have is a social contract that include the rights that "we find to be self evident". What is self evident anyway? We don't have any proof that we have these rights, but they sound good so we'll call them self evident.

If we stand together and say that we get along better socially if we have these rights, oh, and this list of ten other rights, and this constitution thingy over here should be thown in too, then we all have increased utility.

We give rights to ourselves, Locke was using "god" because it was the easy way to lend authority to said rights. An authority that neither exists nor granted any rights if it did.

August Spies · 02-04-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

As one of the benefitters of the type of society he created though, I'm quite thankful for it. So yay for bourgoise, boo for any other system...until I lose some money of course!

well I guess that is all that matters to some.

Dr. Retard · 02-04-2003, 04:02 PM

Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding, natural rights needn't be absolute or inalienable, and knowing about them needn't be a matter of self-evident moral intuition. A lot of theorists have characterized natural rights this way, but you don't have to.

Natural rights are just rights that people enjoy merely on account of being the type of beings we are. They're supposed to stand in contrast with conventional rights, the kind granted by legal systems and other human conventions.

Anyone who takes this post as intended to support natural rights is an idiot.

Dr. Retard · 02-04-2003, 04:11 PM

Oh, and also, it's not clear that Locke believes God gave men their natural rights. He thinks that there is a Law of Nature, accessible by reason, saying that equal and independent beings (like us) ought to treat each other a certain way. Locke says that God made us equal and independent, so in that sense He gave us our natural rights. But Locke (I think) never says that God's will grounds the Law of Nature. In short, I think an atheist could follow Locke by saying that evolution made us equal and independent beings, and that consequently the Law of Nature applies to us.

After all, it really doesn't make much sense to say God gave someone his rights, as if moral truths can be willed true by God. Morality, whatever it is, isn't determined by the likes and dislikes of some spirit.

02-04-2003, 05:18 PM

By Harumi

Locke was one of the first to create the idea of the capitalistic, bourgoise society. He was the first to write about the right to private property, hence, the economics part of it. He was also one of the constitutionalists, and his idea that man has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's) is the basis of the US constitution. He was also the first to create the idea that the government be entrusted to protect our rights.

Other than the God part, I rather like his philosophy. His argument is based from God, merely because during his time period very few people did, and he is a man of his time.

But I'm not here to talk about Locke. I'm here to discuss whether or not humans have so-called 'natural rights'.

Leave off insulting Locke.

My reply : Well ... I guess it is out of my league here.

In my country (hell ... in my side of the hemisphere), there weren't any (which I know of) constitutions or anything like that made by a person who is dead for about 300 years which we are required to follow.

We do learn about principles and concepts of our forefathers as basis of our thoughts (but that is all there is) but we don't force it down on our children's throats either, then turn around and blame God when we succeed in choking our kids.

You have the floor, Ms Harumi (your name sounded like that of a Japanese lady ... or is it Mr.?), sorry for the insult and sorry for barging in.

August Spies · 02-04-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Oh, and also, it's not clear that Locke believes God gave men their natural rights.

I think you are incorrect Dr. Retard. Locke uses God as an argument many times. For example he says our body is sacred since God gave it to us and thus we can't sell our own body (ie be slaves). He also uses this god-body argument to support his labor theory of value and natural rights of liberty and life.

Im pretty sure of this, though it has been a little while since I read him.

Dr. Retard · 02-05-2003, 02:06 PM

Quote:

I think you are incorrect Dr. Retard. Locke uses God as an argument many times. For example he says our body is sacred since God gave it to us and thus we can't sell our own body (ie be slaves). He also uses this god-body argument to support his labor theory of value and natural rights of liberty and life.

Locke appeals to God in some of his arguments, that much is clear. For example, his theory of property starts with common ownership, on the explicit basis of Scripture telling us that God gave the earth to man in common (V.24). Another thing God did was give us the faculty of reason, which allows us to discern the Law of Nature. As to whether God actually made this Law of Nature, that is, gave us our rights, I'll let you be the judge:

Quote:

But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another (II.6).

One strand of rights-support is that God made us equal and independent, and that equal and independent beings (naturally) deserve to be respected by each other. This is what I mentioned in my last post. Another strand is that infringing on other people is indirectly infringing on God's interest, since, after all, we belong to God. (Incidentally, while this second strand suggests that atheism implies the rightlessness of humans, it never suggests that God's will is what makes moral truths true).

I can't find any thing in the Second Treatise suggesting that God's existence grounds man's right to his own labor (which, I take it, is different from the classical economist's view that the market price of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor expended in its production).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2003, 08:21 AM	#21
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	But if I'm wrong, if a god could give you rights, I'll bet I could give you rights the same way. okay ill bite. I bet you can't. Almost all objective morality arguments are based no a belief in some kind of god. From Plato to Locke. How can YOU give us rights? Ill assume you meant you could give us an argument for it, but still how can morality be objective if it was nt decided by a higher intelligence? Locke was one of the first to create the idea of the capitalistic, bourgoise society. sounds like he deserves insults to me. He was also one of the constitutionalists, and his idea that man has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's) is the basis of the US constitution. Its been a while since I read Locke, but it "pursuit of happiness" was NOT one of his natural rights. His was "property" (just a small error) His argument is based from God, merely because during his time period very few people did, and he is a man of his time. well as I indicate above, I disagre. I think his idea of natural rights is inseperable from his view of God. He did not write a "rights theory" and then decide to throw God into it so people would like him. His theory was based on a God.

02-04-2003, 11:39 AM	#22
Harumi Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 3,184	Abe Smith: I didn't write the first bolded print, so I won't begin to argue that, as my thoughts are still unsettled on the matter. Yeah, Locke was for property, and that was one of his main points. As one of the benefitters of the type of society he created though, I'm quite thankful for it. So yay for bourgoise, boo for any other system...until I lose some money of course! I think pursuit of happiness was part in parcel with his idea that men have the right to life. And property. Since God gave those rights, we're essentially his property (that really stuck in my throat, I was pissed) and I guess, we're supposed to live. For those who don't feel like it, I guess that trying to pursue happiness would lessen that or something, so they'll continue to live. I might have mixed that up with liberty, which is sad, because I'm reading it right now. His entire thing for natural rights is based off of God. I agree. But that isn't because he's stupid, but because he was a man of his time. People back then didn't really question such a thing, and since we don't have the scientific theories to back up the statements now, I can understand. That was what I was trying to say. Sorry for being unclear.

02-04-2003, 02:04 PM	#24
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Ahhhh Bullshit. You don't have any rights. Invoke your right to life when a bullet is speeding at your head. It won't work, I suggest ducking. The right to happiness? That is an illusion. You can be tortured in a dungeon and hacked to pieces slowly, and if you have the mental faculties, you can convince yourself you are happy. Or you could live the life of Hugh Hefner and be a miserable prick. And the right to liberty? You kind of have it, but if you kill someone you will lose it, or if a sick fuck abducts you, you can't invoke the right, you better hope you have a good detective on the police force in your area. What we have is a social contract that include the rights that "we find to be self evident". What is self evident anyway? We don't have any proof that we have these rights, but they sound good so we'll call them self evident. If we stand together and say that we get along better socially if we have these rights, oh, and this list of ten other rights, and this constitution thingy over here should be thown in too, then we all have increased utility. We give rights to ourselves, Locke was using "god" because it was the easy way to lend authority to said rights. An authority that neither exists nor granted any rights if it did.

02-04-2003, 04:02 PM	#26
Dr. Retard Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 735	Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding, natural rights needn't be absolute or inalienable, and knowing about them needn't be a matter of self-evident moral intuition. A lot of theorists have characterized natural rights this way, but you don't have to. Natural rights are just rights that people enjoy merely on account of being the type of beings we are. They're supposed to stand in contrast with conventional rights, the kind granted by legal systems and other human conventions. Anyone who takes this post as intended to support natural rights is an idiot.

02-04-2003, 04:11 PM	#27
Dr. Retard Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 735	Oh, and also, it's not clear that Locke believes God gave men their natural rights. He thinks that there is a Law of Nature, accessible by reason, saying that equal and independent beings (like us) ought to treat each other a certain way. Locke says that God made us equal and independent, so in that sense He gave us our natural rights. But Locke (I think) never says that God's will grounds the Law of Nature. In short, I think an atheist could follow Locke by saying that evolution made us equal and independent beings, and that consequently the Law of Nature applies to us. After all, it really doesn't make much sense to say God gave someone his rights, as if moral truths can be willed true by God. Morality, whatever it is, isn't determined by the likes and dislikes of some spirit.

02-04-2003, 05:18 PM	#28
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	By Harumi Locke was one of the first to create the idea of the capitalistic, bourgoise society. He was the first to write about the right to private property, hence, the economics part of it. He was also one of the constitutionalists, and his idea that man has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's) is the basis of the US constitution. He was also the first to create the idea that the government be entrusted to protect our rights. Other than the God part, I rather like his philosophy. His argument is based from God, merely because during his time period very few people did, and he is a man of his time. But I'm not here to talk about Locke. I'm here to discuss whether or not humans have so-called 'natural rights'. Leave off insulting Locke. My reply : Well ... I guess it is out of my league here. In my country (hell ... in my side of the hemisphere), there weren't any (which I know of) constitutions or anything like that made by a person who is dead for about 300 years which we are required to follow. We do learn about principles and concepts of our forefathers as basis of our thoughts (but that is all there is) but we don't force it down on our children's throats either, then turn around and blame God when we succeed in choking our kids. You have the floor, Ms Harumi (your name sounded like that of a Japanese lady ... or is it Mr.?), sorry for the insult and sorry for barging in.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.