Alonzo Fyfe

To say that you had a right to liberty that was denied is to say that you were wronged in being made a slave. To say that you never had a right to liberty is to say that nobody wronged you in making you a slave. The former says that you ought not to be a slave and, thus, you morally may seek your own freedom. The latter argues that you ought to be a slave and may not morally seek your own freedom.

fromtheright

Ender,

Don't be an ass. I stated early on the purpose for this question, to simply get the perspective of those who post to IIDB what you see as the source of rights. The conditional clause was simply my own viewpoint, the thread being to find out that of others. Though Unaffiliated had his own [incorrect] assumption as to the purpose of the thread, none seemed so provoked at a simple question as yourself; indeed, they were all quite ready to answer it at face value. It looks like you have an ill-conceived presupposition or two yourself, about theists posing such questions on an atheist board.

Yes, I have my own set of convictions, I hope that isn't a problem for you. That you could find opprobrium in asking the question tells me that perhaps you should calm down before answering a reasonable question. Yes, it was designed to evoke response, hence it's being presented as a question. Others didn't seem to have a problem answering the question, which I appreciated, as I was simply curious as to the thinking about that question on this board--I wasn't looking to echo anything. Otherwise, I appreciated your response.

Note to self: perhaps Ender doesn't play well with others.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Adrian Selby

"To say that you had a right to liberty that was denied is to say that you were wronged in being made a slave. To say that you never had a right to liberty is to say that nobody wronged you in making you a slave. The former says that you ought not to be a slave and, thus, you morally may seek your own freedom. The latter argues that you ought to be a slave and may not morally seek your own freedom. "

So if I was wronged, it can only be because there's a prior moral judgement that I should not have had certain rights denied. But its only wrong if that view is held. So if its only wrong to deny someone's freedom when the view is held that freedom is a 'good' thing, then the rights ascribed would be contingent on what individuals or societies deem good, which puts me with the people that said society determines rights.

"who (or what) "decrees" that certain human individuals or groups have the "right" to grant "rights" (and so on)? "

These things are contingent. Societies agree to different rules, so within them, certain rights are granted. Outside of them, it doesn't seem to make any sense to apply any given rights, as the rights in question change from society to society.

Adrian

fromtheright

Please tell me more about memetics. Sounds intriguing. As a one-time reader of Ayn Rand and her own foundation for morality and rights, I am quite interested.

Ender

Fromtheright
Funny how you did not bother in the least commenting on what I wrote as opposed to how I said it. Goes to show a true representative of the Right's fanatic adherence to etiquette (read: morality) overrides everything, even the prima facie question posed in your opening post! I'll play along and ask you again: what are your definitions of God, Natural law, and rights? a meaningful discussion in philosophy is had only after the pissing grounds have been properly demarcated for further analysis.
Convictions are roadblocks on the path to truth, and are far more treacherous than lies. In general, most men of convictions have imprisoned themselves in their own thought-box and cannot see past the walls of their mind. I have always held the perception that freedom from deadweights of convictions was a sign of strength and the most necessary ingredient for an independent point of view. If you are not willing to analyze your presuppositions, then perhaps you're out of your depth here.
Perhaps you should lose that scholarly notion a calm answer is superior to a passionate one. Reason has been and always will be a tool of the passions.
Why have you decided to not comment on my proposed answer as opposed to complaining about the delivery? Moral highfaluting may work in the political forum, especially that <a href="http://www.alliedconservatives.com" target="_blank">lovely den of patriots,</a> but not here.
Sure. You'd much rather a candy-coated answer than a blunt, ham-handed one that dispenses with the artificial formalities.
Note to the board: Perhaps Fromtheright wants to stay where he is comfortable, from a supercilious ground where it is safe to lob non-sequiturs.

~WiGGiN~
((edited to fix grammar))

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

jpbrooks

Granted. But my comment was directed against (specifically) the idea that all rights are granted; not against the idea that certain "rights" arise as a result of social agreement.

However, since the point has been raised, why would the mere fact that different societies arrive at different sets of "rights" automatically rule out the existence of a set of rights that apply universally to human individuals (or societies) as a whole? In fact, one such "right" that seems to be (implicitly) held as universally applicable to each society in the view of "rights" alluded to in your post above is that "each society has the 'right' to determine its own set of 'rights' rather than have 'rights' imposed on it or decreed by another society".

Alonzo Fyfe

Nope. You are confusing the rights that a person has with the rights that others believe the person has. This is like confusing the cause what a society believes caused a disease (bad air) vs. what actually caused the disease.

Rights exist regardless of what a society believes those rights to be. The two most common types of rights theories treat rights as intrinsic moral properties to be discovered (like the causes of diseases are discovered), or as a way of stating rules which, if everybody agreed to, would tend to make everybody in society better off.

(Now, I repeat, I am not a rights theorist. I accept Jeremy Bentham's proclamation that to talk about rights is nonsense, and talk about natural rights is 'nonsense on stilts'. But the problems being described here do not describe true problems with rights theory.

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps, instead, each society is, in part, a set of rights and constraints.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

fromtheright

Ender,

I stated early on in this thread that perhaps I was over my head coming to this board, politefully stating the fact. I also explained that my intent was not to argue or debate (certainly not in the manner you seem most fit for) but that I was curious as to the atheist perspective on the question. Define the terms as you see fit as I would probably do so pretty inadequately anyway.

It seems you're the only one in this thread who has a problem with the concept.

Point well taken (though I don't know why I waste my time doing so with you), though I disagree as to the value of convictions.

Sounds like a fancy excuse for being a jerk and incapable of being polite.

I won't waste my time in a flame war with you, I've got better things to do. Now, you can start with the childish, "I won, I won, he won't fight me, I won!" to your heart's content.

NialScorva

fromtheright,

Understand that this board gets a *lot* of drive by theists who make the very assumptions that Ender points out, and that your posts have been laden with such things. These arguments rarely go well, and the locals here have a tendency to skip steps 2-10 and go straight for the endgame rather than live the same arguments over and over.

This does not excuse Ender's *slightly* antagonistic response, but it does explain it as brusk rather than hostile. Your responses so far have followed the same pattern of outraged indignation over having beliefs challenged rather than questing for conversation. Perhaps Ender is challenging you to see if you can see beyond the gut response to even address the very question you ask. If that is his purpose, I think he has little reason to accept your question as a philosophical question rather than statement of your inability to see other possible answers.

You said that you are not knowledgable about philsophy and you might be in over your head. That's easily remedied, but you have to ask whether you want to do so. Ender is easily one of the most knowlegible philosophers who post here, so use that to your advantage, even if you disagree with him. No matter what your beliefs, you can only learn by arguing. Ask questions and clarifications, use your opponent. Losing an argument will only make you smarter, and even winning will refine and help your position.