But postmodernism adheres to a rejection of natural rights. It's a hallmark of postmodernist thought, regardless of its rejection beforehand. — Buxtebuddha
Anyway, the semantics of my point wasn't my point. — Buxtebuddha
What happened? — Michael
Yeah, it's certainly true that every argument must be published in some journal so that it can be read by nobody — Buxtebuddha
Well, when someone denies natural rights, thus denying the inherent right to one's own life, I think people are justified in being bothered by that kind of post modernist malarkey. — Buxtebuddha
Could you please make clear what you mean by "established right"? By "established" do you mean "unalienable"? There are very few absolute rights that Americans have - arguably three and no more.. — tim wood
If that's the case, then you'd fit right in, as your own comments have been belittling. But maybe it's for the best if you have little of substance to say and don't care to elaborate when pressed. — Sapientia
Denying someone a gun is not denying them a right to life. — ProbablyTrue
Could you please make clear what you mean by "established right"? By "established" do you mean "unalienable"? There are very few absolute rights that Americans have - arguably three and no more..
— tim wood
I mean it has been established by the courts that it is a right. I do not think it is unalienable. — ProbablyTrue
I also came more firmly to realize that there are such things as natural rights, contrary to what Bentham and others think, which is that they're just made up. — Thorongil
Why would I want to elaborate? — Buxtebuddha
Stop arguing and act. — Banno
As I think Thorongil attempted to bring up, if someone does not possess a natural right to owning a gun (I would argue that one does not), then the next step is whether one possesses the natural right to self defense. That's where I would say, YES, we do. Yet, Sapientia, for example, wouldn't say that, as he doesn't believe in natural rights, meaning that rights, such as a right to life, is not natural (inherent to one's being), but relative to the laws passed stating that they apply.
I laughed at this, and Sapientia, because relative rights entails relative ethics, which are flawed piles of illogical crap. That's all perhaps fit for another thread, though.
Edit: Just to make it crystal clear, a right to life without natural rights is one dependent upon laws. Were there no laws, then Sapientia would presumably be without any reasoned defense if someone wanted to end his life. — Buxtebuddha
Yes, why would you want to elaborate in a discussion of all places? What is this? Some kind of forum? — Sapientia
Anyway, if you want to discuss natural rights, maybe start another thread where more posters can share their thoughts. — Buxtebuddha
Just to make it crystal clear, a right to life without natural rights is one dependent upon laws. Were there no laws, then Sapientia would presumably be without any reasoned defense if someone wanted to end his life. — Buxtebuddha
Well said. — Thorongil
Were there no laws, then Sapientia would presumably be without any reasoned defense if someone wanted to end his life. — Buxtebuddha
I don't think you need to use a notion of natural rights to argue that killing is wrong. — Michael
And, of course, you can reason with a would-be killer without bringing up morality at all. So it's not entirely clear what you're trying to say. — Michael
Sorry about that. I won't make that same mistake twice. — Sapientia
I don't think you need to use a notion of natural rights to argue that killing is wrong. — Michael
And, of course, you can reason with a would-be killer without bringing up morality at all. So it's not entirely clear what you're trying to say. — Michael
Once again you show that you don't care. I'm done interacting with you. — Buxtebuddha
I'm not denying that someone can attempt to argue a relativist ethics with regard to what constitutes moral quality. — Buxtebuddha
What, then, would your argument be? Wrongness is a quality of morality, so you'd have a difficult time, as I see it, arguing with someone who wouldn't be compelled not to do what he desires. — Buxtebuddha
A consequentialist, virtue ethicist, or divine command theorist, for example, can argue for object moral principles without arguing for natural rights.
Perhaps even a deontologist can argue the same. Does the duty not to kill require a right not to be killed? I see no prima facie reason to believe that. — Michael
It's possible to convince someone not to do something without persuading him that it's wrong. Perhaps there will be consequences to him killing you that he'd rather not face (or consequences to killing him that are more appealing than satisfying his desire to kill). — Michael
A right, whether thought to be natural or not, contains moral quality, so I can't see how a right, thus, is without any moral consideration. — Buxtebuddha
It'd be difficult to argue that how one ought to act is not dependent upon themselves or others.
Appealing how? Instead of wrong you'd have to somehow falsify their intention to kill you? How would you do that? Again, natural rights would go both ways, in that one's own right ought not be broken with regards to another's same right.
↪WISDOMfromPO-MO Very well stated. In the other gun thread, the argument I gave in favor of retaining the constitutional right to bear arms is that this right is grounded in the natural right to self-defense. Put in a syllogism, it looks like this:
I have the natural right to defend my life and property.
I have the right to own the proper means of defending my life and property.
Firearms are one proper means of defending my life and property.
Therefore, I have a right to own firearms.
This was the chief principled argument I gave, but apparently, it's easier to endlessly compose infantile, sarcastic quips than engage with such arguments, judging by the responses. — Thorongil
in favor of retaining the constitutional right to bear arms — Thorongil
I'm not saying that there can be rights without morality. I'm saying that there can be morality without rights. — Michael
It can be wrong to kill even if nobody has a right to live, e.g. with consequentialism, divine command theory, virtue ethics, or the first formulation of the categorial imperative. — Michael
My friends might look for revenge; I might be the only doctor in the community, and he might be very sick; I could pay him off; etc.
There are plenty of reasons not to kill someone that don't depend on believing that people have a right to live. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.