Sucks to be him but no matter how angry you are you dont go punching people in the face.
"[11:17pm] Thorn: I'm gonna have to ask you to stop being so productive"
New Topic.
Natural Rights?
This one will take a bit of research, so I've provided the basics of what this is.
For Natural Rights
Against Natural Rights
It is a bit of reading, but bear with me.
-------
Now for my view. As most have probably guessed with my previous arguments, I claim there are no natural rights. I'm not limiting this to a few basic ones, or a few that I like, I say there are none. We have rights to nothing.
The universe tends towards entropy (randomness), evolution rose from this because the basic building blocks were there and time was provided. Chaos was ruling and humans decided to spread, this needed order. Order spawned civilizations and from that, laws. These laws are completely human made, they are our creations, and in that it shows they are not natural.
Taken from Business Dictionary
Problem #1: "Cannot be interfered with by any government." This allows the individual free reign in his choices, meanwhile the government cannot intervene in a proper way.
Problem #2: "Nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space". The time and space play a crucial role in how human rights were decided. Long before modern civilizations, the Mayans had routine sacrifices, the Egyptians did the same thing, and most other ancient societies would kill off certain people for whatever reason. If these were, in fact, inalienable (undeniable//universal) then would it not make sense that these ancient societies would also follow the rules laid out?
Taken from Wikipedia
The first one seems simple enough, but there are various holes that arise from the second and third rule.
Rule 2: anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with someones right to life.
Taking real life scenarios where this has left the theory hanging in the wind, torture, unlawful imprisonment, or just plain abuse. None of these interfere with ones ability to be alive.
Rule #3: This one is worded much better than the second, but it still leaves one wondering. If you plant a tree in your neighbors lawn, is the tree yours or theirs? You did "create" it, taking the seed, digging a hole, planting it, watering it, etc. Yet property laws dictate that it is on your neighbors property, and therefore his.
I'll end with a quote by Jeremy Bentham on the topic of Natural Rights.
Natural Rights?
This one will take a bit of research, so I've provided the basics of what this is.
For Natural Rights
Against Natural Rights
It is a bit of reading, but bear with me.
-------
Now for my view. As most have probably guessed with my previous arguments, I claim there are no natural rights. I'm not limiting this to a few basic ones, or a few that I like, I say there are none. We have rights to nothing.
The universe tends towards entropy (randomness), evolution rose from this because the basic building blocks were there and time was provided. Chaos was ruling and humans decided to spread, this needed order. Order spawned civilizations and from that, laws. These laws are completely human made, they are our creations, and in that it shows they are not natural.
Originally Posted by Natural Rights
nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government.
Taken from Business Dictionary
Problem #1: "Cannot be interfered with by any government." This allows the individual free reign in his choices, meanwhile the government cannot intervene in a proper way.
Problem #2: "Nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space". The time and space play a crucial role in how human rights were decided. Long before modern civilizations, the Mayans had routine sacrifices, the Egyptians did the same thing, and most other ancient societies would kill off certain people for whatever reason. If these were, in fact, inalienable (undeniable//universal) then would it not make sense that these ancient societies would also follow the rules laid out?
Originally Posted by John Locke
According to Locke there are three natural rights:
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
Taken from Wikipedia
The first one seems simple enough, but there are various holes that arise from the second and third rule.
Rule 2: anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with someones right to life.
Taking real life scenarios where this has left the theory hanging in the wind, torture, unlawful imprisonment, or just plain abuse. None of these interfere with ones ability to be alive.
Rule #3: This one is worded much better than the second, but it still leaves one wondering. If you plant a tree in your neighbors lawn, is the tree yours or theirs? You did "create" it, taking the seed, digging a hole, planting it, watering it, etc. Yet property laws dictate that it is on your neighbors property, and therefore his.
I'll end with a quote by Jeremy Bentham on the topic of Natural Rights.
Originally Posted by Jeremy Bentham
"Nonsense on stilts"
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»