Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rights are no morally based

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:31:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I constantly hear people claiming that rights are based in morals. This is pure BS. Rights are not morally based. Morals deals with good and evil; morals are subjective, as good an evil varies from person to person. Rights are entitlements; if you own a piece of land, you have a legal entitlement to that land. All men have 3 main essential natural rights, which are not necessarily legal rights; men are entitled to life, liberty, and the ability to acquire and own property. They are natural entitlements, because it goes against our nature to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. When the life, liberty, or property of someone is threatened there is a instinctive fight or flight response; therefore men are naturally entitled to their life, liberty, and property.
Legal rights are sometimes based in morality, but not all the time. The basis for rights is dependent on the nature of the entitlement. Many consider premarital sex immoral, but believe it's the right of the individual to choose to have premarital sex. One has a right to be immoral, if they choose; if rights were based on morality, than this would cause an extremely problematic paradox.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:33:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's a fallacy to believe things require a moral basis for validity, because morals are subjective.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:33:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How do you justify rights?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:34:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:33:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How do you justify rights?

once again, it depends on the right.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:36:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:34:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:33:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How do you justify rights?

once again, it depends on the right.

Justification for rights to:

-Life
-Liberty
-Property
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:34:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:33:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How do you justify rights?

once again, it depends on the right.

To clarify, natural rights are based on natural laws; such as instincts. Legal rights are based on a variety of things; it would be based on morals, as legal rights varies from state to state, unlike natural rights. Legal rights could also be based on the necessity of the existence of said right; which again, may vary from place to place.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:38:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:36:42 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:34:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:33:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How do you justify rights?

once again, it depends on the right.

Justification for rights to:

-Life
-Liberty
-Property

they are natural rights, and therefore are justified by natural laws; such as human instinct. I believe this was already mentioned several times in this thread. Please learn to read.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:39:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It turns out, rights aren't actually based on anything, and all of their transcendental or self-presenting grounding (the functions of both of which are served by appeals to a Natural Law of some kind in which are contained something like "natural rights") turns out to be a load of crap. They're interesting fictions, but that's about it.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:41:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:37:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:34:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:33:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How do you justify rights?

once again, it depends on the right.

To clarify, natural rights are based on natural laws; such as instincts. Legal rights are based on a variety of things; it would be based on morals, as legal rights varies from state to state, unlike natural rights. Legal rights could also be based on the necessity of the existence of said right; which again, may vary from place to place.

Ridge v Baldwin 1964.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:41:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:39:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It turns out, rights aren't actually based on anything, and all of their transcendental or self-presenting grounding (the functions of both of which are served by appeals to a Natural Law of some kind in which are contained something like "natural rights") turns out to be a load of crap. They're interesting fictions, but that's about it.

Not true, rights always have a basis; the basis for rights simply varies from right to right.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:31:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I constantly hear people claiming that rights are based in morals. This is pure BS. Rights are not morally based. Morals deals with good and evil; morals are subjective, as good an evil varies from person to person. Rights are entitlements; if you own a piece of land, you have a legal entitlement to that land. All men have 3 main essential natural rights, which are not necessarily legal rights; men are entitled to life, liberty, and the ability to acquire and own property. They are natural entitlements, because it goes against our nature to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. When the life, liberty, or property of someone is threatened there is a instinctive fight or flight response; therefore men are naturally entitled to their life, liberty, and property.
Legal rights are sometimes based in morality, but not all the time. The basis for rights is dependent on the nature of the entitlement. Many consider premarital sex immoral, but believe it's the right of the individual to choose to have premarital sex. One has a right to be immoral, if they choose; if rights were based on morality, than this would cause an extremely problematic paradox.

I suppose you'd be willing to defend a naturalistic meta-ethical framework then? If you think you can do politics without philosophy, you're wrong. I'd say it's in man's nature to be occasionally quite vicious, would stopping that be immoral then? Laws are ideally in accordance with moral law, if there is no objective moral law then no laws are better than any others in a scale that is beyond your own preferences and tastes. IMO, you're dealing with a tricky, tricky subject in trying to derive rights (are these legitimate to violate? Ever?) from man's nature.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:46:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Additionally, "liberty" has positive and negative conceptions of. As a libertarian you seemingly only consider the negative conception but it tells us nothing when someone says "liberty" because they could be meaning virtually anything. If someone has a right to life are we never allowed to kill anyone?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:47:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:41:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:39:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It turns out, rights aren't actually based on anything, and all of their transcendental or self-presenting grounding (the functions of both of which are served by appeals to a Natural Law of some kind in which are contained something like "natural rights") turns out to be a load of crap. They're interesting fictions, but that's about it.

Not true, rights always have a basis; the basis for rights simply varies from right to right.

Let me rephrase: they don't ever have a legitimate basis. I mean, I could say "Rights exist because I said so," and that would be a basis. But no one would buy into that. But people do buy into foofy inventions like "natural rights", apparently. It's all about making up some dumb transcendental anchor and saying "Rights are inherent cuz of this, but you don't actually get em unless we protect them with more pretend stuff like citizenship and sovereignty!"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:47:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:38:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:36:42 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:34:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:33:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How do you justify rights?

once again, it depends on the right.

Justification for rights to:

-Life
-Liberty
-Property

they are natural rights, and therefore are justified by natural laws; such as human instinct. I believe this was already mentioned several times in this thread. Please learn to read.

At 6/12/2012 4:31:42 PM, DanT wrote:
They are natural entitlements, because it goes against our nature to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. When the life, liberty, or property of someone is threatened there is a instinctive fight or flight response; therefore men are naturally entitled to their life, liberty, and property.

I read your reasoning I just don't follow. (A) how do you derive an objective nature of humanity, (B) why do you think it is limited to these three things, and (C) why do you think that provides a sufficient basis for transcendent rights?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:49:43 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Hahahahahahahahaha

I do feel bad for the OP. This thread immediately evoked reactions from the nihilist, the anarchist, and the guy who felt OP was dissing philosophy.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:53:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:52:37 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:49:43 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Hahahahahahahahaha

I do feel bad for the OP. This thread immediately evoked reactions from the nihilist, the anarchist, and the guy who felt OP was dissing philosophy.

Reminds me of the good ol' days, when you couldn't have a single pro-statism thread without being trampled by the AnCaps...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:01:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:53:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:52:37 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:49:43 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Hahahahahahahahaha

I do feel bad for the OP. This thread immediately evoked reactions from the nihilist, the anarchist, and the guy who felt OP was dissing philosophy.

Reminds me of the good ol' days, when you couldn't have a single pro-statism thread without being trampled by the AnCaps...

How is this thread pro-statism?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:04:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:01:26 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:53:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:52:37 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:49:43 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Hahahahahahahahaha

I do feel bad for the OP. This thread immediately evoked reactions from the nihilist, the anarchist, and the guy who felt OP was dissing philosophy.

Reminds me of the good ol' days, when you couldn't have a single pro-statism thread without being trampled by the AnCaps...

How is this thread pro-statism?

Oh, I didn't say it was. I dunno if you were around back in the days when the AnCaps were around and prominent, but, every time a thread in support of statism/against anarchism popped up, the AnCaps tended to dogpile and shred the OP and friends. Similarly, this thread about rights and their transcendental anchor(s) was almost immediately jumped on by the predictable characters.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:12:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:46:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Additionally, "liberty" has positive and negative conceptions of. As a libertarian you seemingly only consider the negative conception but it tells us nothing when someone says "liberty" because they could be meaning virtually anything. If someone has a right to life are we never allowed to kill anyone?

"Liberty" comes from the Latin root "liber", meaning free or unrestricted, in combination with the latin suffix "tas", meaning condition or quality of.

From the Latin word "Libertas" we get the Old French "liberte", meaning the state of being free or unrestrained.

From the Old French "liberte", we get the Middle English "liberte", which means the same thing.

From the Middle English "liberte" we get the Modern English "Liberty", which means the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:19:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:12:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:46:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Additionally, "liberty" has positive and negative conceptions of. As a libertarian you seemingly only consider the negative conception but it tells us nothing when someone says "liberty" because they could be meaning virtually anything. If someone has a right to life are we never allowed to kill anyone?

"Liberty" comes from the Latin root "liber", meaning free or unrestricted, in combination with the latin suffix "tas", meaning condition or quality of.

From the Latin word "Libertas" we get the Old French "liberte", meaning the state of being free or unrestrained.

From the Old French "liberte", we get the Middle English "liberte", which means the same thing.

From the Middle English "liberte" we get the Modern English "Liberty", which means the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

The history of the word is irrelevant, but the sake of interest - yes, liberty can mean "freedom from" but what "freedom from" has often been freedom from heteronomy or outside forces (not the government, really) but things like materialism, self-love, or other personal vices. Like that's the meaning in the Upanishads, and if you read Kant you have "freedom" in the sense of autonomy - not really in the political sense.

What I'm talking about is the validity of the competing metaphysical conceptions of the word - positive and negative.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:24:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:44:16 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:31:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I constantly hear people claiming that rights are based in morals. This is pure BS. Rights are not morally based. Morals deals with good and evil; morals are subjective, as good an evil varies from person to person. Rights are entitlements; if you own a piece of land, you have a legal entitlement to that land. All men have 3 main essential natural rights, which are not necessarily legal rights; men are entitled to life, liberty, and the ability to acquire and own property. They are natural entitlements, because it goes against our nature to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. When the life, liberty, or property of someone is threatened there is a instinctive fight or flight response; therefore men are naturally entitled to their life, liberty, and property.
Legal rights are sometimes based in morality, but not all the time. The basis for rights is dependent on the nature of the entitlement. Many consider premarital sex immoral, but believe it's the right of the individual to choose to have premarital sex. One has a right to be immoral, if they choose; if rights were based on morality, than this would cause an extremely problematic paradox.

I suppose you'd be willing to defend a naturalistic meta-ethical framework then?

Again, rights have nothing to do with ethics. One can be entitled to non-ethical practices.
It's unethical to get drunk every Sunday night night, while listing to simple plan's "welcome to my life"; however you are well within your rights to do so.
It's unethical to call the President a used up douche bag, but you are well within your rights to do so.
It's unethical to place a picture of your grandmother in a toilet bowl, and piss on it, but you have a right to do it.
It's unethical to shoot animals just for sport, yet you have a right to do so.

Just because it's unethical, does not mean you do not have a right to do it.

If you think you can do politics without philosophy, you're wrong. I'd say it's in man's nature to be occasionally quite vicious, would stopping that be immoral then? Laws are ideally in accordance with moral law, if there is no objective moral law then no laws are better than any others in a scale that is beyond your own preferences and tastes. IMO, you're dealing with a tricky, tricky subject in trying to derive rights (are these legitimate to violate? Ever?) from man's nature.

Again it has nothing to do with morality, or ethics.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:26:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:24:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:44:16 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:31:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I constantly hear people claiming that rights are based in morals. This is pure BS. Rights are not morally based. Morals deals with good and evil; morals are subjective, as good an evil varies from person to person. Rights are entitlements; if you own a piece of land, you have a legal entitlement to that land. All men have 3 main essential natural rights, which are not necessarily legal rights; men are entitled to life, liberty, and the ability to acquire and own property. They are natural entitlements, because it goes against our nature to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. When the life, liberty, or property of someone is threatened there is a instinctive fight or flight response; therefore men are naturally entitled to their life, liberty, and property.
Legal rights are sometimes based in morality, but not all the time. The basis for rights is dependent on the nature of the entitlement. Many consider premarital sex immoral, but believe it's the right of the individual to choose to have premarital sex. One has a right to be immoral, if they choose; if rights were based on morality, than this would cause an extremely problematic paradox.

I suppose you'd be willing to defend a naturalistic meta-ethical framework then?

Again, rights have nothing to do with ethics. One can be entitled to non-ethical practices.
It's unethical to get drunk every Sunday night night, while listing to simple plan's "welcome to my life"; however you are well within your rights to do so.
It's unethical to call the President a used up douche bag, but you are well within your rights to do so.
It's unethical to place a picture of your grandmother in a toilet bowl, and piss on it, but you have a right to do it.
It's unethical to shoot animals just for sport, yet you have a right to do so.

None of those are unethical. Ethics are rights-based.
Just because it's unethical, does not mean you do not have a right to do it.

If you think you can do politics without philosophy, you're wrong. I'd say it's in man's nature to be occasionally quite vicious, would stopping that be immoral then? Laws are ideally in accordance with moral law, if there is no objective moral law then no laws are better than any others in a scale that is beyond your own preferences and tastes. IMO, you're dealing with a tricky, tricky subject in trying to derive rights (are these legitimate to violate? Ever?) from man's nature.

Again it has nothing to do with morality, or ethics.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:34:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:47:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:38:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:36:42 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:34:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:33:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How do you justify rights?

once again, it depends on the right.

Justification for rights to:

-Life
-Liberty
-Property

they are natural rights, and therefore are justified by natural laws; such as human instinct. I believe this was already mentioned several times in this thread. Please learn to read.

At 6/12/2012 4:31:42 PM, DanT wrote:
They are natural entitlements, because it goes against our nature to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. When the life, liberty, or property of someone is threatened there is a instinctive fight or flight response; therefore men are naturally entitled to their life, liberty, and property.

I read your reasoning I just don't follow. (A) how do you derive an objective nature of humanity, (B) why do you think it is limited to these three things, and (C) why do you think that provides a sufficient basis for transcendent rights?

HEEEEELLLLLOOOOOOOO????
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:46:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:19:48 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/12/2012 5:12:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:46:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Additionally, "liberty" has positive and negative conceptions of. As a libertarian you seemingly only consider the negative conception but it tells us nothing when someone says "liberty" because they could be meaning virtually anything. If someone has a right to life are we never allowed to kill anyone?

"Liberty" comes from the Latin root "liber", meaning free or unrestricted, in combination with the latin suffix "tas", meaning condition or quality of.

From the Latin word "Libertas" we get the Old French "liberte", meaning the state of being free or unrestrained.

From the Old French "liberte", we get the Middle English "liberte", which means the same thing.

From the Middle English "liberte" we get the Modern English "Liberty", which means the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

The history of the word is irrelevant, but the sake of interest - yes, liberty can mean "freedom from" but what "freedom from" has often been freedom from heteronomy or outside forces (not the government, really) but things like materialism, self-love, or other personal vices. Like that's the meaning in the Upanishads, and if you read Kant you have "freedom" in the sense of autonomy - not really in the political sense.

I gave the etymology as well as the current definition.
What I'm talking about is the validity of the competing metaphysical conceptions of the word - positive and negative.

Positive liberty is freedom to do or have something, such as the phrase "I am my own master"
Negative liberty is freedom from restraint, such as the phrase "I am slave to no man"

Freedom from restriction of speech is a negative liberty.
Freedom from someone compelling you to or prohibiting from the practice of a certain religion is a negative liberty.

Freedom to say cuss is a positive liberty.
Freedom to join a Wiccan church is a positive liberty.

Positive Liberty did not appear until the 20th century; most likely because it is more narrow, and is covered by negative liberty.
Positive liberty is a myth, as it is nothing more than the side-effects of negative liberty. One cannot create liberty, one can only restore, or prevent the destruction of liberty.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:48:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just because it's unethical, does not mean you do not have a right to do it.

I don't completely buy your conception of rights, but as a matter of fact in the US that statement is true. We don't ban everything that is immoral nor should we. I'm just saying that laws, as a matter of fact, are based on ethics. Rights entail ethical duties to uphold rights. You still haven't addressed my concerns with your conception of rights though.

It's unethical to shoot animals just for sport, yet you have a right to do so.

I would take issue with this one depending on the animal - for the most part I don't believe humans are entitled to kill other animals.

Again it has nothing to do with morality, or ethics.

Rights entail duties.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:54:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:26:49 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/12/2012 5:24:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:44:16 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/12/2012 4:31:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I constantly hear people claiming that rights are based in morals. This is pure BS. Rights are not morally based. Morals deals with good and evil; morals are subjective, as good an evil varies from person to person. Rights are entitlements; if you own a piece of land, you have a legal entitlement to that land. All men have 3 main essential natural rights, which are not necessarily legal rights; men are entitled to life, liberty, and the ability to acquire and own property. They are natural entitlements, because it goes against our nature to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. When the life, liberty, or property of someone is threatened there is a instinctive fight or flight response; therefore men are naturally entitled to their life, liberty, and property.
Legal rights are sometimes based in morality, but not all the time. The basis for rights is dependent on the nature of the entitlement. Many consider premarital sex immoral, but believe it's the right of the individual to choose to have premarital sex. One has a right to be immoral, if they choose; if rights were based on morality, than this would cause an extremely problematic paradox.

I suppose you'd be willing to defend a naturalistic meta-ethical framework then?

Again, rights have nothing to do with ethics. One can be entitled to non-ethical practices.
It's unethical to get drunk every Sunday night night, while listing to simple plan's "welcome to my life"; however you are well within your rights to do so.
It's unethical to call the President a used up douche bag, but you are well within your rights to do so.
It's unethical to place a picture of your grandmother in a toilet bowl, and piss on it, but you have a right to do it.
It's unethical to shoot animals just for sport, yet you have a right to do so.

None of those are unethical. Ethics are rights-based.

No ethics is based on right and wrong; ethics is not based on rights.

Having a right to do something is not the same as doing the right thing.

(n) ethic, moral principle, value-system, value orientation (the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group)
(n) ethic, ethical code (a system of principles governing morality and acceptable conduct)
(n) ethical motive, ethics, morals, morality (motivation based on ideas of right and wrong)

I am using the word "right" in the sense of entitlements.
You are using the word "right" in the sense of justification

(n) right (an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature) "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) right, rightfulness (anything in accord with principles of justice) "he feels he is in the right"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

They are not the same word. It's called a homophone.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:57:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Positive Liberty did not appear until the 20th century; most likely because it is more narrow, and is covered by negative liberty.

That's just not true, it's a much more ancient notion that negative liberty. That's not to say anything of its validity though. I've explained that it's found in the Upanishads (I just read them) and other ancient religious texts. I interpret negative liberty as non-interference from other people/government while positive liberty is self-mastery as you explained, but this is not non-interference on a political level but freedom from materialism, nature, falsehood, or other vices of a similar nature. It's this conception that has a thoroughly ancient history, not freedom in the sense that "I can do whatever I want, when I want insofar as I don't violate basic rights."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:56:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 7:43:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Please tell me how you are deriving an "ought" from an "is"?

OMFG, it's not an ought. A right is an is.

An "ought" is used to describe correctness or probability.
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
An "is" is used to describe something that exists, is constituted, is specified, is occurring, or has the quality of.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle