"God given right"

[volcaniclastic]

Re: "God given right"

Good luck proving that.

Good luck proving me wrong.

[AL!CE]

Re: "God given right"

Good luck proving me wrong.

I don't claim my faith as solid fact. There is a question, I have selected an answer, I can not be sure that answer is right.

I could be described as a soft theist (or an agnostic Pagan).

Describing a belief in a God as a logical fallacy makes you a hard atheist. I don't think people should be hard in their beliefs or lack of, without solid facts and as there are no solid facts in the field of belief... but that's just my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: "God given right"

Whether or not the idea of deity or god is "right" or "wrong" or "nutters," seems not to matter so much. I have to agree with masked here,

Powers provide free will, we've got the right and responsibility to use said free will. Some Powers may intend other rights but they left humanity free will and that includes the ability to **** ourselves over.

What comes after is what people do with it.

[Caelia]

Re: "God given right"

Which is the foundation of the U.S. political system. I appreciate your use of the word "believed;" however, I think that, like most systems, it only works when enough people, or perhaps even just the right people, "believe" it should be the case. I am very comfortable with the assertion that such rights should not be taken away, but the assertion that they cannot be taken away is falsified by any fool with a handgun.

It's the basis of many modern political systems. Social contract theory isn't just an "American" thing and it's silly to assert otherwise. Also, believe it or not, a good portion of the people participate in social contract theory. If we didn't we wouldn't have a lot of things in government or society.

- - - Updated - - -

ADD: A great example of this in social contract theory is what rights are worth giving up. John Locke asserted in Second Treatise of Government how in order for one to join a society and participate some rights an individual would have otherwise need to be relinquished in order to receive social benefits. You actively give up many rights as we speak, it's just an issue of on what terms people give up and for what value in return.

[nbdy]

Re: "God given right"

It's the basis of many modern political systems. Social contract theory isn't just an "American" thing and it's silly to assert otherwise. Also, believe it or not, a good portion of the people participate in social contract theory. If we didn't we wouldn't have a lot of things in government or society.

- - - Updated - - -

ADD: A great example of this in social contract theory is what rights are worth giving up. John Locke asserted in Second Treatise of Government how in order for one to join a society and participate some rights an individual would have otherwise need to be relinquished in order to receive social benefits. You actively give up many rights as we speak, it's just an issue of on what terms people give up and for what value in return.

Hon, I said nothing about any other political systems, affirmative or negative. I happen to know about this one because it is where I live. Please forgive me for not giving a shout out to all the other political systems in the world under which I have never lived, and possessing governing documents I have never read. Neither Locke nor Hobbes was American (nor Rousseau, nor Plato, for that matter) -- we cool now?

Social contract theory does not require unalienable rights, but asserting that certain rights are "God given" or "self evident" is a handy way to avoid the discussion altogether. Pretty handy if looking for a noble excuse to go to war. Funny how wars always get tied to God somehow but invariably are about money. (Now my fellow Americans will be hating on me because I think the American Revolution was about money .... but it was. *shrug* )

[Caelia]

Re: "God given right"

Hon, I said nothing about any other political systems, affirmative or negative. I happen to know about this one because it is where I live. Please forgive me for not giving a shout out to all the other political systems in the world under which I have never lived, and possessing governing documents I have never read. Neither Locke nor Hobbes was American (nor Rousseau, nor Plato, for that matter) -- we cool now?

Don't call me "hon". I don't know you. You evidently don't know it regardless of where you live because you kept using the American model and I explained social contract theory isn't just for Americans. It doesn't matter about the origin of the theory, it's the thoughts contributing to modern systems. So no, don't condescend and use your false sense of status to justify it.

Social contract theory does not require unalienable rights, but asserting that certain rights are "God given" or "self evident" is a handy way to avoid the discussion altogether. Pretty handy if looking for a noble excuse to go to war. Funny how wars always get tied to God somehow but invariably are about money. (Now my fellow Americans will be hating on me because I think the American Revolution was about money .... but it was. *shrug* )

This is why you don't know anything about social contract theory. It, in fact, DOES contain inalienable rights because that's where the term was coined: in order to further explain that theory.

[nbdy]

Re: "God given right"

Don't call me "hon". I don't know you. You evidently don't know it regardless of where you live because you kept using the American model and I explained social contract theory isn't just for Americans. It doesn't matter about the origin of the theory, it's the thoughts contributing to modern systems. So no, don't condescend and use your false sense of status to justify it.

This is why you don't know anything about social contract theory. It, in fact, DOES contain inalienable rights because that's where the term was coined: in order to further explain that theory.

I apologize for falling into vernacular -- I am into some pumpkin cider and got a little friendly-ish. I think you took it differently than I "said" it, but ofcourse you can't see my expression, hear my tone of voice, etc. I am perplexed and intrigued by my "false sense of status." Maybe you could explain that.

Only some philosophers have endorsed the idea of inalienable rights. I do not agree with them. It's OK that I do not agree, nor is it necessary that you agree with me.

[Caelia]

Re: "God given right"

I apologize for falling into vernacular -- I am into some pumpkin cider and got a little friendly-ish. I think you took it differently than I "said" it, but ofcourse you can't see my expression, hear my tone of voice, etc. I am perplexed and intrigued by my "false sense of status." Maybe you could explain that.

Apology accepted.

To convey what I mean, let's say this debate was about farming practices. I then claimed as a Kansan I know all about farming practices and then displayed a failure of basic concepts like tapping aquifers as something that isn't a form of irrigation. You would be justified in calling my shenanigans on that considering the Ogallala Aquifer is used for irrigation.

ADD: I have demonstrated where I used my origin as some status of credibility for an argument where I truly have no credentials whatsoever.

Only some philosophers have endorsed the idea of inalienable rights. I do not agree with them. It's OK that I do not agree, nor is it necessary that you agree with me.

Show me where inalienable rights is independent of social contract theory by these philosophers.

[nbdy]

Re: "God given right"

Apology accepted.

To convey what I mean, let's say this debate was about farming practices. I then claimed as a Kansan I know all about farming practices and then displayed a failure of basic concepts like tapping aquifers as something that isn't a form of irrigation. You would be justified in calling my shenanigans on that considering the Ogallala Aquifer is used for irrigation.

ADD: I have demonstrated where I used my origin as some status of credibility for an argument where I truly have no credentials whatsoever.


Show me where inalienable rights is independent of social contract theory by these philosophers.

No shenanigans. I am pretty well read, though I confess it's been a few years. For both Locke and Hobbes there were inalienable rights. Bentham and Burke did not agree. (And I got a "C" in that class when I screwed that up, so pretty sure about it.) Here is a good essay on the point: http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html. I am pretty sure that Rousseau did not agree that inalienable rights were necessary for social contract. That said, my thoughts are my own. I do not think social contract theory requires inalienable rights. I think everything is on the table every single time. Inalienable, god-given rights are a sleight of hand whereby we pretend that some things are not on the table. imo, of course.

[DanieMarie]

Re: "God given right"

It's the basis of many modern political systems. Social contract theory isn't just an "American" thing and it's silly to assert otherwise. Also, believe it or not, a good portion of the people participate in social contract theory. If we didn't we wouldn't have a lot of things in government or society.

- - - Updated - - -

ADD: A great example of this in social contract theory is what rights are worth giving up. John Locke asserted in Second Treatise of Government how in order for one to join a society and participate some rights an individual would have otherwise need to be relinquished in order to receive social benefits. You actively give up many rights as we speak, it's just an issue of on what terms people give up and for what value in return.

Yep. Very true. What I feel are my rights are largely determined by the society I grew up in (as well as the one I currently live in). For example, I feel I have a right to health care. A lot of Americans would disagree....but health care is deemed as something you should get when you pay taxes in a lot of places.

[Caelia]

Re: "God given right"

No shenanigans. I am pretty well read, though I confess it's been a few years. For both Locke and Hobbes there were inalienable rights. Bentham and Burke did not agree. (And I got a "C" in that class when I screwed that up, so pretty sure about it.) Here is a good essay on the point: http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html. I am pretty sure that Rousseau did not agree that inalienable rights were necessary for social contract. That said, my thoughts are my own. I do not think social contract theory requires inalienable rights. I think everything is on the table every single time. Inalienable, god-given rights are a sleight of hand whereby we pretend that some things are not on the table. imo, of course.

Again, "well read" means nothing to me. I can be "well read" in farming but that doesn't make me a farmer. You've already displayed that you don't understand social contract theory because I've demonstrated where that term is vital for social contract theory.

I need more than "I'm pretty sure" about Rousseau. Show me where Rousseau said it. I took a Western Civ class in college and got an A. I guess I trump your knowledge in these philosophies.

According to the argument in your link, he overlooks the idea of the social contract: the terms. That's why the social contract is always in flux. We are always deciding which rights we give up for the sake of certain social benefits. That doesn't mean it's falsified. It means different times call for different terms. It's no different than renegotiating a contract with a firm by a union. That doesn't mean salaries are bunk because you make less than before or because they added a new clause. You still expect something in return for working. Just like a social contract: you and the group expect something for giving up power and allowing governance.

He also overlooks the point of social contract being one that is decided by society and never factored in God except to dismiss the divine right of kings. Society decides based on a majority how much they are to be ruled. Let's take his killing example. It ignores the fact the right to kill someone is sometimes necessary to preserve personal liberties. In laws, this is acknowledged that sometimes personal liberties are at stake and taking a life is necessary, so the law governs and provides grounds for these instances. That's what makes it a social contract.

Not going into the cherry-picking and purposefully oversimplification of his quotes and arguments for now, but the author of the link uses them.

Also, I feel adding suddenly "this is what I believe, so there" to a debate is a huge cop-out instead of admitting the individual doesn't want to discuss it further. If that's the case, say it.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: "God given right"

God-given? Well, that's the theory about "Natural Rights". Going into a Social Contract, we give up some of those to protect the more important ones, opening up opportunities to more fully use them. The Constitution, according to this theory, protects these Natural Rights.

In reality? They're worthless without the means to use them. Go ask your nearest homeless person about their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And besides, didn't we all take a course in Civics to graduate High School in the US?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: "God given right"

To get back to a conversation...

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal promise from any government, it lays out the philosophical rationale for separating from Britain, and unalienable rights is bedrock. It asserts that by not respecting these rights -- which inhere in the individual by nature of existence in human form -- Britain violated it's obligation to it's American colonies

Oh yes, of course it has no technical standing as a legal document, and it is particular to a specific time and place. However, to my way of thinking - since it clearly outlines the intended purpose of government and the limitations of government, in theory as well as in specific examples - using that as justification for the formation of a new government, it also invalidates any government which can be shown to violate that purpose or those limitations. In that way, it forms the meta-legal structure for the Constitution.

It's not a legal judgement, of course, it's just the way my patriotism rolls.

[thalassa]

Re: "God given right"

In that way, it forms the meta-legal structure for the Constitution.

It's not a legal judgement, of course, it's just the way my patriotism rolls.

This.

I love it.

Not only do I concur, but so does The Hubby.

[nbdy]

Re: "God given right"

Again, "well read" means nothing to me. I can be "well read" in farming but that doesn't make me a farmer. You've already displayed that you don't understand social contract theory because I've demonstrated where that term is vital for social contract theory.

No, you haven't, though this statement

He also overlooks the point of social contract being one that is decided by society and never factored in God except to dismiss the divine right of kings.

sounds almost like you agree with my opinion. And we are talking about opinion because it is an abstract subject no matter how much you want to equate it with the concrete. Analogizing "rights" and "farming" ? Really?

The idea of natural rights basically emerged from a thought experiment -- if there was no government of any kind, would a person still have rights? If so, what would they be? My answer is no, there are no natural rights. I am not sure why this bothers you so much, but if it is important to you to change my mind present an argument rather than a personal attack. Tell me why you believe there are natural rights, from whence they come, and possibly what you believe they are.

And I will definitely leave you to read Rousseau on your own time, anyone who claims the expertise you are claiming certainly should have already read him since the title is The Social Contract. In fact, I don't think I want to talk with you further if you can't stop sounding mean. Not seeing a net gain for myself here.