Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Harumi · 02-05-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Retard

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).

Really? According to Locke, God created us, therefore we are literally his property, and therefore we do not have the right to take our own lives, only He does. Because of this, our bodies are our own, and the labors of our bodies are our own, since no one else can take it away, since it belongs to God. Through our labors, we gain property.

It sounds like if we weren't God's property, then any of this would be, in Locke's way of viewing it, impossible.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Harumi · 02-05-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim
By Harumi

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.

Harumi is the Japanese name I chose for myself. Actually though, my ethnicity's Taiwanese. I just love Japan, and Harumi is a pretty name. It means Spring Beauty.

I'm not mad at you Seraphim. Just teasing. I had a feeling that you wouldn't understand, since I noted that you were from Malaysia, and probably not familiar with the US constitution.

If you have anything to say here, just solely about rights that could be helpful to humans, I would love to hear your thoughts and participate.

Dr. Retard · 02-05-2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Really? According to Locke, God created us, therefore we are literally his property, and therefore we do not have the right to take our own lives, only He does. Because of this, our bodies are our own, and the labors of our bodies are our own, since no one else can take it away, since it belongs to God. Through our labors, we gain property.

I'll just share the relevant quote, to be compared with the big "God's property quote" in my last post:

Quote:

Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this "labour" being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others (V.26).

Gurdur · 02-05-2003, 02:48 PM

I'm just sad Harumi didNt take issue with my own post here (first page).

August Spies · 02-05-2003, 02:53 PM

Retard:
I wrote a paper partly on Locke's view of God once, a while back, but now my Microsoft word wont' open my old microsoft works files. Shit.

Anyway, how would Human rights exist objectivly if they were not decided by a higher consciousness??

Wiploc · 02-05-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
Anyway, how would Human rights exist objectivly if they were not decided by a higher consciousness??

How would they exist objectively if they were decided by a higher consciousness? They are no harder to establish without a god than with a god.
crc

Harumi · 02-05-2003, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
heh, Harumi, heh, on your last post.

Going back to your question on natural rights:

in one way, they don't exist ---- unless a significant number of people observe them.

Why do people then have the notion ?

Evolution.
We have certain inbuilt capacities and potentials with regards to our behavour, and what we think should happen; and one of these capacities is the idea of natural justice, the feeling of "what's fair and unfair".

In everyday life, there's the gut feelings, then the imaginative developments of those, then the social consensus as to what are rights.

I hope that helped.

Sorry Gurdur,

Your post made so much sense that I didn't feel the need to argue against it.

And it was an interesting speculation.

Anyone else want to disagree with his post and argue with him? I'm not going to argue with him. I'd lose.

By the way, welcome back Gurdur. I'm glad to see you posting here again.

August Spies · 02-05-2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

How would they exist objectively if they were decided by a higher consciousness? They are no harder to establish without a god than with a god.

well if some god did come down and say "hey! you guys! these are human rights" Then we could agree on what they are. I do agree that they are still hard to establish if we dont' presuppose a god (I dont' do this by the way, I think Human rights are somewhat silly).

But without a higher consciousness what is the basis of objective human rights? Platonic forms? what?

Wiploc · 02-05-2003, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
well if some god did come down and say "hey! you guys! these are human rights" Then we could agree on what they are.

We could agree if we did agree, but what if we didn't? How does a god coming down and saying, "These are your rights," work any better than my friend Ralph coming across town and saying, "These are your rights"?

Quote:

I do agree that they are still hard to establish if we dont' presuppose a god (I dont' do this by the way, I think Human rights are somewhat silly).

But without a higher consciousness what is the basis of objective human rights? Platonic forms? what?

With higher consciousness, what is the basis of human rights? I don't see any way that higher consciousness can help.
crc

Gurdur · 02-05-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Harumi
.....
By the way, welcome back Gurdur. I'm glad to see you posting here again.

Many thanks !

BTW, I wasn't asking you to argue with my post --- just my ego does occasionally wish me to be noticed.
Slap mah face and call me silly, if you like.

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

02-05-2003, 02:48 PM	#34
Gurdur Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Buggered if I know Posts: 12,410	I'm just sad Harumi didNt take issue with my own post here (first page).

02-05-2003, 02:53 PM	#35
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	Retard: I wrote a paper partly on Locke's view of God once, a while back, but now my Microsoft word wont' open my old microsoft works files. Shit. Anyway, how would Human rights exist objectivly if they were not decided by a higher consciousness??

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.