Natural Rights

Shild · Post by **Shild** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:11 pm

From viewing the Christianity in America debate, I decided to start this thread.

Question to Debate: How, from an atheistic perspective, can all humans be entitled to certain inalienable, natural rights?

Izumi Koushirou · Post by **Izumi Koushirou** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:29 pm

Evolution.
The strong survive and the weak die.

Shild · Post by **Shild** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:32 pm

Evolution.
The strong survive and the weak die.

So? Where do humans' rights come in?

Edited to add:
BTW, evolution is not "Strong survive and weak die," it is "Those who happen to have a competitive advantage in a particular environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than others."

Strength rarely has anything to do with it.

Izumi Koushirou · Post by **Izumi Koushirou** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:45 pm

I didn't mean physical strength.
It's a saying.

The strong, in this situation, are those who are adapted to the enviroment and those who change with the enviroment. The weak are the ones who don't evolve.

Shild · Post by **Shild** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:50 pm

The strong, in this situation, are those who are adapted to the enviroment and those who change with the enviroment. The weak are the ones who don't evolve.

Yes, but what does this have to do with human rights? What does evolution have to do with, for example, freedom of speech?

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 7:47 pm

The act of surviving is what classifies strong. It is in our best interests to have as many people as possible surviving.

To you, god grants liberties. To us, we're born equal and free, even to the option of murdering people. By being a member of society, some of those liberties, like murdering people, are taken away, for the greater good of the community. Inalieable rights are the fundamental liberties that, if taken away, their removal would be at the expense of the individual and the community.

Understand, if we don't believe in a creator or afterlife, the present life is the most important one. Liberty is essential to savour the present life.

Why exactly can't atheists believe in inalienable rights?

Shild · Post by **Shild** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:00 pm

To us, we're born equal and free

My problem with this is that people are not born equal. People are born with different natural talents and abilities, different levels of physical health, different levels of intelligence, etc.

Suppose the most intelligent people decide that less intelligent people's opinions are worthless and possibly dangerous, so they do not allow the less intelligent to have free speech.

The Declaration of Independence claims that all humans have the right to "life," but if there is no God, then by whose authority? Why should the government not clean unfavorable people (like those with genetic diseases) from the gene pool?

Why exactly can't atheists believe in inalienable rights?

They can. By all means, atheists can believe whatever they want.

My problem is that I do not understand how humans who are not equal can be guaranteed the same rights when no extra-human authority is cited.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:07 pm

Shild wrote:
To us, we're born equal and free
My problem with this is that people are not born equal. People are born with different natural talents and abilities, different levels of physical health, different levels of intelligence, etc.

Yet all of them are born with life, which is sacred in any belief system, atheist or agnostic.

Suppose the most intelligent people decide that less intelligent people's opinions are worthless and possibly dangerous, so they do not allow the less intelligent to have free speech.

You mean how God commanded the Hebrews to destroy the Canaanites? No, free speech is an inviolable right because ours are democratic republics, and which aren't a dictatorships. We are allowed to voice our opinions on who should lead this country, and how. Reasons are obvious. It prevents the abuse of power and makes certain that the government doesn't go against the wishes of the people, whom they are working for anyway.

Aggressively secular communist states and religious theocracies both don't recognise the right to free speech.

The Declaration of Independence claims that all humans have the right to "life," but if there is no God, then by whose authority? Why should the government not clean unfavorable people (like those with genetic diseases) from the gene pool?

And indeed, they once did. Back in the earlier half of the century, the government allowed eugenics programs in some areas of the US. Basically, they sterilised undesirables so they wouldn't reproduce. We, as intelligent modern people, can realise how inhumane such a thing would be - with or without a higher authority. But remember, the US still has capital punishment for certain undesirables.

With or without a creator actually specifying it, we realise the unethical treatment of animals is also wrong.

Why is an authority needed? I really don't understand that. The value of life is something anyone can recognise without resorting to a higher authority. The government was founded not on Christian ideas, but Elightenment ideas.

Jefferson borrowed from philosopher John Locke's "natural law" theory, which held that government was a contract between the governed and those governing, who derived their power solely from the consent of the governed and whose purpose it was to protect every man's inherent right to property, life and liberty.

Why exactly can't atheists believe in inalienable rights?
They can. By all means, atheists can believe whatever they want.

My problem is that I do not understand how humans who are not equal can be guaranteed the same rights when no extra-human authority is cited.

And I don't see what prevents atheists from realising the value of human life. If the existence of an afterlife isn't recognised, life is all the more precious.

Shild · Post by **Shild** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:29 am

Yet all of them are born with life, which is sacred in any belief system, atheist or agnostic.

What makes life sacred? I can see how a person can put lots of value on his or her own life, and the lives of people who help him/her, but what about people who harm or are indifferent to the person? Why should the person care about their lives?

No, free speech is an inviolable right because ours are democratic republics, and which aren't a dictatorships.

Does this mean that if we were a dictatorship rather than a democratic republic, it would be okay to infringe the right to expression?

The democratic republican government is a finite thing, which can change and end. What makes it better than the other governments which do not allow free speech?

It prevents the abuse of power and makes certain that the government doesn't go against the wishes of the people, whom they are working for anyway.

For one thing, abuse of power exists in this country. For another, just because the people wish something does not make it right. By and large, most people in a country know a lot less about the government than the government officials do. Furthermore, in the United States, very few citizens get involved in the political process. So why is it wrong to suppress their freedom of expression, or their involvement in government?

We, as intelligent modern people, can realise how inhumane such a thing would be

How is eugenics inhumane? This is only your personal opinion, without authority to back it up. Suppose I say it was the humane thing to do, because it helped keep the gene pool healthy. My opinion is as valid as yours. And so are the opinions of the practitioners of eugenics.

With or without a creator actually specifying it, we realise the unethical treatment of animals is also wrong.

Just because some people "realise" this does not make it anymore right than the idea that animals should be tortured for pleasure.

Unless "realise" refers to divine inspiration... :twisted:

The value of life is something anyone can recognise without resorting to a higher authority.

It is also something anyone can reject, if there is no divine authority behind it.

Jefferson borrowed from philosopher John Locke's "natural law" theory, which held that government was a contract between the governed and those governing, who derived their power solely from the consent of the governed and whose purpose it was to protect every man's inherent right to property, life and liberty.

So what? John Locke is just another human, whose personal ideas about government are no more valid than Hitler's or Stalin's.

If the existence of an afterlife isn't recognised, life is all the more precious.

Whether or not humans have deity-conferred rights, strictly speaking, has little to do with whether or not there is an afterlife.

Still, I can see how this line of reasoning allows one to recognize the value of one's own life, but how this translates to giving the same rights to everyone else, I do not see.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:12 am

Your entire argument is absolutely baffling. It basically assumes mankind can't realise something for itself unless it's told.

Shild wrote:
Yet all of them are born with life, which is sacred in any belief system, atheist or agnostic.
What makes life sacred? I can see how a person can put lots of value on his or her own life, and the lives of people who help him/her, but what about people who harm or are indifferent to the person? Why should the person care about their lives?

You see the value of life in yourself, so you should be able to see the value of life around you. We think therefore we are, and if we are, we should be able to see the inherent value of consciousness not only for ourselves, but to other people. Obviously, we're capable of empathy, to some degree. I value my life, and so does everyone else, or they would have killed themselves long ago. And because of that, governments or societies were formed to protect themselves.

Obviously, societies are made up of individuals, and since I am an individual, I would like to be protected from harm and allowed my liberties, lest I think it would be better to get together some people and start an uprising, or move to Sweden. Or the wilderness. And in the wilderness, they would have less protection, but almost unlimited liberty. Far more than they'd have in a society.

In exchange for surrendering certain privileges that you'd have if you weren't under a government, you receive certain other benefits. But it's understood that you should never surrender certain rights - natural rights - that would make it worse than if you were crawlng trees naked in the Amazon rainforest, subject to no one.

No, free speech is an inviolable right because ours are democratic republics, and which aren't a dictatorships.
Does this mean that if we were a dictatorship rather than a democratic republic, it would be okay to infringe the right to expression?

Have you ever had to rate systems of government in class? That activity usually shows benevolent dictatorships are the best forms of government. I understand it's a favourite in American high schools. The only thing is, such a thing doesn't exist. So, no, it would not be "okay", it would be "wrong", but for the same reasons as communism, only because humans are imperfect. Dictatorships are usually formed for the benefit of the dictators. Governments are formed for the benefit of the people.

The democratic republican government is a finite thing, which can change and end. What makes it better than the other governments which do not allow free speech?
It prevents the abuse of power and makes certain that the government doesn't go against the wishes of the people, whom they are working for anyway.
For one thing, abuse of power exists in this country. For another, just because the people wish something does not make it right.

That's true. It's why we're a democratic republic and not a straight democracy. The government is supposed to act in the interests of the people. But the government can also be wrong. If you feel that the government is not living up to your needs, this is what you can do..
Obviously corruption exists, but it's not as horrific as, say, Russian socialism. Corruption is minimised through an elaborate system of checks and balances.

You say that the democratic republican government is a finite thing, which can change and end. The fact that it can change to accomodate the needs of the people is why it's a superior form of government.

By and large, most people in a country know a lot less about the government than the government officials do. Furthermore, in the United States, very few citizens get involved in the political process. So why is it wrong to suppress their freedom of expression, or their involvement in government?

Very few people may be involved in the political process, but the governors are only governing through the consent of the governed. The consequences of having an apathetic electorate bears its own consequences. But some would rather have an active and intelligent body of voters than force everyone to vote, and have a completely ignorant body of voters.

We, as intelligent modern people, can realise how inhumane such a thing would be
How is eugenics inhumane? This is only your personal opinion, without authority to back it up. Suppose I say it was the humane thing to do, because it helped keep the gene pool healthy. My opinion is as valid as yours. And so are the opinions of the practitioners of eugenics.

Your opinion would be valid, but it would also be in breach of the system of checks and balanced put into the Constitution. Eugenics breaches the right to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Since the government is a contractual entity that is supposed to serve the interests of the people it governs. It should not infringe upon the rights of other people any more than is completely necessary in the legal procession. People aren't mean to be worse off with a government than without it.

With or without a creator actually specifying it, we realise the unethical treatment of animals is also wrong.
Just because some people "realise" this does not make it anymore right than the idea that animals should be tortured for pleasure.

Well, okay, I wouldn't mind torturing animals. God never said anything against it either. He was happy to receive goats as ritual sacrifices.

The value of life is something anyone can recognise without resorting to a higher authority.
It is also something anyone can reject, if there is no divine authority behind it.

If they did that, then the person who killed them through vengeance would be justified, and the person who killed that peson, and the person who killed that person...

In reality, however, we recognise that, firstly, for the stability of a community - and thus, expanding upon that, the stability of society - depends on protecting the lives of the people that constitutes it.

Secondly, since we are born alive and free, and recognise that without our consciousness in this life, we are nothing, and without liberty, we are subject to the whims of another person, these are rights that should be protected, especially since you're entering a contractual obligation with the government, who is elected through the wishes of the people in order to serve them, not take possession of something that, obviously does not belong to them, but belongs to the individual.

Do unto others as you would have them do to you recognises no reference to God for us to understand why this is a good idea, even if a religious figure happened to say it.

Jefferson borrowed from philosopher John Locke's "natural law" theory, which held that government was a contract between the governed and those governing, who derived their power solely from the consent of the governed and whose purpose it was to protect every man's inherent right to property, life and liberty.
So what? John Locke is just another human, whose personal ideas about government are no more valid than Hitler's or Stalin's.

Er, no, because as far as I know, Hitler and Stalin's ideas weren't the one your country was founded on.

If the existence of an afterlife isn't recognised, life is all the more precious.
Whether or not humans have deity-conferred rights, strictly speaking, has little to do with whether or not there is an afterlife.

The bible says a person has a right to live and also have a say in government?

Do you really think that people didn't understand why other people should have property rights long before God said it was wrong to steal?

Still, I can see how this line of reasoning allows one to recognize the value of one's own life, but how this translates to giving the same rights to everyone else, I do not see.

Then you're completely without empathy, and shortsighted enough to not realise that if the rights of other people aren't protected, then your own rights can just as easily be ground underfoot. The framers of the American constitution made sure to institute checks and balanced to prevent alienating individuals of the community - the individuals which are the only reason the government exists!