Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > General Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 10-12-2017, 10:54 AM   #376
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
 
Richard_P_Feynman's Avatar
 
Richard_P_Feynman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rightguide View Post
Whatever dude. You must have had to suck on a dry tit for most of your early youth. The damage to your awareness of reality is really quite telling.
Reichguide doth protest too severely.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 11:04 AM   #377
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 9,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_P_Feynman View Post
Reichguide doth protest too severely.
Who's protesting? You get to make a claim and I'm supposed to understand the disjointed insanity and agree?

You can create all of the bullshit you want. You have the right to be a fool as well. I might even think it's funny if I understood what the fuck you're talking about or why it's supposed to be funny..
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 12:53 PM   #378
butters
Literotica Guru
 
butters's Avatar
 
butters is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: home
Posts: 61,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancecastor View Post
[Threats of physical harm against other users are prohibited per our forum guidelines] and are cause for permanent banning.
oh, look at that
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 12:56 PM   #379
lickitandstickit
Literotica Guru
 
lickitandstickit's Avatar
 
lickitandstickit is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by butters View Post
oh, look at that
Not that I wanna get involved, but I was wondering where the murky line in the sand was drawn about banning. I suppose I could read the guidelines but I figured it didn't matter because I probably wont break any of them anyway..
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 01:07 PM   #380
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 9,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by butters View Post
oh, look at that
I didn't see an actual threat to do physical harm to another poster unless you want to interpret making a rhetorical point to be a threat to do harm. IMHO
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 02:11 PM   #381
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 32,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_P_Feynman View Post
^ Doesn't realize self-evidence is considered an ambiguous and problematic concept by people who actually think about these things for a living.
Only for the ones who allow the collective to limit their thinking abilities....or are just lacking the facilities to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
Anything "self-evident" is probably wrong.
No, it's not.

And recognizing it doesn't make you a racist either.

Not anymore than taking advantage of an economic opportunity is oppressing poor people.

Funny enough the same kind of people who can't recognize what a self evident natural right is, more often than not can't see an economic opportunity if someone was beating them over the head with it either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
As for 'rights' -- we have whatever rights the cops and courts allow us, no more, no less. We can argue all we want from our jail cells. How fun!
There are thousands of victims every year who disagree....

You have whatever rights you secure for yourself, those are the only ones you can count on.

Last edited by BotanyBoy : 10-12-2017 at 02:19 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 02:16 PM   #382
Paul_Chance
Amused and Amazed
 
Paul_Chance's Avatar
 
Paul_Chance is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 11,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimGordon67 View Post
So my problem here is I'm still not getting how these rights are identified - how did Locke know that these were natural rights. They aren't objective things - like, someone could find an apple on a tree and go 'ah, here's a thing'.

Here's an example of how these things aren't necessarily 'self evident'. Let's take property - in some indigenous cultures, the notion of 'owning' land was impossible. People saw themselves as guardians of the land. Different groups were able to grant people/groups the right to do particular things on/with the land, but you couldn't own the land. They didn't say 'oh, we're not going to apply the notion of ownership to land, just other stuff' - it was just self evident that you couldn't own land, because it was part of the natural universe that is beyond the ownership of humanity.

When those lands were colonized, and treaties were drawn up, it seemed self-evident to the indigenous people that they weren't ceding ownership of the land, because that was impossible. What they were granting was the right to use the land for certain purposes. It seemed equally self evident to the European that they were taking ownership of the land, because land is a thing that someone owns, so the indigenous people were 'obviously' transferring ownership through the treaty.

So, I really don't think that things that are 'self evident' are really quite as self evident as one might think. What you've traced in the above is a notion of things that are 'self evident' through the development of a specific cultural trajectory. It's a long trajectory, so it's obviously fairly embedded, and it's pretty well thought-out, but it is specific.
In his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" Locke illustrated the three pathways that converged in his theory of "Natural Rights". He believed those pathways were education (reading the history and philosophies that had come before), observation (watching the world in action), and reason (thinking critically about what one learned and observed). He believed that everyone who walked down those pathways would ultimately reach the same conclusion - that there are certain rights that transcend the boundaries of culture and circumstance.

He saw that all societies (known to him) valued life. That in all societies there existed rules or laws that prevented the taking of innocent lives and established circumstances under which people could legitimately be killed without punishment or sanction from the culture. No culture in his observation (or in my knowledge) allowed the killing of innocents without what that culture perceived as just cause according to their laws - even indigenous cultures had complex codes around the subject. At the indigenous level certain types of killing were allowed - self defense on both the individual level and cultural level (war - think Augustines Just War Theory).

He saw that all societies likewise protected the liberty of their innocent members. That liberty could be deprived, but only according to the rules of the society. (Slavery existed of course, but slavery has always been and remains about enslaving "the other". No society allows the enslavement of it's own innocent members, though many allowed slavery as punishment. )

The same held true with property (he called it "estate"). No society was completely without the concept of personal property. In indigenous societies, the boundaries of property varied, but all societies contained complex rules to prevent innocent individuals from being deprived of their estate - their personal property. In indigenous societies it was the concept of "individual" ownership of land that was defined differently. Land was viewed as a collective thing, often expressed as territory and shared jointly with the in-group. The out-group was often viciously opposed and expelled on the collective level. The only observable exception to this were the societies where the in-group had no competition (some island societies).

With the arrival of the concept of "personal" ownership of a defined piece of land the layers of ownership became rigidly defined and the individual had the ability to sell that land to a third party without the consent or consultation of the collective. That's often where the treaty disconnect came between the larger western nations - the "right to use" collectively was transferred or shared between group A and group B, but then group B denied collective use to group A. And yet, to this day, we all pretty much universally recognize that as having been a injustice. Group B denied Group A access/use of territory without the informed consent of Group A. Even in our modern western world, the collective places limitations on the ownership and use of territory. For instance, my townhouse cannot decide we're tired of California and transfer our citizenship to Oregon or Vancouver or Ulan Bator.

So, understanding that the rules varied according to culture and society, Locke observed that at the core of all societies were three very basic things - the natural rights, which transended society and culture - life, liberty, and property.

In Locke's observations he came to the conclusion that, though societies all expressed these natural rights differently, they were fundamental and universal across humanity. The core Natural Right existed, even though it was expressed in many different ways, according to culturally bounded rules.
__________________
Try to keep life simple.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 02:21 PM   #383
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 89,013
Excellent series of posts P_C


  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 02:22 PM   #384
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
 
Ishmael's Avatar
 
Ishmael is offline
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NSA - Still on a global listening tour.
Posts: 84,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump View Post
Excellent series of posts P_C


Yes, but Locke is just a dead white guy.

Ishmael
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 02:25 PM   #385
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 89,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
Yes, but Locke is just a dead white guy.

Ishmael
He knew about the Huns...,



But did he know about the Mayan culture?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 02:27 PM   #386
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
 
Lancecastor's Avatar
 
Lancecastor is offline
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here, and there. Sometimes over there.
Posts: 54,782
Kim will be along in about an hour to say nothing new in 1,000 words, right after she sends her middle school students home for the day.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 02:30 PM   #387
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 89,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancecastor View Post
Kim will be along in about an hour to say nothing new in 1,000 words, right after she sends her middle school students home for the day.
I'm hoping so...,





I'm waiting for strike two.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 02:33 PM   #388
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
 
Lancecastor's Avatar
 
Lancecastor is offline
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here, and there. Sometimes over there.
Posts: 54,782
I pity her poor husband.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 02:42 PM   #389
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
 
Richard_P_Feynman's Avatar
 
Richard_P_Feynman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump View Post
I'm hoping so...,





I'm waiting for strike two.
Is that the sort of language you use on Queen Cunt?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 03:34 PM   #390
KimGordon67
Rampant feminist
 
KimGordon67's Avatar
 
KimGordon67 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: A little island in a big ocean
Posts: 3,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_Chance View Post
In his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" Locke illustrated the three pathways that converged in his theory of "Natural Rights". He believed those pathways were education (reading the history and philosophies that had come before), observation (watching the world in action), and reason (thinking critically about what one learned and observed). He believed that everyone who walked down those pathways would ultimately reach the same conclusion - that there are certain rights that transcend the boundaries of culture and circumstance.

He saw that all societies (known to him) valued life. That in all societies there existed rules or laws that prevented the taking of innocent lives and established circumstances under which people could legitimately be killed without punishment or sanction from the culture. No culture in his observation (or in my knowledge) allowed the killing of innocents without what that culture perceived as just cause according to their laws - even indigenous cultures had complex codes around the subject. At the indigenous level certain types of killing were allowed - self defense on both the individual level and cultural level (war - think Augustines Just War Theory).

He saw that all societies likewise protected the liberty of their innocent members. That liberty could be deprived, but only according to the rules of the society. (Slavery existed of course, but slavery has always been and remains about enslaving "the other". No society allows the enslavement of it's own innocent members, though many allowed slavery as punishment. )

The same held true with property (he called it "estate"). No society was completely without the concept of personal property. In indigenous societies, the boundaries of property varied, but all societies contained complex rules to prevent innocent individuals from being deprived of their estate - their personal property. In indigenous societies it was the concept of "individual" ownership of land that was defined differently. Land was viewed as a collective thing, often expressed as territory and shared jointly with the in-group. The out-group was often viciously opposed and expelled on the collective level. The only observable exception to this were the societies where the in-group had no competition (some island societies).

With the arrival of the concept of "personal" ownership of a defined piece of land the layers of ownership became rigidly defined and the individual had the ability to sell that land to a third party without the consent or consultation of the collective. That's often where the treaty disconnect came between the larger western nations - the "right to use" collectively was transferred or shared between group A and group B, but then group B denied collective use to group A. And yet, to this day, we all pretty much universally recognize that as having been a injustice. Group B denied Group A access/use of territory without the informed consent of Group A. Even in our modern western world, the collective places limitations on the ownership and use of territory. For instance, my townhouse cannot decide we're tired of California and transfer our citizenship to Oregon or Vancouver or Ulan Bator.

So, understanding that the rules varied according to culture and society, Locke observed that at the core of all societies were three very basic things - the natural rights, which transended society and culture - life, liberty, and property.

In Locke's observations he came to the conclusion that, though societies all expressed these natural rights differently, they were fundamental and universal across humanity. The core Natural Right existed, even though it was expressed in many different ways, according to culturally bounded rules.
Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to lay that out so clearly.

So, just in relation to a couple of points in there, while these are rights that inhere in the individual, there's some extent to which society has a say in ... how they're exercised? Is it possible to have a situation in which the rights are held at a social level, rather than an individual level?

Also, just in respect of the first para above, would you think that these rights are thus 'self-evident'? That seems like a fairly lengthy process to go through to work out what they are, and somewhat different to something I read somewhere about one of the architects of the Constitution/BoR saying that they based their assessment that these things were rights (or something similar) on what was 'in the air' at the time. (Extremely annoyingly, I can't find the place I read it now.)
__________________
They went down to the river on a warm summer night.
The air was thick with the smell of
temptation.

Maybe glance at this before you PM: Writing PMs

Last edited by KimGordon67 : 10-12-2017 at 03:46 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 03:59 PM   #391
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
 
Lancecastor's Avatar
 
Lancecastor is offline
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here, and there. Sometimes over there.
Posts: 54,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimGordon67 View Post
Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to lay that out so clearly.

So, just in relation to a couple of points in there, while these are rights that inhere in the individual, there's some extent to which society has a say in ... how they're exercised? Is it possible to have a situation in which the rights are held at a social level, rather than an individual level?

Also, just in respect of the first para above, would you think that these rights are thus 'self-evident'? That seems like a fairly lengthy process to go through to work out what they are, and somewhat different to something I read somewhere about one of the architects of the Constitution/BoR saying that they based their assessment that these things were rights (or something similar) on what was 'in the air' at the time. (Extremely annoyingly, I can't find the place I read it now.)

1 hour, 7 minutes later, but a few hundred meaningless words short....close!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancecastor View Post
Kim will be along in about an hour to say nothing new in 1,000 words, right after she sends her middle school students home for the day.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 04:40 PM   #392
mark_j
It's a mad, mad world.
 
mark_j's Avatar
 
mark_j is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: State of Insanity
Posts: 4,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimGordon67 View Post
Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to lay that out so clearly.

So, just in relation to a couple of points in there, while these are rights that inhere in the individual, there's some extent to which society has a say in ... how they're exercised? Is it possible to have a situation in which the rights are held at a social level, rather than an individual level?

Also, just in respect of the first para above, would you think that these rights are thus 'self-evident'? That seems like a fairly lengthy process to go through to work out what they are, and somewhat different to something I read somewhere about one of the architects of the Constitution/BoR saying that they based their assessment that these things were rights (or something similar) on what was 'in the air' at the time. (Extremely annoyingly, I can't find the place I read it now.)
May I suggest that you take this series of online courses (free of course). It might give you a better understanding of the core principals surrounding the U.S. Constitution and why it was crafted the way it is.
__________________
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining..... Fletcher: The Outlaw Jose Wales

Political Axioms:

Where there's a double standard, there's a hidden agenda.

The more loyal you are to a political party, the less the party cares about you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 05:00 PM   #393
Paul_Chance
Amused and Amazed
 
Paul_Chance's Avatar
 
Paul_Chance is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 11,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimGordon67 View Post
Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to lay that out so clearly.

So, just in relation to a couple of points in there, while these are rights that inhere in the individual, there's some extent to which society has a say in ... how they're exercised? Is it possible to have a situation in which the rights are held at a social level, rather than an individual level?

Also, just in respect of the first para above, would you think that these rights are thus 'self-evident'? That seems like a fairly lengthy process to go through to work out what they are, and somewhat different to something I read somewhere about one of the architects of the Constitution/BoR saying that they based their assessment that these things were rights (or something similar) on what was 'in the air' at the time. (Extremely annoyingly, I can't find the place I read it now.)
Yes, Locke in particular, and most of the natural rights philosophers were generally speaking not absolutists. They understood that there were natural rights (which over time developed into "human rights" as expressed in other documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that there were civil rights (rights that arose from with the compact of a given society).

As far as natural rights, they could be structured according to the will of society, as long as that structure did not deny them. That's reflected in our current law here in America - the Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, but they have also affirmed a whole variety of laws that structure how those rights are expressed - for example finding that if a state or county or city restricts magazine capacity or type of fire-arm according to the will of the local people, that is perfectly legal, as long as it was legally passed and went through the necessary due process (collective restrictions) and it has certainly upheld individual restrictions (such as the ban on felons, children, the mentally incapable, etc.).

Much of the debate that rolls on in America is around that - what are reasonable restrictions and were those restrictions constructed and passed in the correct manner. The original ten amendments and the subsequent amendments were passed based on "what was in the air" at the time - that is specific cultural context. It is conceivable, though unlikely, that sufficient political will can be build to further restrict the expression of that particular right - without denying the right.

Under natural law, the full denial of the right would constitute an unjust act and would move that government to a form of tyranny, in which case Locke and crew would say that, at that point, the people had the right to overthrow the government and replace it with a more just form of government.
__________________
Try to keep life simple.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 05:03 PM   #394
KimGordon67
Rampant feminist
 
KimGordon67's Avatar
 
KimGordon67 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: A little island in a big ocean
Posts: 3,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark_j View Post
May I suggest that you take this series of online courses (free of course). It might give you a better understanding of the core principals surrounding the U.S. Constitution and why it was crafted the way it is.
Thanks, but if I'm reading Paul's post correctly, the concept of the natural rights isn't peculiar to the Constitution nor to the US, and Locke's work predated the Constitution by a century or so. At this point, I'm just trying to get my head around the concept of 'natural' rights and whether we can really say they exist independently to human discourse.
__________________
They went down to the river on a warm summer night.
The air was thick with the smell of
temptation.

Maybe glance at this before you PM: Writing PMs
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 05:15 PM   #395
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
 
Richard_P_Feynman's Avatar
 
Richard_P_Feynman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimGordon67 View Post
Thanks, but if I'm reading Paul's post correctly, the concept of the natural rights isn't peculiar to the Constitution nor to the US, and Locke's work predated the Constitution by a century or so. At this point, I'm just trying to get my head around the concept of 'natural' rights and whether we can really say they exist independently to human discourse.
Critics of natural rights would answer your question in the negative. In fact, most contemporary ethicists and epistemologists I've read would deny adequate grounds for natural rights at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 05:20 PM   #396
KimGordon67
Rampant feminist
 
KimGordon67's Avatar
 
KimGordon67 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: A little island in a big ocean
Posts: 3,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_P_Feynman View Post
Critics of natural rights would answer your question in the negative. In fact, most contemporary ethicists and epistemologists I've read would deny adequate grounds for natural rights at all.
Instinctively (poor word choice but you know what I mean), I'd agree ... but the argument laid out by Paul is pretty compelling (unlike the 'they're self evident because any idiot can see that, and if you can't you're an idiot' argument). Is there something I could quickly read that would sum up the opposing point that you're aware of?
__________________
They went down to the river on a warm summer night.
The air was thick with the smell of
temptation.

Maybe glance at this before you PM: Writing PMs
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 05:33 PM   #397
Paul_Chance
Amused and Amazed
 
Paul_Chance's Avatar
 
Paul_Chance is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 11,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_P_Feynman View Post
Critics of natural rights would answer your question in the negative. In fact, most contemporary ethicists and epistemologists I've read would deny adequate grounds for natural rights at all.
Correct...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KimGordon67 View Post
Instinctively (poor word choice but you know what I mean), I'd agree ... but the argument laid out by Paul is pretty compelling (unlike the 'they're self evident because any idiot can see that, and if you can't you're an idiot' argument). Is there something I could quickly read that would sum up the opposing point that you're aware of?
Hume and Burke both rejected the concept of natural rights and thought that all rights were artificial in construct and came from the civil compact of government (civil rights v. natural rights). Here's a link to Burke, a fairly quick read.

http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...al-rights.html

One of the "genius" things about the constitution is that the framers incorporate both views into the document - the affirmed natural rights, and then encoded them as civil rights. The addition of the Bill of Rights was driven by the dynamic conflict that was "in the air" at the time.
__________________
Try to keep life simple.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 05:40 PM   #398
KimGordon67
Rampant feminist
 
KimGordon67's Avatar
 
KimGordon67 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: A little island in a big ocean
Posts: 3,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_Chance View Post
Correct...



Hume and Burke both rejected the concept of natural rights and thought that all rights were artificial in construct and came from the civil compact of government (civil rights v. natural rights). Here's a link to Burke, a fairly quick read.

http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...al-rights.html

One of the "genius" things about the constitution is that the framers incorporate both views into the document - the affirmed natural rights, and then encoded them as civil rights. The addition of the Bill of Rights was driven by the dynamic conflict that was "in the air" at the time.
Cheers - I'll have a look at that.

I have a follow on thought, but I'll work through the whole 'natural' rights thing first. (BTW, for some reason my querying of the concept of natural rights seems to be interpreted as meaning I don't think people have any rights. That could be further from the truth - I'm just querying whether they have an independent existence, or whether they're something we generally agree on as being a good thing for humanity. Pretty much like Hogan said about 298 miles ago.)
__________________
They went down to the river on a warm summer night.
The air was thick with the smell of
temptation.

Maybe glance at this before you PM: Writing PMs
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 05:44 PM   #399
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
 
Hypoxia's Avatar
 
Hypoxia is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Llareggub, just around the corner
Posts: 16,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimGordon67 View Post
At this point, I'm just trying to get my head around the concept of 'natural' rights and whether we can really say they exist independently to human discourse.
We may as well discuss the nature of souls. Would natural rights (or souls) exist if humans didn't? Do primates, mammals, all animals, all lifeforms, have natural rights (or souls)? How can we tell? What are the telltale signs of the existence of natural rights (or souls)?

From whence do natural rights (or souls) arrive? Are they granted by Nature's God, or imposed by alien invaders? Or did they evolve naturally, and if so, from what genesis -- where / when / how / why did they first pop up -- and under what pressures? What are the evolutionary advantages of possessing natural rights (or souls)? Do too many natural rights (or too much soul) bog us down, or does superfluity enrich and strengthen us?

I can carve new deities whenever I wish. I'm not so good at carving natural rights (or souls). Maybe those should go up in windchimes. The right to kill? That's in D-modal-minor, same as Tromp's soul.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017, 06:17 PM   #400
Paul_Chance
Amused and Amazed
 
Paul_Chance's Avatar
 
Paul_Chance is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 11,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
We may as well discuss the nature of souls. Would natural rights (or souls) exist if humans didn't? Do primates, mammals, all animals, all lifeforms, have natural rights (or souls)? How can we tell? What are the telltale signs of the existence of natural rights (or souls)?

From whence do natural rights (or souls) arrive? Are they granted by Nature's God, or imposed by alien invaders? Or did they evolve naturally, and if so, from what genesis -- where / when / how / why did they first pop up -- and under what pressures? What are the evolutionary advantages of possessing natural rights (or souls)? Do too many natural rights (or too much soul) bog us down, or does superfluity enrich and strengthen us?

I can carve new deities whenever I wish. I'm not so good at carving natural rights (or souls). Maybe those should go up in windchimes. The right to kill? That's in D-modal-minor, same as Tromp's soul.
Under the theory, natural rights adhere to all living creatures. The expression of those varies (just like the expression of them varies in human societies).

All creatures have a right to life (indeed, if we stick to the pure evolutionary model, ala Darwin et. al.) "life" is the driving force behind all behavior and that nature itself rewards the expression of the right, survival of fittest, where the fittest in Darwinian terms is that entity which is most able to breed successfully and so continue their genes.

The right to liberty is expressed even more eloquently in nature, since almost no known animal imprisons or enslaves other animals.

The right to property is also expressed throughout nature in that all animals have ranges, territories, nest, dens, etc. which they will defend against intruders of the same species or invasive species.

Natural rights evolve through nature and are hard-coded into the DNA of all species. God isn't necessary (the whole of the enlightenment, which infused Locke et. al., was a rejection of the God centered view of the universe.) It was of course countered by the God-given rights theologians.

In regards to this particular concept - self-defense - all animals, in one form or another, possess that inherent right (expressed through the abilities or fight or flight, camoflauge, etc.).

Do bears have the right to be armed? Under Natural Rights theory the answer is yes - but irrelevant. They don't have the physical or mental capacity to bear arms - though some animals use crude weaponry - thinking specifically of birds that will drop rocks on the eggs of birds invading their territory or rivals for resources. The natural world, lacking modern arms, however is ruled very much by the law of tooth and claw. If you kick a dog and the dog bites you, most folks don't blame the dog. Extend that out and you have the universal acceptance of self-defense and the near universal acceptance of lethal self-defense.

From an evolutionary standpoint, the right to self-defense - and the ability to defend yourself and your little tribe - is wired into pure, naked survival. Live, survive, breed, live again - the only conditional form of immortality we can observe, like Dawkin's selfish gene.

Indeed, the whole heart of the debate about guns and gun control revolves around the core philosophical differences between natural rights (inherent and universal) and civil rights (originating in the collective will of the society, or granted by the sovereign). If the rights are inherent and universal then society cannot abridge them. If the rights are civil in origin, then the civil body that granted them can take them away.
__________________
Try to keep life simple.

Last edited by Paul_Chance : 10-12-2017 at 06:24 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:42 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.