Debate Rounds (4)
Unalienable Rights, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Thank you blackkid (Con) for accepting this debate and may we both enjoy a learning experience from a constructive dialog.
Less than 250 years ago Thomas Jefferson claimed that all humans have Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We may consider “Happiness” as being some form of positive-feedback after an accomplished objective. Also, survival is a prerequisite for any form of positive-feedback. We may include the joy of a meal satisfying one's hunger, is a process of survival, a form of positive-feedback. In general all life, strives to survive.
Therefore, once alive, all “Life” must have the freedom (“Liberty”) in “the pursuit of” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Survival is a form of positive-feedback, and for us humans, survival is a prerequisite for “Happiness.”
It would seem, unbeknownst to Jefferson, he discovered, not developed, a primeval working function found throughout all living-systems. He claimed a polished version of this primeval function, within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights in the celebrated form of, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Jefferson's objective was to sway opinion for independence and to upset His Royal Highness King George III with such a phrase, as it flew in the face of the prevailing political theory of the day. Also, Jefferson’s term of Unalienable Rights became the foundation to the US Constitutional design of governance, which sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature.
From recent research, life's primeval working function (aka Unalienable Rights) is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, life's Unalienable Rights are part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made.
John Locke (http://plato.stanford.edu...) proposed the trifecta of Life, Liberty, and Property:
"He expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel. (http://www.fee.org...)."
This is important as Thomas Jefferson's "Pursuit of Happiness" is actually argued to come from another source: "If Thomas Jefferson did not coin the phrase, who did? Wikipedia (drawing on, I think, an old edition of the Encylopedia Britannica) attributes its coinage to Dr. Samuel Johnson in his long fable Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia, published in 1759. Rasselas is an Abyssinian prince who lives in the Happy Valley, a paradise in every respect imaginable. But the Prince is discontented. Accompanied by his sister Nekayah and a wise, well-traveled poet, he escapes from his utopia and travels around the known world. They visit the Great Pyramid, where a dear friend of Nekayah is kidnapped by Arabs. Wounded by this loss, the Princess laments: "what is to be expected from our pursuit of happiness when we find the state of life to be such, that happiness itself is the cause of misery?", which is further clarified by what Dr. Samuel Johnson, "What Dr. Johnson called "civil wisdom" was, he wrote, lacking in the English public. Therefore, in another resonant passage, he declared: "We are still so much unacquainted with our own state, and so unskillful in the pursuit of happiness, that we shudder without danger, complain without grievances, and suffer our quiet to be disturbed, and our commerce to be interrupted, by an opposition to the government, raised only by interest, and supported only by clamor, which yet has so far prevailed upon ignorance and timidity, that many favor it, as reasonable, and many dread it, as powerful. (http://hnn.us...)"
When we look at the origins of the statement we are then left with a standard of ambiguity for it's interpretation. Due to this we are at a loss the ability to pursue a direct notion for it's existence, with "Life" and "Liberty" being clearly defined by a basic dictionary and some common sense as "Your health" and "Your social allowances" but the last element being completely ambiguous.
Now noting the history of the phrase and it's ambiguity versus Locke's particular trifecta I would begin by saying that philosophy itself, and rights, are all manmade tools; the "natural rights" of man are not extended to other species despite man being one of those species for no greater reason than man being man. We can look at this simply by noting the laws on animal abuse (http://awic.nal.usda.gov...) "Enacted November 28, 1990, and establishes a holding period for dogs and cats at shelters and other holding facilities before sale to dealers. It requires dealers to provide written certification regarding each animal's background to the recipient. Specific items included on the certificate are mechanisms of enforcement, injunctions, and penalties for violation." this amendment to "he Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in 1966. It is the only Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act as the minimum acceptable standard." comes far later than the natural rights of mankind, and of life itself, and by noting this we can take note of the fact that "Life" and "Liberty" specifically only relate to very specific notions about government and in reality about society itself. It does not exist outside of that.
So now we look at the statement and note that a third of it is ambiguous and two-thirds are only enacted under very specific pretenses (as show in the Theory of Locke cited above if you wish to read) for humans. This leads to the reality of Natural Law, it's a legal theory: "In short: a natural law theory of (the nature of) law seeks both to give an account of the facticity of law and to answer questions that remain central to understanding law. As listed by Green 2003 (having observed that "No legal philosopher can be only a legal positivist), these further questions (which "legal positivism does not aspire to answer") are: What kinds of things could possibly count as merits of law? What role should law play in adjudication? What claim has law on our obedience? What laws should we have? And should we have law at all? All these questions, though organized and articulated a little differently, are under consideration in the present entry. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)", and it entirely encompasses social behavior.
By looking at this in totality I propose that it is not a natural standard, that is to say that the theory itself grants itself it's own persistent validity instead of having a validity outside of itself granting it evidence for it's existence. In a simple sentence "It's right because it says its right" versus actually existing as systems and govts. that do not respect these natural rights do not fail to function and societies that do not have govts. do not necessarily fail to function without these particular standards in place. The philosophical legal nature of the limitations of government and political discourse revolving around such have no standing in the natural world particularly because even then they exist only within certain contexts of their own field of philosophy and are in contention with other theories on the formation of laws.
Thank you Con for the “history of the phrase.” May I add a little more depth to this history?
Jefferson had over 6000 books in his library, one could rest assure the well-read Jefferson would have study the scholars of past ages and possibly included Democritus. Perhaps, the discovery of Unalienable Rights, through recorded history, started as early as Democritus 460BC where he stated (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...):
“Freedom from disturbance is the condition that causes human happiness, and this is the ethical goal.”
Con also covered John Locke, one of Jefferson's inspirational figures, stating the following, “He [Locke] expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property.”
From Democritus to Locke, we see the historical formation of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” taking hold in Jefferson's presentation, while Jefferson insisting that all humans are born with these Unalienable Rights, without government, void of any man-made laws. However, Jefferson did not scientifically backed his claim with empirical evidence, instead he treated those Rights as an axiom using the term “self-evident.”
On the subject of man-made laws, the nineteenth century French philosopher Frederic Bastiat stated the following (http://ebookbrowsee.net...):
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused man to make laws in the first place.”
Property includes shelter and food by having the freedom (“Liberty”) during “the pursuit of” survival, where survival is positive-feedback and the prerequisite for human “Happiness.”
Again, unbeknownst to Jefferson, he discovered, not developed, a primeval working function found throughout all living-systems from a single living cell, to humans, to social systems. He claimed a polished version of this primeval function, within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights in the celebrated form of, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We could play the word game and get trapped in semantics on the definition of “rights,” however, Jefferson used the label, “Unalienable Rights,” and that is just a label to a primeval working function, or a bio-program, found in all life. “Unalienable” is a fact, for when alienating any of those bio-program terms or “Rights” the result is death. Notably, it would be impossible to take away any one of the Rights while leaving the other two intact, as all of the Rights are dependent on one another. Without Life, one cannot enjoy Liberty or pursue Happiness. Without Liberty, one cannot pursue Happiness, and as this pursuit often overlaps with the pursuit of survival, one is unable to continue Life. Without the pursuit of Happiness/survival, one cannot continue Life or enjoy Liberty. Because of their interdependency and tendency to wane simultaneously with various degrees of obstruction, the three Rights define a spectrum of positions. The positive end of the spectrum is a position of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (positive-feedback), while the negative end is a position of Death, Tyranny, and Distress (negative-feedback).
The spectrums between Life and Death, Liberty and Tyranny, and Happiness and Distress, entertains a natural tendency during the struggle of survival to support, prolong, and improve “Life.” At the same time, there is an inherent drive to increase freedom (“Liberty”), with an ongoing effort to reduce and optimize the energy expended during “the pursuit of” an objective, while increasing and exploring new levels of “Happiness,” fulfillment, pleasure, and anything to do with positive-feedback. Life's Unalienable Rights helps life to thrive within the matrix of the Laws of Nature and interact with other living-systems. A bio-program, having an organically persuasive, self-adjusting, fine-tuning algorithm throughout the flux of life's Unalienable Rights; encouraging life to take the path of least resistance, in the attempt to satisfy the pursuit of its objectives, to maintain survival, or search for new levels of positive-feedback; this is the machinery of evolution.
Con's Locke quote also made reference to morality, “...government is morally obliged to serve people...” Governance is post-civil-society, where morality is the foundation to a civil-society. A moral event is doing something Right embracing positive-feedback relative to another's Unalienable Rights. An immoral event is doing something Wrong embracing negative-feedback relative to another's Unalienable Rights.
When two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive as a separate entity having its own Unalienable Rights. The “Life” of the group, has freedom (“Liberty”) in "the pursuit of" group "Happiness" through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for the Unalienable Rights of all the members within the group. Goodwill is a conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive-feedback. Over time, group-wide positive-feedback is the genesis of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.
The evidence of morality in a wide range of independently developed cultures across isolated human tribes empirically supports the hypothesis that morality is a universal force throughout nature. This force is responsible for the diversity of traditions, values, and languages that formed the independent civil societies found throughout the world today and throughout recorded history.
Therefore, morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, morality is part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made.
Of course morality is a man-made word that simply refers to the primitives of Right or Wrong. These primitives generates mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback is found throughout the spectrum of life in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and even inter-species relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.
In the natural order of events first came life with its bio-program (aka Unalienable Rights), then came morality for group formation as in the human genesis of norms for a civil society, and then came institutions of governance to make man-made laws preserving those norms.
We now came full circle to Frederic Bastiat’s quote:
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused man to make laws in the first place.”
"... the soul will either be disturbed, so that its motion affects the body in a violent way, or it will be at rest in which case it regulates thoughts and actions harmoniously. Freedom from disturbance is the condition that causes human happiness, and this is the ethical goal."
This is the whole quotation made by my opponent and its context is not that of the same nature. Furthermore:
"Democritus built an ethical theory on top of his atomist philosophy. His system was purely deterministic so he could not admit freedom of choice to individuals. To Democritus freedom of choice was an illusion since we are unaware of all the causes for a decision. Democritus believed that:"
Note the system for the ethical basis is deterministic. While my opponent provided no evidence that Jefferson would have cited Democritus to begin with it is completely evidence that if he had he would be contradicting himself as liberty is contrary to determinism. The source is my opponents source from last round (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...).
"We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life " physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production " in other words, individuality, liberty, property " this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
This is the complete quote and context for Bestiat (http://bastiat.org...) in the work "The Law" and it proceeds to explain that first it is assumed that the law is Divine in nature and furthermore, "Each of us has a natural right " from God " to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force " his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right " its reason for existing, its lawfulness " is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force " for the same reason " cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups... If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."
Bestiat suggests that the Law exists not naturally but instead it is a collective force, the birth of the law is built off of the reality of humanity versus the reality of humanity being dictated by naturalism. Bestiat's book is more about how Law should proceed rather than the Nature of Law or it's philosophical rooting with explanations for those beliefs. It is a managerial tome.
The phrase "Pursuit of Survival" is not supported. It is not that it is obscure but instead that "Life" covers this statement and sentiment very well. It would be redundant so it is questionable if the basis of the argumentation surrounding the phrase itself has validity or relevance. It does not directly correlate to any particular idea mentioned by Jefferson or any of the other cited and accessible sources. If it is a quotation in a book in the first two citations by the opponent I cannot read those because they are Amazon links so you'll need to get a direct source which can be examined without cost in a readily available format.
The phrase "Pursuit of Happiness" is not steadily used by my opponent so it is impossible to argue against one particular position without ignoring the other two. The first is the argumentation of a collective of a large nature, the second is the collective of a smaller nature (two people) and the third is a general overview that has no particular target.
"The evidence of morality in a wide range of independently developed cultures across isolated human tribes empirically supports the hypothesis that morality is a universal force throughout nature. This force is responsible for the diversity of traditions, values, and languages that formed the independent civil societies found throughout the world today and throughout recorded history."
Tribalism is actually a source of contention. Wars and whatnot are fought through tribal behavior so the concept of an "Unalienable Right" would eliminate, esp. if naturally instilled in humans, practices like slavery, abuse, war, etc. particularly because all of these violate at least Life and definitely Liberty if not also the Pursuit of Happiness however one chooses to use the ambiguous term. I propose instead that human ethics is a product of Reason versus naturally forming particularly because as humans progress technologically they abandon this behavior systematically; crime decreases as humans prosper (http://www.fbi.gov...), (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) and are more educated not vice versa where crime is a by-product of human corruption and aversion from the natural state of affairs.
Understanding the historical philosophical puzzle in the mind of Jefferson, during the time of his discovering life's Unalienable Rights is insolvable. Jefferson left no account behind such discovery, where Pro, Con, and anyone else, can only assume the sources behind Jefferson's wisdom in the formation of such concept.
Con stated, “Note the system for the ethical basis is deterministic. While my opponent provided no evidence that Jefferson would have cited Democritus to begin with it is completely evidence that if he had he would be contradicting himself as liberty is contrary to determinism.”
The point of bringing Democritus into the debate is just to show that scholars in the distant past were talking about freedom and causes of human happiness, whether, Jefferson read Democritus or not.
As for “liberty is contrary to determinism” Professor Bjorn Brembs' research may take issue with that. “Free Will is an Evolved Brain Function” (http://vimeo.com...). Brembs research empirically demonstrates a “Free-Will” zone within a spectrum between deterministic and stochastic.
Although such philosophical history about Jefferson's conceptual formation of Unalienable Rights is interesting, new developments in scientific research discovered a critical physical Law in Nature called the Constructal Law taking Unalienable Rights to a new level. This Law provides a traceability path from life's Unalienable Rights to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, elevating Unalienable Rights from metaphysics to the physical Laws of Nature. At the macro level, Constructal Law is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, explains how everything that moves or flows, whether animate or inanimate, naturally evolve in ways that facilitates such movement. The following video short is an overview of the Constructal Law: (https://www.youtube.com...)
Evolution started moments after the Big Bang. The foundation to evolution is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and in part, this Law deals with flow. That is, the natural flow of heat moves from high temperature to a lower temperature. When dealing with pressure, there is a natural flow from high pressure to a lower pressure. Electrical current flows from high resistance to low resistance. Water flows from the height of a mountain to the lowest level in a valley or the ocean. And so on.
Since humanity is a product of the Laws of Nature, it is fascinating to see symmetry in populations of human behavior relative to the Second Law. That is, the desire to take a path from high to lower resistance. Do less work for the same result. Population migration from the high resistance found in tyranny, to the low resistance found in freedom. The desire to move from a higher taxed area, to a lower tax community having the same standard of living. To go with the flow within a social group, rather than facing the high pressure struggles going against the flow. The enjoyment of the transition from high emotional stress to lower stress. Choose the lower price supplier for a given product. And so on.
Life's bio-program operates in the shadow of Thermodynamics, having an organically persuasive, self-adjusting, fine-tuning algorithm throughout the flux of life's Unalienable Rights; encouraging life to freely take the path of least resistance, in the attempt to satisfy the pursuit of its objectives, to maintain survival, or search for new levels of positive-feedback; this is the machinery of the evolution of life.
According to Adrian Bejan (http://www.amazon.com...):
“Life is movement. Every living system performs better when the power that is required for maintaining its movement is minimized. Just as lightning bolts and river basins should generate treelike structures to reduce thermodynamic imperfection and increase flow access, animals should have evolved to cover a greater distance for less effort, which means per unit of useful energy derived from food.”
Con stated, “The phrase "Pursuit of Survival" is not supported.” It should be obvious for any life to survive, it must have the freedom in “the pursuit of,” as in the energy needed to hunt, grow, or work for food; otherwise, there is no life. Therefore, the “the pursuit of survival,” the enjoyment of satisfying one's hunger with a fine meal, is “Happiness” for us humans--bon appetite! After a fine meal, we have the Right to live another day.
On the topic of food, Con may find inconsistency with a nature-wide Unalienable Right to Life with the fact that all animal-life depends on killing other animals or at least plants for food. “The world is one big restaurant.” We humans are free to dine in a universe where we too could be the next meal from the appetite of viruses, parasites, cancer, occasionally lions, tigers, bears, etc. Therefore, nature is not cruel or kind, just indifferent as it gives all life the Right to Life through Liberty in the pursuit of survival, which includes the evolution of reproductive quantity, self-defense and hunting skills. This balance in nature made human evolution possible and beyond.
Con stated, “Tribalism is actually a source of contention. Wars and whatnot are fought through tribal behavior so the concept of an "Unalienable Right" would eliminate, esp. if naturally instilled in humans, practices like slavery, abuse, war, etc. particularly because all of these violate at least Life and definitely Liberty if not also the Pursuit of Happiness…”
Quite the contrary, Unalienable Rights is part of social evolution, where competing cultures tend to move in the direction benefiting the Unalienable Rights of humanity. Cultural blending is not always a peaceful event, however.
For example, Adolph Hitler exercised his Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of his Happiness by obstructing the Unalienable Rights of others. This obstruction went against the Laws of Nature, causing distress, death, and a global nightmare. Nature fought back, for humans are part of nature. Hitler, who had an ideology that opposed nature, became history upon his demise, well before his natural time.
According to Adrian Bejan:
“Good ideas travel and persist. They keep on traveling. This is why culture is a constructal design [Constructal Law]--a tapestry of morphing linkages in our minds and on the globe--all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain). As such, culture is the same kind of design as the tapestry of vascular architectures, animate and inanimate, all superimposed on the Earth’s surface.”
Another example is the US governance based on a Constitutional designed with the mission to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights. The US started with a difficult task relative to the cultural reality of the day. Cultural norms do not change overnight, because they are inherently Conservative. Slavery and woman's standing in society were deeply rooted in the culture, including the norms of the ruling-class, for they too reflect the culture of the day. Our Founding Fathers knew Unalienable Rights will remove cultural ills. As a result, slavery, the treatment of woman, and today's treatment of gays, etc, in time during the Conservative evolution of culture as a function of our Unalienable Rights and the design of Congress to make law, fine-tunes our culture in the evolution of social “Happiness.”
On the subject of “good ideas travel and persist,” the US Founding Fathers developed a configuration of government supporting social evolution eighty some years before Darwin came on the stage (https://www.youtube.com...).
Evolution is slow, real, and can be a painful process, directed by life's bio-program (aka Unalienable Rights) having the freedom in the pursuit of positive-feedback. From single cells to humans, such feedback changes DNA, memory, knowledge, technology, markets, social-systems, etc. Observations in recorded history, shows positive improvement in the standard of living, as humans walked from caves to the moon and beyond.
The scientific method is also a slow evolutionary process in understanding the awesome machinery of nature. Where that too could be a painful process relative to classical metaphysical beliefs, while going forward with new knowledge that may help make this world a better place to live.
In closing, I thank Con for the time spent in debating this topic and I wish Con a long and healthy “Life,” with ample freedom (“Liberty” aka a function of money), in the moral pursuit of “Happiness.”
1. "The point of bringing Democritus into the debate is just to show that scholars in the distant past were talking about freedom and causes of human happiness, whether, Jefferson read Democritus or not." (http://www.princeton.edu...(logic).html) The discussion on Unalienable Rights has nothing to do with Democritus. The understanding that people have been talking about happiness and Freedom and conceptualizing it for over a thousand years also holds no sway. The entirety of Democritus' being brought up was completely meaningless and demonstrated nothing relevant to Jefferson or the idea of Unalienable Rights.
2. Bremb's (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...) does not support the philosophical standard behind the older understanding of metaphysical Free Will. Not only this Bremb's doesn't provide evidence that liberty is or is not contrary to determinism particularly because Bremb's actually reworks the definition to no longer address the idea at all:
"Of course, all of these neurobiologists are correct in that free will as a metaphysical entity indeed most probably is an illusion. Colloquial and historical use of the term "free will" has been inextricably linked with one variant or another of dualism. There have been so many and thorough recounts of the free will debate, that I will only reference some, which can serve to introduce the concepts used here [6"9]. Psychologists and neurobiologists have rightfully pointed out for decades now that there is no empirical support for any form of dualism. The interactionism proposed by Popper & Eccles was probably one of the last prominent accounts of dualism . Since then, these and related positions have largely fallen into irrelevance. Today, the metaphysical concept of free will is largely devoid of any support, empirical or intellectual. (source, cited above, area #1)"
Conclusively speaking this too also serves as a non-seqitur (though it is good information, you should read it, pretty interesting) as it doesn't provide evidence towards the intended proposition. It breaks philosophical links (which were applicable during Jefferson's time as dualism still was popular and not yet completely rejected http://plato.stanford.edu...) and adds physical links which do not necessarily support Jefferson's view or words or the standard for Unalienable Rights alone as the topic of rights is not brought up in the paper I cited which is a more extensive explanation of what the concept is.
3. The Constructual Law (http://www.wiley.com...), "First developed in the late 1990s, constructal theory holds that flow architecture arises from the natural evolutionary tendency to generate greater flow access in time and in flow configurations that are free to morph. It unites flow systems with solid mechanical structures, which are viewed as systems for the flow of stresses. Constructal theory unites nature with engineering, and helps us generate novel designs across the board, from high-density packages to vascular materials with new functionalities (self-healing, self-cooling), and from tree-shaped heat exchangers to svelte fluid-flow and solid structures."
First and foremost my opponents video does not support Unalienable Rights. They are not mentioned. There is no particular "traceability" offered. Instead there is an error of correlation (http://rationalwiki.org...) where my opponent essentially decided that sociological structures must flow the same way. There is no evidence however of social presences activating this way. In particular we have items like civil rights; it would be easier to grant civil rights in "the flow" than it would be to blockade them, war is easier not fought, crime is easier to not commit, and most negative acts are not acts of convenience in the conventional sense where it would be for both the personal and societal value to create laws that support (even in debauchery) the standards of living of the current regime and philosophical outlook. And yet this is not. People are denied rights, wars do occur, violence still happens, and one of the largest factors in the decrease of all of these things is technology, development, and accessibility. Now while the parallel for accessibility lowering crime could be made because it's moderately true though still a reach there is no parallel for Unalienable Rights that I can see.
4. Adrian Bejan; the citation comes from page 80 in the book "Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organizations" with a proper attempt at citation to the source being (http://books.google.com...) however the source itself in it's contextual chapters says nothing of society and more of mobility in animals. It refers specifically to something completely unrelated and the allegorical value of "The pursuit of Survival" is not present or supported by this particular segment in that book.
Furthermore I still assert that "Life" covers this, and it is a redundant proposal, because the "Pursuit of Survival" and "Life" don't seem to differ. It was never explained how they do if they do so I would state that it is as unsubstantiated as it was the round prior particularly because the Right to Life would consider your basic needs like food, water, (clothing, shelter) etc.
5. "Quite the contrary, Unalienable Rights is part of social evolution, where competing cultures tend to move in the direction benefiting the Unalienable Rights of humanity. Cultural blending is not always a peaceful event, however.
For example, Adolph Hitler exercised his Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of his Happiness by obstructing the Unalienable Rights of others. This obstruction went against the Laws of Nature, causing distress, death, and a global nightmare. Nature fought back, for humans are part of nature. Hitler, who had an ideology that opposed nature, became history upon his demise, well before his natural time."
First, Godwin's Law, (http://rationalwiki.org...'s_Law) particularly because this is an extreme example. It's not that it's false but it isn't valuable to the point; again we can look at very simple and small systems such as the allowance of certain practices and contention between State and Citizen. It does not require a massive system to see that one's "Pursuit of Happiness", ambiguous as it is, can be "obstructed" by simply not allowing one to do as they please when they please and can range from just sitting around drunk in a parking lot at 2pm because you feel like to stealing property and slaying others. The value of that contention is not black and white so the standard for Unalienable Rights is too prone to change, advancement, and may even be discarded for a greater ethical vantage point. Tribalism encompasses all of this, by the way, whether one wants to talk about Nazi Germany or one wants to simply refer to the "stoners versus the cops" these tribal groups continuously live in duress of one another. From those who support abortion to their relationship for those who are against to those who would fight with butter up versus butter down (http://www.amazon.com...) as long as these elements exist in human philosophy there will definitely be an ongoing standard for the evolution of the idea, the man-made conceptualization, of Unalienable Rights.
There are some a to make about the Constitution and about the sociological evolution.
The Constitution did not protect the rights of all people. It protected the rights of citizens. It protected the rights of those who it considered citizens. Citizenry was not afforded to all the humans, some of which weren't even afforded personhood, so it is in existence as an idea (as Bono states) but that idea did not arise from the crags of the universe but instead the natural desire for humans to not fight. I would say that all of Ethics has come from the desire for humans to not fight. Humans do not want to live and die for the majority on the battlefield traumatized and broken and so I would say that rather than the rights of "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" being a standard set forth for morality it is nothing more than an ethical spyglass for Law. It would be over a century after the writing of that idea that even a semblance of equality would come to over half of the populations present whether they were Asian on the railroad, Black and enslaved whether de jure or de facto, female and considered lesser, or even Irish or Jewish.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I believe con showed us some good examples of people so bad they don't deserve unalienable rights.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate