phaedrus

Ender

Well, obviously I haven't played along. If you don't like to have your convictions questioned, then that's not a problem for me. But if you wanted to really get down to the nitty and gritty, flesh out the question and get some answers (or more questions) one way is to analyze the definitions of the constituents in the posed question. I would much rather hear yours and a meaningful discussion could be had. This is where philosophical debates get started- on definitions, especially when they predetermine the line of reasoning that follows.
Well fear not, rightist- I hate liberals as much. Their demands of equality over order stinks as well.
Hey, you got me started!
It's a legitimate position in moral philosophy
Yeah, the refs are terrible.
~WiGGiN~

free12thinker

Absolutely! They were given to us by way of the society and civilizations we created, or we took them. Most countries on earth live under a Social Contract Theory of some type, thus setting aside codes of conduct, rights and laws by which the majority agree on. A lot of these rights and thus, the laws in which they created, came from learning. They came from simple action/reaction conditioning. Does it help our society, or does it hinder it? Does it bring pain or does it cause none or remove pain?

Ruy Lopez

I don't have much of a problem with your definition of rights. Was thinking of it from a much wider reference point. Even in a lion pride or gorilla community there are rights bestowed by members to each member. It is the sole right of the silverback to mate with all females in the group. Your single-word answer, society, threw me off.

Thanks for the clarification.

Jayhawker Soule

I suspect that, when most people speak of rights, they are speaking of privileges which transcend hierarchy rather than those which result from it.

free12thinker

I think you're right about this. I will go one step further and note that in today's America, however, when discussing those rights which are controversial (abortion, homosexuality & same sex marriages), most people refer to rights as they are displayed in the Constitution, rather than just go by rights that fit in with general existence and the progression of society. They stand by these right (Consitutional) as unchallengable and neccesary to maintain for good order.

Ted Hoffman

This is really irresponsible. You start a with a complex question loaded with the fallacy of presupposition and you feel you should not answer legitimate questions?

If you were curious about the atheist perspective to the question, well, atheists do not appreciate complex questions that are based on false premises.

You should therefore rephrase your question and define your meanings.

Jayhawker Soule

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. What rights "fit in with general existence"?

Blake

The question was:

So far as I can tell, this question is neither complex nor "loaded with the fallacy of presupposition," and thus, not irresponsible. Rights, just like anything else, come from somewhere. God and natural law are not presupposed in the question; they are excluded in it.

I only see a need for rephrasing the question & defining meanings if fromtheright wanted to have a discussion. I don't think he does. He just seems to want to get some feedback/information. That's fine by me; not every thread has to be a discussion.

Blake

free12thinker

Rights that fit in with general exisence meaning the right to be. The right to have chances. The right to live. The right to reproduce. Rights afforded someone simply by their birth as opposed to rights afforded by laws (Constitution), that are in accordance with one's position, stature, situation, rights that come with "if", "ands" or "buts". Does any on this make sense?