Unalienable Rights

[tjohnson]

Humans started out as animals with all the associated competition and struggle for existence and we are gradually evolving into creatures that can cooperate instead of compete but it is a very slow process.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Are you implying that someday human beings will no longer be mammals?

I have no problem adding to the mammalian condition like the development of evolution has done (especially with the volitional conceptual faculty). I do have a problem negating it. That goes off into la-la land.

Michael

[Christopher]

Be careful how you use the word "social" when saying social convention. If you think that rights are something mutually agreed upon, you're essentially saying that the majority or the state can dictate those rights.

Reason is the foundation of rights.

The guys with the guns and the power tell us what are rights are or are not.

Die Macht ist das Recht.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But let's not call them people, let's call them irrational dinosaurs and put them into cages.

[BaalChatzaf]

Humans started out as animals with all the associated competition and struggle for existence and we are gradually evolving into creatures that can cooperate instead of compete but it is a very slow process.

We are the smartest baddest apes in the primate house. We are the apes that talk a lot and pretend we are not apes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

GS,

Are you implying that someday human beings will no longer be mammals?

I have no problem adding to the mammalian condition like the development of evolution has done (especially with the volitional conceptual faculty). I do have a problem negating it. That goes off into la-la land.

Michael

Who knows if we may one day not be mammals? Stranger things have happened in evolution.

[sbeaulieu]

I don't think it means parents. I don't possess the right to Life because my parents want me to have it. And of course Jefferson was referring to a God by his capitalization of Creator. But I think his INTENT was that ALL human beings, simply by their very nature of being human, possess the right to life, etc.

Think about Jefferson's intent here. He was not saying, 'we the people hereby remove the right to life from the monarchy and place it our possession". He was not saying, "our Christian god grants this right to Christians". He was not saying, "We the People of these modern times now possess rights that those in the past didn't". He was expressing an absolute. He wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident". A self-evident truth is an absolute. It is true now, and in the past and in the future, and it is true for ALL human beings whether their government recognizes that truth or not.

So I think by "Creator", he meant what ever a person believes caused human beings to come into existence, whether that is a god or evolution or whatever. IOW, it is an absolute that human beings, solely by their nature of being human beings, possess the certain unalienable rights.

Bob

Agreed. That was my initial assessment...the parents as creators. But realistically, I think you nailed it on the head. I always try to think in context to when something was written. The wording is very absolute, and well chosen. Probably why I don't question it much since it still makes good sense.

~ Shane

[BaalChatzaf]

So I think by "Creator", he meant what ever a person believes caused human beings to come into existence, whether that is a god or evolution or whatever. IOW, it is an absolute that human beings, solely by their nature of being human beings, possess the certain unalienable rights.

For Deists, "creator" means Nature or Nature's God. In Jefferson's time, the notion of evolution, as we understand it, did not exist. People in Jefferson's time believed the world was as old as the Book of Genesis implied. That is about 6000 years. For people who believed Man was made in God's image, the notion of rights would be axiomatic. God freely created the world, and Man who is made in God's image freely acts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

People need rights. Whether they have them depends on the social, legal, philosophical situation. They also need to be exercised. They need to be gotten. If a thug is going to shoot you down, screaming about your "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" will do you no more good than screaming it out to an attacking tiger. If you pull out your own gun and shoot him down that is your moral if not legal right.

When I was a boy, long before Rand or anybody else than me, myself and I, I asked myself what inheres in one person as opposed to any other person that makes him morally superior and justified anyone's tyranny, large or small--the use of force against another to gain any superiority whatsoever? Nothing.

It's not so much the rights you have as the right no one has to initiate force and violate (your) rights. All the philosophicalizing and legalizing of all the historical centuries cannot and never will change that one bit and will never make that a right for that right means no rights.

Humans primary tool of survival is the thinking mind and what that mind does is produce stuff, obviating a need to be a predator. But there are human predators so we do to them what they would do and did to us. By claiming the right of predation they are actually saying there are no rights and are taken at their word (or actions).

--Brant

[PatriotResistance]

Bob,

I am starting to detect a preachiness that turns me to other directions. It leads to the vitriol that I mentioned earlier and, frankly, I have better things to do. If your intent is to persuade, by telling me what I think, you have not made a dent in my thinking.

I say human nature is our ability to reason - that is why we are not a human animal.

Are you seriously proposing that human beings are not mammals?

Michael

Oh my, well then I sincerely apologize, Michael.

No, to be quite honest with you, I studied your reply and attempted to compose my response for well over an hour yesterday. I considered your reply the most important of any and was looking forward to a possibly difficult but definitely insightful discussion with you. My impression of this forum (though I've only just arrived) is that you are one of the most intellectual members.

I struggled quite a bit with understanding your reply, and I know that I do not fully understand it yet. I'm sorry if the final composition of my reply came off as preachy. It was much more lengthy at one point and I felt it more important to pare it down. It ended up being a restatement of what I was trying to say, and I hope that you'll look at it again and help me to understand your points in that light. I am not arguing with you, I am trying to understand clearly what you mean. The questions in my reply were not rhetorical, I was hoping you would answer them to help me understand what you mean.

Of course my statement above was not meant to claim that humans are not mammals. My point is that humans are the "same" as animals in the sense of being living creatures that evolved, yet we are different from animals in that we reason. Isn't it important to make that distinction, and that humans possess rights that "other" animals do not, while trying to understand human rights? (Again, that's not a rhetorical question, I am asking what you believe about the subject.)

Bob

Edited October 9, 2009 by PatriotResistance

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I'm the one who is sorry.

Seeing this side of you, I didn't mean to make you feel like that. So I also apologize.

You wouldn't believe some of the characters who show up here and unfortunately I have allowed myself to get baited and sucked and into fruitless exchanges (to use a generous term). This leads me to be rather blunt.

I see you actually want to discuss stuff for real. Not preach. I'm more than cool with that.

And it's more than OK to disagree with me.

My number one value is for each person to use his own mind and do his own thinking to the best of his ability.

I don't have time tonight, but tomorrow I will compose a decent response for you.

Michael

[Christopher]

People need rights. Whether they have them depends on the social, legal, philosophical situation. They also need to be exercised. They need to be gotten. If a thug is going to shoot you down, screaming about your "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" will do you no more good than screaming it out to an attacking tiger. If you pull out your own gun and shoot him down that is your moral if not legal right.

When I was a boy, long before Rand or anybody else than me, myself and I, I asked myself what inheres in one person as opposed to any other person that makes him morally superior and justified anyone's tyranny, large or small--the use of force against another to gain any superiority whatsoever? Nothing.

It's not so much the rights you have as the right no one has to initiate force and violate (your) rights. All the philosophicalizing and legalizing of all the historical centuries cannot and never will change that one bit and will never make that a right for that right means no rights.

Humans primary tool of survival is the thinking mind and what that mind does is produce stuff, obviating a need to be a predator. But there are human predators so we do to them what they would do and did to us. By claiming the right of predation they are actually saying there are no rights and are taken at their word (or actions).

--Brant

Yes yes, good. By the mere fact that morality exists, the concept of rights must be addressed. It is not arbitrary, it is not a matter of whim... we have hardwired biological moral motivations, although people certainly have a lot of subjective structures built around those motives.

[tjohnson]

Of course my statement above was not meant to claim that humans are not mammals. My point is that humans are the "same" as animals in the sense of being living creatures that evolved, yet we are different from animals in that we reason. Isn't it important to make that distinction, and that humans possess rights that "other" animals do not, while trying to understand human rights? (Again, that's not a rhetorical question, I am asking what you believe about the subject.)

Bob

This was somewhat the point I was making. Micheal seems to be reasoning as follows;

All mammals are animals

All humans are mammals

Therefore all humans are animals

I agree this is true biologically but what about when we examine the nervous system of humans vs animal? In particular, when we observe that humans have the ability to pass knowledge from one generation to the next due to their advanced nervous system. In this field it seems important to differentiate human from animal in order to create a science of man so that we can better take advantage of humans' unique abilities.

[anonrobt]

Of course my statement above was not meant to claim that humans are not mammals. My point is that humans are the "same" as animals in the sense of being living creatures that evolved, yet we are different from animals in that we reason. Isn't it important to make that distinction, and that humans possess rights that "other" animals do not, while trying to understand human rights? (Again, that's not a rhetorical question, I am asking what you believe about the subject.)

Bob

This was somewhat the point I was making. Micheal seems to be reasoning as follows;

All mammals are animals

All humans are mammals

Therefore all humans are animals

I agree this is true biologically but what about when we examine the nervous system of humans vs animal? In particular, when we observe that humans have the ability to pass knowledge from one generation to the next due to their advanced nervous system. In this field it seems important to differentiate human from animal in order to create a science of man so that we can better take advantage of humans' unique abilities.

In other words, recognizing that there are no rights at the waterhole - that rights came into existence when humans arrived, when conceptual capacity arrived, and as such apply only to humans, those with the capacity to be conceptual...

[tjohnson]

In other words, recognizing that there are no rights at the waterhole - that rights came into existence when humans arrived, when conceptual capacity arrived, and as such apply only to humans, those with the capacity to be conceptual...

I would say rights are inextricably connected to putting an end to animalistic behaviour amongst humans.

[Selene]

In other words, recognizing that there are no rights at the waterhole - that rights came into existence when humans arrived, when conceptual capacity arrived, and as such apply only to humans, those with the capacity to be conceptual...

I would say rights are inextricably connected to putting an end to animalistic behaviour amongst humans.

Animalistic behavior like savagely fighting to protect your child/cub?

property (bone/land)?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Animalistic behavior like eating, breathing, reproducing in species, being mobile over land?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

We're going to evolve into immortal computer chips hooked up to our immortal dead friends and enemies posting on OL and like places begging for a never coming surcease.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

In other words, recognizing that there are no rights at the waterhole - that rights came into existence when humans arrived, when conceptual capacity arrived, and as such apply only to humans, those with the capacity to be conceptual...

I would say rights are inextricably connected to putting an end to animalistic behaviour amongst humans.

No more meat!

--Brant

[Selene]

In other words, recognizing that there are no rights at the waterhole - that rights came into existence when humans arrived, when conceptual capacity arrived, and as such apply only to humans, those with the capacity to be conceptual...

I would say rights are inextricably connected to putting an end to animalistic behaviour amongst humans.

No more meat!

--Brant

How about if she does not swallow?

Adam

[tjohnson]

Wow. brilliant posts you guys. Patriotresistance has just joined the list and now he gets to see what the most prolific posters are really like - taking the conversation from rights into innuendos about oral sex. You guys should get a life.

[Selene]

Wow. brilliant posts you guys. Patriotresistance has just joined the list and now he gets to see what the most prolific posters are really like - taking the conversation from rights into innuendos about oral sex. You guys should get a life.

Wow are you weird, where is your mind at? Images jumping in your mind?

I clearly meant in terms of the health issue and just getting a taste of the meat.

Oh, see, now you are going to make that dirty too!

I thought words do not have really specific meanings, they kinda morph.

Adam

Post Script: And since if it was referring to oral sex, it would have been wise to get the most shock value to not make it gender specific!

Edited October 9, 2009 by Selene

[PatriotResistance]

Wow. brilliant posts you guys. Patriotresistance has just joined the list and now he gets to see what the most prolific posters are really like - taking the conversation from rights into innuendos about oral sex. You guys should get a life.

It is astounding how quickly the discussion can get a little or a lot off-topic, but that's really not unusual. What would be nice is if the forum could be viewed in a tree format so sub-threads could easily be followed, or not. I'm assuming that's not available here?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What would be nice is if the forum could be viewed in a tree format so sub-threads could easily be followed, or not. I'm assuming that's not available here?

I just looked for it since it is not at the bottom where it is supposed to be.

Then I found it. You can do this in your settings under "Forum Results Display."

[PatriotResistance]

What would be nice is if the forum could be viewed in a tree format so sub-threads could easily be followed, or not. I'm assuming that's not available here?

I just looked for it since it is not at the bottom where it is supposed to be.

Then I found it. You can do this in your settings under "Forum Results Display."

Hmmm, I tried both settings and nothing changed.

Bob

[PatriotResistance]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

My question concerns the "by their Creator" part of this quote from the Declaration of Independence. I assume Objectivists fully agree with the "created equal" and "unalienable Rights" phrases.

Would an Objectivist easily substitute "nature" or "Objective Reality" for "their Creator"? Or something else? Or do Objectivists have an objection to the founding fathers attributing the source of unalienable Rights to a Creator?

Bob

Bump.

Sigh.