I'm not arguing against morality based on natural law. I'm questioning one based on claimed inherent rights. I think our concept of rights was unknown to ancient thinkers like Cicero and the Stoics and said as much in the OP. I remain a Ciceronian.

But each of us also have the power to afford another a right, simply by affirming it and acting out the corresponding duty. — NOS4A2

One of the difficulties I have with the concept of rights is that I think acceptance of them gives rise to an ethics in which good, or moral, conduct is defined as that conduct which doesn't interfere with them. Each person has the right to do certain things as long as they don't infringe on or violate the rights of others. Rights are deemed possessions we each have, to which we're entitled, and nobody may take or interfere with those possessions. As long as they don't their conduct isn't objectionable, and they're free to do whatever they like and refrain from doing whatever they don't want to do without censure.

Why wouldn't a "naive realist" (a phrase which strikes me as an oxymoron) simply say it's dark when there's little or no light? What more of an explanation of darkness would be required?

cuz I think rights are bullocks. lol. Just so you know where I come from. — Moliere

As I think I said, though, I think rights which exist by virtue of law are real, and so are not necessarily bullocks.

My thought is that legal rights may serve a purpose by restricting the power of government and, sometimes, of others. But they, and the rights we're said to possess according to God or nature regardless of law, are available to be used--and are used all too often--to justify purely selfish concerns to the detriment of others. Personal morals are focused on what I am entitled to rather than how we should act towards one another or how to act virtuously. It's a very proprietary view of ethics.

Rights are better conceived of as in the nature of legal fictions.

I think legal rights--rights dependent on law--are the only rights. So, I think the "right to property" exists only to the extent recognized by law. But, I'm not addressing whether or not rights exist independent of the law (i.e., that there are rights with which we're endowed by God or nature or whatever).

I think the belief that such rights exist has its basis in self-interest and, Ayn Rand and others notwithstanding, think that self-interest is not a virtue, and isn't a basis on which moral conduct should be determined or judged. The fact that all are entitled to such rights makes no difference as far as I'm concerned.

Seriously speaking, rights given, as much as they selfishly serve the self, if they are given in equal measures to a group of people, then theoretically the rights do not amount to any selfish advantage. — god must be atheist

Well, consider the "right to property." It can (and has been) been construed as prohibiting government from obtaining money from citizens to assist other citizens in various ways, e.g through providing health care.

Presumably, everyone has the "right to property." The problem is some people don't have any. The right is used in justification of an essentially selfish position, though it is a right to which supposedly all are entitled.

Any claimed right that isn't dependent on governing law, which would exist regardless of the law. For example, there are people who say "I have a right to say/think whatever I like." There is no law stating that a person may say or think whatever they like. There may be no law prohibiting them from doing so, of course.

The right to live. The right to the "pursuit of happiness." The right to work.

Perhaps we should rather institute a Feast of Wise Men, when we mock the impotence of reason and virtue. — unenlightened

We do that already, all the time.

Our true selves know everything, but when we come into this three-dimensional existence we forget what we know. — Athena

My personal feeling is we have no good reason to believe (at this time, anyhow) there's anything beyond the universe. Nothing, therefore, that transcends it. Maybe we'll find out there is, sometime, or maybe there are other universes. People speak of a transcendent God, but we attribute characteristics to that God we can only conceive of though our existence as a part of the universe, and cannot even guess what is beyond it. The transcendent God makes no sense to me, and can't be known. If there's a God, I think it's immanent and impersonal.

So I would tend to doubt anything being "our true selves" unless it's thought to be a part of the universe. There's still a great deal we don't know about the universe, though.

Thank you. Freud was a great man, but I think his focus was too narrow. Still, I think I prefer him to Jung, who it seems to me may not have had enough evidence to conclude that virtually the entire cultural history of our species was packed away somewhere in our brains, unknown to us but available to pop out when appropriate.

Legal rights are significant because they protect our civil liberties by restricting government authority. We should support the adoption of legal rights for that reason. Until they're adopted, however, claimed rights are unenforceable. They're what we wish were legal rights, i.e. what we think should be legal rights.

I'm something of a Stoic--an aspiring Stoic--because I think Stoicism provides a guide to how to live well and virtuously without the need to accept the existence of a personal, busybody God issuing commands, listening to our petitions and sometimes granting them, disbursing punishment and rewards as appropriate. The ancient Stoics had a good deal to say about natural law, but I don't think they were proponents of natural rights. Natural law is a guide to how to act--according to nature, virtue and reason, without regard for things outside our control--things, power, riches, etc., which we should treat as indifferent. When we act according to nature we act virtuously and reasonably towards others, who like us (according to traditional Stoicism) share in the Divine Reason or Divinity which is immanent in the universe. We don't do that because others have a "right" to be treated like that, but because that is the way we should conduct ourselves. [This is a simple summary of Stoicism as I understand it]

So we don't need a belief in natural rights, or inherent rights, to act morally and virtuously. But it can't be expected that government will act "according to nature" or virtuously. The concept of legal rights is useful as a means by which to restrict and control the power of government.

Going off topic, I know, but I wanted to respond to what I think are your concerns.

If I cannot control a situation, I should just accept it as a Stoic. — healing-anger

Epictetus said: "Do the best you can with what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens."

Stoicism isn't just about acceptance. Stoics should act virtuously to the extent they can in any situation. But having acted virtuously--having done the best they can--they shouldn't let what happens regardless of their efforts disturb them unduly.

It was a terrible thing when our right to speak truth became confused with the freedom to say any damn thing we want to say, such as the pandemic should not concern us and should go on about our lives as though it did not exist and defending this right with guns and rebellion against majors — Athena

I distinguish between legal rights and rights which are claimed, but not recognized in the law. "Rights" which aren't legal rights are what people think should be legal rights, but are not. For me, those are not rights, properly speaking.

The only legal right to free speech here in the U.S. arises from the fact the law prohibits government from restricting speech in most, but not all, cases. When people complain that their right to free speech is being restricted by anyone but the government, through laws or government agents, they refer to a right which isn't a legal right.

I would maintain, therefore, that there is no right to say anything we want. We may be, speak and act like idiots if we choose to do so, but there is no right to be an idiot. There is no law, however, which prohibits people from being, speaking and acting like idiots.

What the law does allow, though, is the use of the power of government to protect public health, safety and welfare, unless the law restricts the use of that power. So, the government can legally impose requirements (such as the wearing of masks) which would prevent people from exposing other people to harm if reasonably necessary, unless legal rights are violated which merit more consideration, have more weight. There is no such legal right; there is no legal right to refuse to wear masks, for example; nor is there a legal right not to be inconvenienced.

The concept of "rights" which exist but aren't recognized in the law seems to me to be a source not only of confusion and misunderstanding, but a source of exaggerated self-regard.

I was not aware that I was speaking of a mystical power when I mentioned cultures have a consciousness and subconsciousness. — Athena

I'm not saying you were. I think the concept of a collective unconscious has characteristics of mysticism.
But I don't think we can usefully speak of cultures have a consciousness and subconsciousness unless we do so metaphorically, and frankly don't know what is meant by that.

So assuming he was unable to form a lasting romantic relationship, you're saying that he never paid money for sex, despite being more than wealthy enough to, right? — IvoryBlackBishop

Not at all. I'm merely saying we know of nothing indicating he had sexual or romantic relations with any other persons. Masturbation, in that case, may have been of particular interest to him. But it's possible he paid for sex, of course. Perhaps he did so regularly, or was himself paid for sex, the randy fellow.

Sorry. It's difficult for me to take pontifications regarding masturbation seriously.

It has variously been considered unhealthy, a drain of vital energies (see books about tantric sex) and precious bodily fluids (see Dr. Strangelove), and a crime. — Bitter Crank

General Jack Ripper was more concerned with the physical act of sex with a partner. The trick, as he saw it, was to deny them your essence.

I meant to say I had nothing I could contribute as a lawyer, being largely ignorant of international law. But I think it clear that if one nation freely enters into a treaty, it should be bound by it. It should decline to enter into a treaty if it intends to disregard it whenever it believes it's in its interest to do so.

Apart from any legal issue, I think the U.S. shouldn't act as or consider itself the world's police and insert itself, unasked, into any conflict or state except in extreme circumstances. Clearly, we have trouble enough trying to police ourselves. We have neither the resources nor, I think, the will to engage in nation-building. I suppose, though, we could still "drop the Big One" as Randy Newman sang in the hope that "every city, the whole world round, would just be another American town." Yes, "how peaceful it would be--we'll set everybody free."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg_LDeUEiWY

Sorry, I'm not sure just what you mean. I'm something of a legal positivist, or realist, and think morality and the law are different things. My knowledge of international law is very limited.

We may have myths, legends, stories and imagination without accepting the existence of a collective unconscious. Heroes, I think, incline us too much to hero-worship. But then, we tend to call most anyone a hero in these sad times.

Masturbation may have the only sexual act in which poor Kant engaged. I think there's nothing indicating he had sexual, or romantic, relations with anyone.

For a short, pithy, instruction-manual sort of presentation of Stoicism, you might look at the Enchiridion of Epictetus (actually summary notes of his talks by his student, Arrian). Essentially, and simply put, it involves the acknowledgment that there are some things you can't control and that it's foolish and harmful to yourself and others to be disturbed by them.

Of course we are all humans, and so have certain characteristics and needs in common. That commonality has consequences as it means that that there are certain things we do similarly. It seems dubious, though, to infer from that a murky collective body of archetypes, symbols and instincts which supposedly are part of the inherent structure of our brains. It's rather like inferring, as some have, that the fact that pyramids were constructed in Egypt and by the Mayans and Aztecs shows that ancient Egyptians found their way to the Americas, or that refugees from Atlantis traveled to Africa and Central America, or better yet that aliens taught us to make them. It makes far more sense, I think, to recognize that when people at a certain level of civilization wanted to build tall structures without the benefit of metals like iron and steel, they would rapidly understand that in order to do so in a manner which would avoid the structure falling over the base of the structure should be broad, and should become successively less broad the taller it was built.

Similarly, rather than speculating that there is such a thing as a collective unconsciousness with its mystic and mythical overtones buried in our minds, it would seem to me more reasonable simply to recognize that we're living organisms having certain characteristics existing and trying to live in an environment of which we're a part. There are certain things we must do as a result. One of those things is thinking, at least when we encounter a problem or situation we wish to resolve. Interacting with the rest of the world, we have similar experiences. Those experiences create habits, customs, language, laws, etc. We're better off studying those empirically than conjuring up Wise Old Man, or Mother, or Father, or Trickster, etc. in an effort to attribute them to some inherited unconscious.

It's apparent Freud has had great influence, but I'm not much of a fan. He seems to me to have been overly concerned with those instances where a cigar isn't just a cigar. That sex plays a huge role in our lives is also apparent, but it's impact might be less dramatic and fascinating in other times and cultures than it was for him, a child of fin de siecle, (19th century) Vienna. Less importance, too. But as we of European heritage think and have thought sex, or its repression, is of such significance, he has some points to make.

As for Jung, from what I know of him the scope of his thinking was much broader, but his fascination with the paranormal, alchemy, and the veritable catch-all of the "collective unconscious" makes me leery of his conclusions.

You have to assume there is a third state, and this would be immortality. — FrancisRay

Well, I think "never existed in the first place" isn't immortality.

You can never die. Because you never existed in the first place. — Hippyhead

So I can't die, nor do I live. It seems unsatisfactory, somehow.

what the form of such a God or being would be, how it would be shaped, and how it would experience itself. — ballarak

Well, it would be shaped like the universe, however that's shaped, and would experience what the universe experiences, whatever that may be, and would be bored far beyond our comprehension.

Can you force the prosecutor to redo a grand jury process? — Benkei

That's a criminal law issue, and I've been fortunate enough to avoid that in my practice. I doubt it, though, as grand juries in my limited understanding are merely tools of prosecutors, which they may pick up and drop as they choose. I hope I'm wrong.

Oh, you're Dutch? Cool. — Benkei

A Dutch Uncle, perhaps.

Well, God didn't choose us, true, but he thinks we're cool.

We here in God's favorite country have proven ourselves to be Yahoos, with no Houyhnhnms to guide us. Ora pro nobis.

Well, these guys, I think:

John Dewey
Wallace Stevens
Marcus Tullius Cicero (of course)
O.W. Holmes, Jr.

You were forced to exist, because you had no say and it was not you who caused your own existence. — schopenhauer1

For me, it makes no sense to bemoan the fact I had no say when I necessarily couldn't have any say in any case. Similarly, it makes no sense to me to claim I should have had some say when I couldn't possibly have a say, or that it's wrong that I had no say in that case.

But we've been down this road before

Obviously, the mere fact I might understand the words you use doesn't mean you're using them as they're commonly used. I know what someone is saying when they say that a pencil in a glass of water appears bent, but the pencil obviously doesn't appear bent at all--it doesn't look like it's curved. Thus are misconceptions created, especially in philosophy. Many philosophers aren't inclined to use words as commonly understood. If they were they wouldn't refer to things like "the nothing."

To say someone is "forced" to exist is an exercise in rhetoric. The word is used in an effort to persuade others that it's wrong to reproduce, or characterize reproduction as evil. To say someone's existence was caused doesn't have the same negative connotations. That's what I think. Perhaps, though, I was forced to think by my parents. I certainly could not think if I didn't exist.

I think it's possible to condemn it sincerely, but also think it likely the U.S. itself has intimidated and bullied perceived dissidents at home and abroad. If that's the case, then unless the U.S. has ceased doing so, and can establish that when it did so it was justified in some respect, it risks appearing insincere on the world stage. My guess is both the governments of the U.S. and China are quite aware of this. I also guess that it doesn't matter to either government, and that both governments if given the opportunity will condemn each other on moral or legal grounds.

I'd be inclined to say the idea of American exceptionalism has taken quite a beating lately. Be that as it may, if your point is that nations will act in their own interests and flout the law, to the extent it exists in international affairs, as needed I think you're correct.

I think there is a problem that arises from the improper use of words, but that problem is that "forced" is being used in an unusual manner here. We may speak of something being caused. But when we speak of something being caused, we're not referring to something being forced. You may cause a chair to be made, but you don't force a chair to be made. You make a chair, you don't force, or compel the components of a chair to become a chair.

Similarly, a man and a woman may make a baby, or "cause" a baby (though that would be an unusual way of putting it). But they don't force a baby. There is nothing being compelled. Parents don't say "Let's force (or compel) a baby to exist" or "I want to force a baby to come into the world."

As the OP seems to acknowledge, "force" is being used in an strange manner in this case, for effect. I don't know why, and I don't think it works.

↪Ciceronianus the White The handy glossary with the link offered above gives the meaning "Ronner - A gossip or tale-bearer." — unenlightened

I found something defining it as a verb--to mumble or grumble.

I think there are matters that can only be poorly expressed or communicated through language, except in the case of certain poetry. Some things must be shown, or felt, or evoked. That's a misfortune. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why initiates in the ancient mysteries such as the Eleusinian mysteries didn't reveal what they felt and understood to the uninitiated--they couldn't, not really. And yet Plato and others (e.g. Cicero) thought they taught us to want to live nobly.

Those damn Copenhagenists should stay in Copenhagen, where they belong, and forget about the universe.

Portions of the Old Testament, like those I quoted, are generally ignored by most religious figures today.

I think the U.S. is exceptional as many here have accepted a form of fundamental Christianity, are more inclined to not just express but even to boast of their religious affiliation than are believers in other nations, and have historically felt the nation's interests and goals are those of God. They've managed to induce politicians to at least pay lip service to that view, and very few politicians, who it seems are craven by nature, will oppose them in this.

The view that a nation or a people's destiny are sanctioned by God isn't a purely American one, and many other nations have thought much the same. Nations have claimed God is on their side for a long time. These days, though, I think the U.S. is more inclined to think it's favored and directed by God than others. God, as far as the U.S. generally is concerned, is the Christian God.

Christianity isn't the only source of morality, however, and what's called Judeo-Christian ethics and ideals are for the most part derived from pre-Christian thinkers in any case. So, one doesn't have to be a believer in Christianity to make reasonable judgments, moral and otherwise. It happens that reasoning existed long before Christianity. But if you adhere to a religion which purports to be the only true religion, and which claims to follow the requirements of the only true God, reasoning is necessarily limited to employment in the service of doctrine.

Do you know of Bible quotes that give evidence of the Christian requirement for judgment? What part of the Bible are ministers using when they warn their flock about the heathens and pagans? — Athena

The Old Testament is full of references to the extermination of heathens, like:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15: 2-3.

"But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded," Deuteronomy 20: 16-17.

Don't walk like a Gentile (heathen):

Ephesians 4:17-19
"So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness."

He repeatedly denied it over and over again throughout his life, but in an authoritative voice, which admittedly muddled the denial a bit. — Hippyhead

Did he? I stand corrected.