Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Natural Rights

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 10:44:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/30/2009 1:55:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
To point out, I don't agree with Cody on the idea that rights are non-existent. However, there is something wrong when people say they have a "natural right" to freedom.

The fact is, there is no such thing as a "natural right." Human rights is a concept that is designed to give rights to those that have none that are protected by a state. Refugees, criminals, and those without protection - they're the people that human rights is respective to. But, respect for human rights is conditional upon whether or not you choose to recognize it. You don't have to, because there is no natural, compelling force saying "you have a natural right to freedom." You simply don't. Rights are creations of society and enforced by the state; without that, there is nothing saying you have to respect another's rights, whether proprietary or "natural," except your own ability to compromise and survive.

So, again - natural rights? What natural rights?

I am here to respond to the above post by Volkov in a different thread that has misrepresented the Natural Rights position. As well as to address posts by Kleptin in previous threads as well.

When we say that one has the right to do certain things, we mean this and this only, that it would be immoral for another alone or in combination to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. However, we do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is a moral use.

An example of this definition of rights can be found in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The idea in the above is that man has certain rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that was given to them by the Creator, with rights using a definition similar to the one above, and that in order to secure these rights, that is in order to prevent them from being violated, not that they themselves create them, governments are instituted.

It can therefore be said that whether or not these rights are respected is irrelevant in regard to their existence. The fact that there is no compelling force preventing one from violating another rights does not mean that they have none, that is to say that it does not mean that the use of force against them is legitimate just because on physically could attack them if one wished to.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 10:56:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This entire is predicated on whether or not there is a 'Creator', which in my opinion, there isn't, so exactly what is standing behind these 'natural rights' of yours?

I'll agree that everyone has a degree of freedom which is inherent to their lives, but that isn't a right. A 'right' is something that is essentially a negotiation. It defines relations between entities, not inherent values. My right to property is dependent upon your respect for it, and vice versa. But there isn't anything there to say that, naturally, I have a right to that property. It's a concept, not a natural fact. Why else do you think all property is defined by humans, and not the bending of the planet and reality to marked lines?

It is this kind of talk of a "natural right" that gives rise to things like Zionism, or German unification/superiority/Anschluss. When rights become the domain of nature, or the Divine, you're killing off any chance of compromise, safety and society. It isn't what rights are about, and I'm offended that others would twist it in such a way. Its outrageous.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 10:58:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 10:54:02 AM, Nags wrote:
Except some people don't believe in a Creator (ie. Volkov, Nags), so Natural Rights don't exist.

The existence of a creator and whether or not there are situations in which the use of force is wrong are two completely different things. Jefferson just happened to base his beliefs in the latter on his beliefs in the former.

All the concepts of rights includes is a belief that sometimes it is wrong to use force against another.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:02:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 10:58:02 AM, Reasoning wrote:
The existence of a creator and whether or not there are situations in which the use of force is wrong are two completely different things. Jefferson just happened to base his beliefs in the latter on his beliefs in the former.

The whole basis of Natural Rights is that the rights are self-evident, and given to us by a Creator. Thus, why they are unalienable. I don't believe in a Creator.

All the concepts of rights includes is a belief that sometimes it is wrong to use force against another.

Well, your just begging the question now.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:05:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 10:56:29 AM, Volkov wrote:
This entire is predicated on whether or not there is a 'Creator', which in my opinion, there isn't, so exactly what is standing behind these 'natural rights' of yours?

No it is not. I merely used the Declaration of Independence because it is a well-known document.

Do you believe in right and wrong or are you a moral nihilist? I mean neither in disrespect, I would just appreciate further clarification.

I'll agree that everyone has a degree of freedom which is inherent to their lives, but that isn't a right. A 'right' is something that is essentially a negotiation. It defines relations between entities, not inherent values. My right to property is dependent upon your respect for it, and vice versa.

This is not how the term has been used historically and its use as such is a perversion of its original definition.

Furthermore, even if we accept your definition of rights it does not prove the concept of natural rights invalid shown above.

But there isn't anything there to say that, naturally, I have a right to that property. It's a concept, not a natural fact. Why else do you think all property is defined by humans, and not the bending of the planet and reality to marked lines?

It is a concept. It is a concept of right and of wrong. Do you think that there is never a situation in which the use of force against another is immoral?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:07:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 10:56:29 AM, Volkov wrote:

I'll agree that everyone has a degree of freedom which is inherent to their lives, but that isn't a right. A 'right' is something that is essentially a negotiation. It defines relations between entities, not inherent values. My right to property is dependent upon your respect for it, and vice versa. But there isn't anything there to say that, naturally, I have a right to that property. It's a concept, not a natural fact. Why else do you think all property is defined by humans, and not the bending of the planet and reality to marked lines?

Yep. Correctamundo.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:07:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:05:08 AM, Reasoning wrote:

It is a concept. It is a concept of right and of wrong. Do you think that there is never a situation in which the use of force against another is immoral?

Lol it's debatable, to say the least.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:07:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:02:18 AM, Nags wrote:
At 12/31/2009 10:58:02 AM, Reasoning wrote:
The existence of a creator and whether or not there are situations in which the use of force is wrong are two completely different things. Jefferson just happened to base his beliefs in the latter on his beliefs in the former.

The whole basis of Natural Rights is that the rights are self-evident, and given to us by a Creator. Thus, why they are unalienable. I don't believe in a Creator.

That is not the whole basis of Natural Rights. Natural Rights has been explained above.

All the concepts of rights includes is a belief that sometimes it is wrong to use force against another.

Well, your just begging the question now.

How so?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:09:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, Reasoning, you just don't understand. The premise of natural rights is that a God exists and that said God gave us these rights.

http://www.u-s-history.com...
Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:10:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:07:44 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/31/2009 11:05:08 AM, Reasoning wrote:

It is a concept. It is a concept of right and of wrong. Do you think that there is never a situation in which the use of force against another is immoral?

Lol it's debatable, to say the least.

Is rape immoral even if most in your society do not it so?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:13:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:09:44 AM, Nags wrote:
No, Reasoning, you just don't understand. The premise of natural rights is that a God exists and that said God gave us these rights.

http://www.u-s-history.com...
Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

Traditionally Natural Rights theories have been based on the existence of a creator who grants these rights. Nonetheless, this is not necessary for a formulation of the Natural Rights theory.

Many individuals believe that an atheist cannot possibly be a moral human being because they do not believe in God. There is no reason as to why a belief in God and a belief in morality must go together. This is a dominant idea in modern philosophy.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:14:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:10:27 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/31/2009 11:07:44 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/31/2009 11:05:08 AM, Reasoning wrote:

It is a concept. It is a concept of right and of wrong. Do you think that there is never a situation in which the use of force against another is immoral?

Lol it's debatable, to say the least.

Is rape immoral even if most in your society do not think it so?

Fixed.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:16:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:13:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Traditionally Natural Rights theories have been based on the existence of a creator who grants these rights. Nonetheless, this is not necessary for a formulation of the Natural Rights theory.

Ok, I'd love to hear the other premise then... if God is now not needed for Natural Rights. Natural Rights extend from Natural Law, which absolutely relies on God. So, impress me.

Many individuals believe that an atheist cannot possibly be a moral human being because they do not believe in God. There is no reason as to why a belief in God and a belief in morality must go together. This is a dominant idea in modern philosophy.

Sure. Straw man though. Natural Rights theory relies on a God, unlike other moral philosophies.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:18:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:14:09 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Is rape immoral even if most in your society do not think it so?

Nothing is inherently wrong. And my beliefs on whether something is immoral or not is not dependent on the populace ---> appeal to the majority ---> fallacy.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:24:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nags, Natural Law does not depend on God...it's dependent on reason as a tool for knowledge of man's nature. Even the religious advocates of this position (Aquinas, Augustine) contend that it is by REASON, not by GOD that we arrive at our conclusions regarding Natural Law. We could debate this, but the facts are on my side.

I'm an atheist and I strongly believe in Natural Law.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:24:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:16:34 AM, Nags wrote:
At 12/31/2009 11:13:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Traditionally Natural Rights theories have been based on the existence of a creator who grants these rights. Nonetheless, this is not necessary for a formulation of the Natural Rights theory.

Ok, I'd love to hear the other premise then... if God is now not needed for Natural Rights. Natural Rights extend from Natural Law, which absolutely relies on God. So, impress me.

"[N]atural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity."- Wikipedia[1]

Many individuals believe that an atheist cannot possibly be a moral human being because they do not believe in God. There is no reason as to why a belief in God and a belief in morality must go together. This is a dominant idea in modern philosophy.

Sure. Straw man though. Natural Rights theory relies on a God, unlike other moral philosophies.

It does not necessarily have to. Ayn Rand believed in Natural Rights, for example.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:24:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:05:08 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Do you believe in right and wrong or are you a moral nihilist? I mean neither in disrespect, I would just appreciate further clarification.

I believe in the 'right' and 'wrong' in relation to the values that I've grown up with. I don't, however, believe there is anything out there that will stop me from committing an act of questionable ethics except for my own conscious and the fellow members of my species. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' in a natural sense.

This is not how the term has been used historically and its use as such is a perversion of its original definition.

I know this is an appeal to tradition, but we'll go with it anyways.

I was wrong before when I said that rights are not about "inherent values." They are, but not in the sense you are thinking; rights are inherent because of human actions, but they are not natural. They're crafted by humans, enforced by humans, and respected (or not) by humans. They represent the work of ancestors or individuals for those rights, but they do not represent the work of nature. That is simply a fallacy.

Furthermore, even if we accept your definition of rights it does not prove the concept of natural rights invalid shown above.

How doesn't it? If rights are based on human ethos, and nothing more, how is there any such thing as a 'natural right', which implies that Divine or naturalistic forces that give us rights? Hm?

It is a concept. It is a concept of right and of wrong. Do you think that there is never a situation in which the use of force against another is immoral?

Rights are not about what is "right" and what is "wrong." Rights are neutral; they are neither morally positive nor morally negative, in an objective sense. They're conditions relative to the morality and the worldview, and the purpose, of the parties involved. They're a set of compromises designed to give legitimacy to grievance and wants, and help foster a productive structure in order to avoid violence.

If it were different, then we wouldn't need rights. We would just put the stake in the ground and declare victory. But that isn't reality.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:32:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:24:45 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/31/2009 11:05:08 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Do you believe in right and wrong or are you a moral nihilist? I mean neither in disrespect, I would just appreciate further clarification.

I believe in the 'right' and 'wrong' in relation to the values that I've grown up with. I don't, however, believe there is anything out there that will stop me from committing an act of questionable ethics except for my own conscious and the fellow members of my species. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' in a natural sense.

I don't believe that there is anything out there that will stop me from committing and act of questionable ethics except for my on conscious and the fellow members of my species either.

This is not how the term has been used historically and its use as such is a perversion of its original definition.

I know this is an appeal to tradition, but we'll go with it anyways.

I was wrong before when I said that rights are not about "inherent values." They are, but not in the sense you are thinking; rights are inherent because of human actions, but they are not natural. They're crafted by humans, enforced by humans, and respected (or not) by humans. They represent the work of ancestors or individuals for those rights, but they do not represent the work of nature. That is simply a fallacy.

I agree.

A Natural Right is a right that is not contingent upon law, custom or belief, with "right" being defined in the OP. That is all. If you think that it would be wrong to rape someone even if everyone else in your society thought it was fine, you believe in Natural Rights.

Furthermore, even if we accept your definition of rights it does not prove the concept of natural rights invalid shown above.

How doesn't it? If rights are based on human ethos, and nothing more, how is there any such thing as a 'natural right', which implies that Divine or naturalistic forces that give us rights? Hm?

The idea of a Natural Right is that one has the right naturally. That is it was not bestowed upon him by "society".

It is a concept. It is a concept of right and of wrong. Do you think that there is never a situation in which the use of force against another is immoral?

Rights are not about what is "right" and what is "wrong."

That is precisely what rights are.

Rights are neutral; they are neither morally positive nor morally negative, in an objective sense. They're conditions relative to the morality and the worldview, and the purpose, of the parties involved. They're a set of compromises designed to give legitimacy to grievance and wants, and help foster a productive structure in order to avoid violence.

That is not the definition of rights that I am using or that have been used throughout the history of the Natural Rights tradition.

If it were different, then we wouldn't need rights. We would just put the stake in the ground and declare victory. But that isn't reality.

What?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:33:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
OK, rights are formed under a single rule.

Do unto others as you wish yourself.

As Volkov said before:

I'll agree that everyone has a degree of freedom which is inherent to their lives,
but that isn't a right. A 'right' is something that is essentially a negotiation. It
defines relations between entities, not inherent values.

These rights you speak of are concept created in negotiation between beings on a macro scale.

Students of Ethics, Sociology and Social Anthropology are told that all things cornering the mind and Society are all formulation of human will, and design. Morality, Law and ideals are all human, it is with this realization that the Line of Science and Non-Science is drawn.

Your argument is based on xeno rules based on a creator or predetermined rules. If you believe this, then this is theological deadend argument; If you do not however, and give a third party idea, I'm all ears.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:33:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:24:42 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Nags, Natural Law does not depend on God...it's dependent on reason as a tool for knowledge of man's nature. Even the religious advocates of this position (Aquinas, Augustine) contend that it is by REASON, not by GOD that we arrive at our conclusions regarding Natural Law. We could debate this, but the facts are on my side.

I'm an atheist and I strongly believe in Natural Law.

It's not really Natural Law if it's subjective, so no you [atheists] can't believe in Natural Law.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:40:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:33:51 AM, Nags wrote:
At 12/31/2009 11:24:42 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Nags, Natural Law does not depend on God...it's dependent on reason as a tool for knowledge of man's nature. Even the religious advocates of this position (Aquinas, Augustine) contend that it is by REASON, not by GOD that we arrive at our conclusions regarding Natural Law. We could debate this, but the facts are on my side.

I'm an atheist and I strongly believe in Natural Law.

It's not really Natural Law if it's subjective, so no you [atheists] can't believe in Natural Law.

Well he has to define "Natural", other than that your right.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:42:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:32:39 AM, Reasoning wrote:
A Natural Right is a right that is not contingent upon law, custom or belief, with "right" being defined in the OP. That is all. If you think that it would be wrong to rape someone even if everyone else in your society thought it was fine, you believe in Natural Rights.

.... What? Really? Is this over human rights? Honestly, is it? Jesus Christ.

The idea of a Natural Right is that one has the right naturally. That is it was not bestowed upon him by "society".

Incorrect. I get your argument, now, too. Indeed, this is silly.

You're talking about human rights, essentially. But, you're saying these are things that are not given to them by "society." Which is partly right; human rights are said to be rights that are inherent to being human. If that is what you mean, you're absolutely right.

However, to say it isn't dependent upon society is foolishness. The concept of human rights would not exist if Western society were not driven towards it. It is not an objective thing - it is relative to the individual, and to the society that individual grew up in. There is no universal belief in human rights.

That is not the definition of rights that I am using or that have been used throughout the history of the Natural Rights tradition.

That is because you're not looking at the larger picture. You view human rights as some form of mass agreement on what is right and what is wrong - that isn't reality. They're relative to the values you and your society have grown up with. Nothing more.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:46:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:33:51 AM, Nags wrote:
It's not really Natural Law if it's subjective, so no you [atheists] can't believe in Natural Law.

Why? Because atheists can't believe in objective truth? That's ridiculous. Or because "subjective" Natural Law isn't Natural Law? Secular Natural Law isn't subjective; if it's based on reason, then it is objective like any other science.

I'm not going to go all out and waste time sourcing everything in a forum debate. I'm doing college app essays right now, but we can debate it some other time.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 11:58:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 10:56:29 AM, Volkov wrote:
A 'right' is something that is essentially a negotiation. It defines relations between entities, not inherent values. My right to property is dependent upon your respect for it, and vice versa. But there isn't anything there to say that, naturally, I have a right to that property. It's a concept, not a natural fact. Why else do you think all property is defined by humans, and not the bending of the planet and reality to marked lines?
hey hey hey, i agree with volkov. wuts goin on hear :O
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 12:01:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"It would be a mistake... to think of human rights as a pure and abstract morality. Rights are use to justify acts of power and resistance, and like all such languages, rights talk is open to abuse. Rights talk can be used to justify evil as well as good. But properly understood, it is self-limiting.To say you have a right to do X is to imply the right of Y to resist. To say you have a right, moreover, is to engage in justification, and all justification implies the possibility of rebuttal."

-- Michael Ignatieff, The Rights Revolution

What this means is that rights are not about moral absolutes. It's about justification, negotiation, and relative value. To think otherwise is foolish.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 12:03:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 11:46:48 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 12/31/2009 11:33:51 AM, Nags wrote:
It's not really Natural Law if it's subjective, so no you [atheists] can't believe in Natural Law.

Why? Because atheists can't believe in objective truth? That's ridiculous. Or because "subjective" Natural Law isn't Natural Law? Secular Natural Law isn't subjective; if it's based on reason, then it is objective like any other science.

I'm not going to go all out and waste time sourcing everything in a forum debate. I'm doing college app essays right now, but we can debate it some other time.

Well atheist can't believe in mysticisms or Illogical powers.

1) Standard Natural Law requires the existence of an omnipotent God.

2) The "subjective" is subject to ones perception or definition. Hence name.

3) Secular Natural Law, by this do you mean Liberal Natural Law? Well, Hugo Grotius, primary thinker of Primary Law, says it is based on Natural law unto the human, our creation of natural law. Liberal Natural Law doesn't fulfill the requirements to be a true Natural Law. So the name is misleading.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 12:21:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/31/2009 12:03:23 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/31/2009 11:46:48 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 12/31/2009 11:33:51 AM, Nags wrote:
It's not really Natural Law if it's subjective, so no you [atheists] can't believe in Natural Law.

Why? Because atheists can't believe in objective truth? That's ridiculous. Or because "subjective" Natural Law isn't Natural Law? Secular Natural Law isn't subjective; if it's based on reason, then it is objective like any other science.

I'm not going to go all out and waste time sourcing everything in a forum debate. I'm doing college app essays right now, but we can debate it some other time.

Well atheist can't believe in mysticisms or Illogical powers.

1) Standard Natural Law requires the existence of an omnipotent God.

2) The "subjective" is subject to ones perception or definition. Hence name.

3) Secular Natural Law, by this do you mean Liberal Natural Law? Well, Hugo Grotius, primary thinker of Primary Law, says it is based on Natural law unto the human, our creation of natural law. Liberal Natural Law doesn't fulfill the requirements to be a true Natural Law. So the name is misleading.

1) No it doesn't, read Augustine, Aquinas, Acton, Rand, Mises, Rothbard et al ad nauseum
2) By your logic, anything could be subjective, regardless of the existence of God. "God" himself could be relative; I take "God" to mean "banana creme pie." Any word could be "subjective" if you interpret differently. Your personal definition happens to be objectively wrong.
3) See #1

Note that Augustine, Aquinas, and Acton were all theists who strongly believed that Natural Law and religious beliefs were separate.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 12:24:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It seems nobody understands this topic. Natural rights have nothing to do with God.

There's divine law, natural law, and positive law.

1. Divine law holds that laws and rights come from God.

2. Natural law holds that laws and rights come from Nature.

3. Positive law holds that laws and rights come from Man.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2009 12:32:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
THANK YOU, GEO.

Natural Law Theory: Belief that the principles of human conduct can be derived from a proper understanding of human nature in the context of the universe as a rational whole. Although voluntarists suppose that god could will anything at all, Aquinas held that even the divine will is conditioned by reason. Thus, the natural law provides a non-revelatory basis for all human social conduct. Modern appeals to natural law are the foundation for social thought in Grotius and Pufendorf.

http://www.philosophypages.com...