I don't think we need a notion of non-legal rights in order to maintain that governments and laws are bad. — Ciceronianus the White

Non-legal rights are just another way of saying what morality requires, but I don't see the quibble over whether to call them "rights" or not is significant. We typically speak in terms of our moral duties to others, which would imply the other person has a certain right to be treated a particular way, and none of that implicates law.

I personally find it difficult to maintain that God says I--or anyone else for that matter--should be allowed to do, etc., something, — Ciceronianus the White

Such is the quandary of the non-religious in offering a foundation for morality in every instance. I'm not suggesting that God is necessary to be moral, but removal of some higher authority from the equation does make it difficult to explain why your moral beliefs are more correct than another's.

Regardless of where you think these higher order duties derive, I suspect that you find them to exist absolutely. That is, a government that passes a law killing all of a particular hair color would be wrong, and they'd be wrong for their violations against those people. If you set forth what rule it is that you believe is being violated, then you are declaring a non-legal rule which trumps legal rules. This higher order rule is, for lack of a better term, a natural law. In fact, I would assume your fidelity to right and wrong in a non-legal sense is higher than your fidelity to legislatively passed law, as the latter you realize is the just the best work of a group of lawmakers, as opposed to the former which is the way things truly are.

But can't there be an unjust government and unjust laws? If so, it seems the government and laws are being judged by a higher authority.

Isn't that fundamental to the idea of "God", that there is only one God. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, many cultures don't accept monotheism. It's even arguable that Christianity isn't monotheistic entirely, especially Mormonism.

She lives on through the seeds of kindness she sowed during her life.

3. Charity is immoral. — Baden

What the good Ms. Rand said was that charity wasn't a moral virtue, not that it was immoral. That is, you are under no obligation to give, and you're not considered good if you do give, but you are not actually immoral if you give. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

See what you did here? You started a conversation about Ayn Rand, just like she wanted you to.

Obviously, the societies of the time have something to do with the characteristics of their God, but I was interested in knowing what you thought about the idea of there actually existing only one God, which is identified under different names/personalities across all global religions. — Javants

The problem is that many societies don't accept that there is only one god. How can there really only be one god that is identified across all societies just by different names when a single society might identify a half dozen gods all having different abilities?

I'm going to go with redundancy. — Banno

That doesn't answer the OP though anymore than did Ernest when he itemized the different types of truth. As Ernest begged the question of "what is truth" by simply telling us different sorts of truths, you beg the question by simply telling us that "truth" adds nothing to the meaning of a proposition. You are not arguing obviously that "truth" adds nothing because it has no meaning, but that it is redundant to what already has been said. So, accepting fully that "it is true that the snow is white" is equivalent to "the snow is white," what does "true" mean?

And don't avoid the question by saying that "it is true" means "the snow is white," because I'm not speaking in the particular, but in the general as to how "true" is to be defined.

And this is significant it seems because it you can't offer the same meaning for "true" in the examples of:
1. It is true it is snowing,
2. It is true the sun will rise tomorrow, and
3. It is true 2+2=4

then we might have 3 entirely different truths. To define truth as "that which is" (or similar) moves this discussion farther into the metaphysical and asks whether that state of being of 2+2=4 is at all similar to the state of being of it snowing. I don't think it is.

I'm a generous fellow. — Banno

True.

He wasn't ridiculing you for suggesting there were exactly 3 forms of truth, but for suggesting there was more than one truth.

There's not, but were you able to decipher the meaning of truth by the presentation of the sub categories of truth? I wasn't. At best, I was provided an encyclopedic statement of truth subtypes where I could then begin drawing my own conclusions as to what they had in common that made them all truth.

At any rate, your interpretation of his post as ostensive is generous. I took his post as a statement that there were 3 seperate truths, without a necessary overlap that distinguished them all as truth. That interpretation wasn't suggested in his post anywhere.

Interesting dissertation on the types of truth, but ultimately non-responsive to the OP. The question was what is truth, not what are the types of truth. Should I ask what pasta is, I wouldn't be requesting an itemization of the types with an explanation of the distinctions between penne and linguine, but I'd like to hear about flour and water.

And that's the truth.

So, to clarify:

I asked: Why do you say that Locke's theory of natural rights prohibits the death penalty when Locke himself specifically said it didn't?

You responded: I refuse to talk to someone who likes to kill beautiful babies.

Might it be you don't really understand natural rights theory, so when called upon to defend it, you simply reiterate the text of the theory, and when relentlessly pressed, you resort to name calling? I mean this is a philosophy forum after all, which doesn't mean you just get to assert theories, but you actually have to offer some support and defense of them.

I take this as the stage theory:

As I sit here typing, my existence is infinitely small in terms of space and time and the only thing I can say is that this experience, which includes not only of me typing, but of countless other extraneous experiences (like what I just ate, the temperature, my knowledge of my family, my drive in this morning, etc.) is all that is me.

So here I am at T-1 with experiential state E-1 and then there is someone else at T-2 and E-2. We'll call T-1 at E-1, person 1, or P-1 and then T-2 at E-2, P-2. So now we have P-1 and P-2 eternally existing simultaneously, as time is eternal and not sequential. That means what we really have is P-1, P-2, P-3.... all simultaneously existing. We have no reason, of course, to believe that P-1's experiences are at all similar to P-2's. What we have are an infinitely large (or finitely massive) number of people spread out throughout all of eternity with fixed thoughts at a fixed moment thinking that thought forever and ever.

My objection to this theory is that it sure as hell seems like I have thoughts that change over time and not that I'm stuck in my single thought. The concept of change seems impossible under an eternalist theory because there is no becoming, just existing.

1. You stated that the death penalty violated natural rights in opposition to Locke, the person cited for your authority on natural rights. 2. You offer no explanation for why any punishment would ever be valid under natural rights. 3. You offer no explanation for why viability offers a cut off for when abortion is illegal. 4. I am generally opposed to abortion and seek no justification for it.

No. Natural law does not allow for the death penalty. — ernestm

Yet Jefferson was specifically in favor of the death penalty. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html

As was Locke: At the end of the opening chapter of his Second Treatise of Government, Locke describes political power in the following terms: ‘Political Power then I take to be a Right of making Laws with Penalties of Death, and consequently all less Penalties, for the Regulating and Preserving of Property, and of employing the force of the Community, in the Execution of such Laws, and in the defence of the Common-wealth from Foreign Injury, and all this only for the Publick Good.’
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344457

Did Locke and Jefferson get it wrong?

Under your logic all punishment would be invalid. Imprisonment is a removal of liberty, a natural right also.

Can you acknowledge that a right without a remedy for its violation is no right at all? If I have the right to possess my car but no right to stop you from taking it, what does it mean to have that right?

The taking of life in self defense is also against natural rights. There exist plenty of means of self defense which are not lethal. — ernestm

I'm considering a hypothetical where there in no way of self defense other than that which is lethal. You can't change the hypothetical.

I answered the question on abortion three times now — ernestm

Nope. You said viability was the cut off date for permissible abortions. Why is that the case? Do you no longer hold that position?

So you are a cad searching for any method whatsoever to kill beautiful babies, and are just as morally destitute as the Syrian Assad terrorists with their poison gas. — ernestm

And despite thinking this conversation couldn't get any stupider, just like that it did.

Over and over you miss the point. We can all agree as to the idea that there is a natural law, inalienable, and bestowed by God, and we can all agree as to the significance of that, but that hardly means there will be agreement as to what that law is on a non- abstract, concrete level.

For example, does natural allow for the death penalty? Does nature forbid the taking of life absolutely, or does it permit it under certain circumstances? What about in cases of self-defense? It is entirely possible that a liberal and a conservative can arrive at different conclusions, yet both insist God is on their side. The inability to determine what natural law decrees is a Philosophy 101 objection, yet instead of trying to offer a response to it, you act like it doesn't exist.

And that was issue with abortion law. You have never offered any explanation for why natural law attaches only to viable fetuses and not pre-viable ones, as if viability is a God given framework that coincidentally defines personhood and that was discovered in 1973 by Justice Blackmon as describing when a State's interest begins and ends.

That is, modern legal positivists, such as Hart, attempt to do away with promulgation from natural law to constitutional law entirely. And that is frequently taught in law schools now, almost to the exclusion of any other legal theory, because lower courts are expected to act entirely within the US legal code. — ernestm

The distinction isn't between natural and constitutional law, but it's between natural and positive law. It's entirely possible to interpret the Constitution in a natural law way. There is not a consensus regarding the best way to interpret the Constitution, but law schools typically embrace those Justices who have offered creative interpretations based upon general priciples of justice instead of those who have insisted the text be strictly construed. That is, law schools tend to be liberal leaning.

While lawyers inside this nation are rather blithe to the implications of that now, the USA has no authority to interact with other sovereign nations, internationally, if the foundation of natural law is removed, and the USA becomes no more than a rebel insurgency that the world should eliminate. — ernestm

If what you mean by "natural law" is absolutist, non- relative moral principles, there most certainly hasn't been an abandonment of that in US society. The battle between the left and right in the US is ideological, with both sides arguing their principles are right.

I'm not sure if you're purposely evasive or just not following the question. We all understand you shouldn't abort a person. The question is when does a fetus become a person and why. Your previous answer directly implicated Roe v. Wade, which provided viability criteria for when abortions were permissible. However, that criteria has nothing to do with personhood, but has to do with State's rights versus maternal rights.

You've claimed that natural rights theory ought to guide us in all abortions decisions and you've criticized American Constitutional jurisprudence for its failure to adhere to natural rights theory, yet you rely upon that same criticized jurisprudence for your basis for allowing certain abortions.

This is to say: natural rights theory offers us no practical way of determining when abortion is acceptable, so we must fall back on Constitutional theory for an answer, which creates an internal inconsistency in your position.

You didn't answer. You never do. In fact, my last question enumerated questions with the request you provide enumerated responses. As anticipated, you didn't do that. What you did is repeat your dissertation on natural rights theory, offering no indication that you have any ability to defend it by responding to any question critical of it. Your defense is to just declare yourself an expert and state any criticism arises from ignorance. It's intellectual fraud.

Again, entirely unresponsive. Quoting long passages of some paper you wrote is a waste of space.

What you've not responded to is:
1. Why viability defines personhood under natural rights theory;
2. Why states should be given the right to decide when abortion is appropriate but not the federal government under natural law theory; and
3. How can you argue that rights can never be legitimately denied and still maintain a criminal justice system?

Enumerate your answers 1, 2, and 3 or instead admit you can't respond because you lack the intellectual discipline to organize your responses to the questions asked.

In accordance with the laws of nature and God, the child is still accorded natural rights. — ernestm

This begs the question entirely and it is unresponsive to the entirety of this discussion. The question is "what is a child"? You have argued a fetus is a child when it is viable, which is simply an adoption of the Roe v. Wade analysis. The bottom line, which I've argued all along, is that natural law does not define personhood. It simply affords certain rights to people, whoever they may be. For that reason, you cannot assert that natural law answers the question of when abortion is acceptable or not, except to say that it's not acceptable when the fetus is a person, but you have no idea what a person is. That is, natural law is not helpful in figuring out when to abort or not.

In accordance with the theory of natural law for a peaceful society, it cannot ever be the choice of a human being as to who should die. — ernestm

And yet this isn't true either. You may be personally opposed to the death penalty, but this simply does not follow from a natural right analysis. We have all sorts of natural rights aside from the right to live, including the right to liberty. Surely you're not suggesting that no person can every have their liberty restrained, as in being imprisoned, for a crime they've committed. The point being that rights can be denied after due process of law, including the right to live and the right to be free. That is, you can have all sorts of rights, but they can be denied. If you don't accept that, then you'll have to explain how you expect to restrain people who violate the rights of others.

That is the definition of it, that is the theory, and there's no amount of constitutional debate that makes any difference to it. — ernestm

Your shying away from Constitutional analysis isn't based on the fact that natural law trumps the Constitution, but it's based upon your woefully limited knowledge of the Constitution and prior Supreme Court rulings. That is, you don't want to argue the Constitution because you accept your inability to respond to the Supreme Court citations you'll receive when you offer a misinterpretation. At any rate, you need to explain why you dispense with Constitutional theory yet you adopt the Roe v. Wade viability analysis and try to tie it in to natural law, despite the fact that the Court never said that viability was chosen as the abortion criterion because it was faithful to natural law concepts.

Capitalism is essentially economic terrorism. — Bitter Crank

Putting a concise summary at the conclusion of your post was helpful. Thank you.

Therefore, once a fetus reaches the age of 21 weeks and 5 days, at which point it can live independent of the mother, it must be accorded natural rights. — ernestm

Natural rights theory doesn't mandate defining personhood at viability. Here you just adopt the Roe v. Wade reasoning. A fetus at the age cited has only about a 20% chance of survival by the way. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability&ved=0ahUKEwiuyOy8lZLTAhVFYiYKHWq0Ao4QFggcMAE&usg=AFQjCNHKM7UyjCNU3l1bMRAZ7CEc3ERzTw&sig2=XVx2DO16vVxU_ddy6YdK9Q

we are still arguing about who can own muskets to repress slave rebellions. — ernestm

Except we're not.

Personally I feel that children not conceived under free will would not be accorded the same rights to birth, but I understand there are those that feel differently. — ernestm

I thought that natural rights theory answered the question of who a person was and who should be afforded rights? Why do you now withdraw from your all encompassing theory and present your personal opinion, as if there is no answer?

in other cases I cannot see a clear justification, and again there are people who disagree with that. So it should not be federally mandated and should be under the control of the States, within the broad guideline that the right to an abortion should not be automatic, but be required to be justified under some cause of duress. — ernestm

What does federalism have to do with natural rights? Are you now suggesting that the 10th Amendment check against the federal government is a dictate of natural rights? I understand that you believe there are areas of disagreement regarding abortion and they should be submitted for democratic decision, but I don't follow why you think state legislatures are more principled than federal legislatures on this point.

You consistently do not respond to the substance of posts and use every opportunity, regardless of content, to drone on about your supposedly perfect understanding of natural rights. Have you noticed that?

The decision was wrong, if you understand Jefferson's theory of natural rights. — ernestm

The question being addressed was what the legal dispute centered around, not what you think it should center around. Your comment asserted what the debate was in fact over. My response was pointed out that it was in fact not.

Regardless, you current comment is incorrect for two reasons (at least). 1. The wrongness of Roe v. Wade is weighed by how correctly it interprets the Constitution, not by its fidelity to natural rights theory. It strikes me that you wish to impose natural law as some sacred rule of construction on the Constitution, and perhaps you even want to discard the text of the Constitution and simply infer what natural law might require. Regardless, that rule of construction is highly idiosyncratic (aka one you just sort of made up), and not one generally (aka not at all) accepted.

2. Natural law theory does not mandate any particular definition of "person." It's just as consistent with a natural law theory to accept that life begins at conception as it does to say it begins at viability or at birth.

Regardless, no one (that I am aware of) suggests that the abortion debate is just a tug of war of competing interests between two different people. That is, it's not like everyone admits the fetus is a person just like the mother, but mom has the right to kill her kid while unborn, but kid also has the right to live while unborn, so the grand compromise is to let mom have the right to kill her kid for 6 months but then give the kid the last 3 to live without fear of murder. And then to say that this result is somehow the consequence of natural law theory (to those few souls intelligent enough to understand it) is just to add an additional layer of nonsense to this discussion.

not quite right. The debate is over the woman's right to liberty over her unborn child's right to life. — ernestm

Exactly wrong. Roe v. Wade held specifically that the unborn child was not a person: "All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

That is, the unborn child is not a person and therefore has no rights at all.

As the Court stated with regard to third trimester abortions: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

That is, the State has the right to promote life in the third trimester by prohibiting abortion regardless of the wishes of the mother unless the mother's life or health is in jeopardy.

There are therefore two interests being weighed: (1) The mother's and (2) the State's. The fetus' rights are not weighed at all. The distinction is critical. If a particular state chose to allow 3rd trimester abortions to viable fetuses, it would not run afoul of the Constitution.

For example, there is the conflict between pro-life and pro-choice positions. Both sides believe their views necessarily true by intuition, but have reached totally opposing conclusions. — ernestm

I don't agree. From a legal perspective, the debate centers around the woman's right over her body versus the state's right to regulate. From a philosophical perspective, the debate most often centers around the concept of personhood and when the fetus gains inherent rights. Regardless, the abortion issue no more centers around intuition than any other issue.

I don't see where you and @Cavacava are necessarily disagreeing. I would think most artists would intend that the viewer openly interpret the art and not simply try to decipher the artist's thoughts about the art when he created it. That is, the artist intended to leave room for personal interpretation, so when you openly interpret, you fulfill the artist's intent (as Cavacava argues ought occur), but you don't try to figure out the specific aim of the artist (as you argue ought not occur).

Whatever you.

Fair enough. We needn't define every grade of anti-semitism (mild, moderate, severe, extreme, super extreme, super duper extereme...), but suffice it to say it was enough to arouse concern, but, yeah, I've seen much worse.

No, the point is, however, that the Jews are sensitive to anything about the topic of Israel and Palestine together with the Holocaust and the concept of 'outsiders' is fairly strong, which is why I mentioned that he was in the minority. — TimeLine

The reason for sensitivity among Jews for issues related to the Holocaust isn't complicated and ought to be screamingly obvious. The reasons you are being treated as an outsider and not as a fellow Jew are admittedly vast, but, to the extent you lack empathy for the Jews for what occurred during the Holocaust, that will keep you more securely outside than everyone else.

There are specific and general reasons your comments appear extremely anti-semitic. 1.
Specifically, the Palestinians, even if considered wholly right and unfairly oppressed by the Israelis, are not experiencing systematic slaughter with an express aim to eliminate them genetically. They are not placed in workcamps and forced to labor until death. They are not starved to death and thrown into mass graves. That is, should I accept the Palestinian position in its most extreme form, the Holocaust is disanalagous as a matter of historical fact. That you can't see that says to me that your empathy toward Jews is minimal.

2. Generally, many minorities have experienced horrible events during their history that define that group to an extent - blacks and slavery, Native Americans and displacement, Jews and the Holocaust and many many more. Each group rightly believes their suffering incomparable (quite literally so). That is, that suffering is so extreme that it is unique. If you want to raise some ire, do as you did, and compare it to other moments of suffering. If you compare someone's incomperable suffering to anything, you won't be well received, especially when that comparison is so very tenuous, as in comparing Palestinian treatment by Jews to Jewish treatment by the Nazis.

Spitting out venomous notions of 'anti-Semitism' and holocaust denial to anything and everything is embarrassing and shameful — TimeLine

Why are we now talking about holocaust denial? I don't remember that accusation being made. I also don't recall accusing anyone of ant-Semitism for anything and everything. I accused you specifically of it because you were. It was just an observation.

What happened is that I noted an instance of unambiguous Jewish victimization and you felt it necessary to insert an instance where you felt Jews were oppressors as if it added anything at all to the conversation.

Even though I said:
I am completely neutral, anti-racist and my only concern is human rights and not politics
— TimeLine — TimeLine

I realize you self declared this, but I was questioning it obviously. All I said in my post was that I'd stand by those who stood by me in their opposition to the holocaust, and you then started talking about injustice in Palestine. If you can't see why that might be construed as anti-Semitic, then maybe think a little deeper. If a Muslim were beaten to death for being Muslim and a Muslim poster expressed gratitude for non-Muslim support for the victim, do you think me bringing up the topic of Muslim terrorism would be in order? Do you really think it'd matter if I just said "Oh btw I'm not racist, so don't take this the wrong way"?

Most interesting shit. Thank you. I bathe daily in the Nile, defacating, scrubbing, washing my clothes and dishes, all in one sitting. Cleanses my mind, body, and spirit.

I had sex in gay bath houses where the Holy — Bitter Crank

Does anyone actually bathe in a bath house? It would seem there would be few bath houses because most people have running water in their homes and can just bathe there. It would be like going to a dressing house to get dressed. I mean, just get dressed at home.

You do make up a minority should you think of the Palestinian subject. I am completely neutral, anti-racist and my only concern is human rights and not politics, and having returned from Israel not too long ago, I learnt that as an outsider discussions on the subject was often viewed antagonistically, except in Tel Aviv. I care about the Jews, trust me on that, but I also care about the Palestinians. So, what does it mean to care? — TimeLine

What this means is that you wish to interject a non-sequitur regarding Israeli/Palestinian relations into the question of whether one should be opposed to the Holocaust. As you may realize (but maybe not), it's entirely possible to feel unmitigated sympathy to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and still side with the Palestinians in the current Israeli situation.

By comparison, had someone said that they found they couldn't fully sympathize with Till because Blacks, after all, do commit a disproportionate amount of crime in society, I'd find the statement outrageously racist. By the same token, should someone say that one couldn't fully sympathize with the victims of the Holocaust due to the current state of affairs in Israel, I'd find the comment outrageously racist.

And so, back to what I said, in the hopes that you'll clarify what appears to be anti-Semitic comment. I would embrace anyone who creates art expressing opposition to the Holocaust for their allegiance to Jews just as I would hope that African Americans would embrace those who present opposition to what happened to Till. The fact that someone might have other misgivings about Jews or Blacks notwithstanding; the fact that there was allegiance in these regards is laudable. That you might wish to say that you stand by Jews in the Holocaust, but you want to be very clear that you don't like them always, isn't terribly laudable or necessary, and it's unclear why that clarification needed to be made to my uncontroversial comments regarding the horror of the Holocaust.

I can say for myself that prior to reading this thread, I was unaware of the Till tragedy, which means that but for Shutz' cultural appropriation or whatever it should be called, I would not now be educated. Surely there is some value in that. I say this despite the fact that Shutz' art sucks. It simply doesn't convey the horror of the event in any real way.

On another note, I say in all my Jewishness that I welcome those of all colors and stripes to produce art depicting the horrors of the holocaust. Appropriate all you wish. I gain much comfort in knowing that someone other than Jews care about Jews.

Preaching to the choir in my case. I expounded a bit here: — Benkei

If you can cite yourself, so can I. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/63098