I never advocated lack of agreement.
(You can double check my posts.)
But agreement happens here & there.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
(You can double check my posts.)
But agreement happens here & there.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
You may not have advocated lack of agreement, but neither did you advocate agreement. Are you saying, then, that whether or not atheists and theists agree on the origin of rights has no bearing at all on whether society may be founded and maintained in a healthy way?
Last edited:
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
As they assuredly do. Abstract parochial and subjective.
Audie
Veteran Member
I'm probably sorry to hear that!
Audie
Veteran Member
In response to " if...not kill live..."
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Men are often very immature and dumb. I especially dislike the macho ones, all puffed chests and cheap aftershave.
Must I advocate the obvious?
Duh & spluh. Agreement is essential for an
orderly society with liberty & prosperity.
I wasn't saying that.
But I agree with it.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
If healthy societies aren't built on assumptions, but accord, then healthy discussions aren't built on assumptions, either. So, yes. You must advocate what, to you, is obvious for me to know what you advocate. And you must know what obvious things I advocate. Then we can agree, or not.
Thanks. So if it is not necessary that atheists and theists agree on the origin of rights in order that a healthy society be founded and maintained, what must they agree on?
Audie
Veteran Member
Overstated if anything besides turgid and
verbose obscurantism
I didn't say it was in the Declaration, though it seems pretty self-evident just the same. We have been discussing various topics. What exactly are you trying to address? Are you saying that governments shouldn't do what is practical or necessary? Should members within a given community not operate on a principle of mutual self-interest?
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Using the Declaration as the model, what I'm saying is that making government accountable to provide practical necessities for its people is an improper use of government. This is why we see very few practical necessities enumerated in the constitution as government concerns. Roads are the only practical necessity that comes immediately to mind--which government must have in order to accomplish its stated purpose (securing the rights of the people).
Does that help clarify what I'm saying? (sorry for not being clearer; sometimes you have say things different ways, multiple times, before what is in your head comes out in a way comprehensible to others)
Last edited:
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution gives some general guidelines alluding to the reasons governments exist:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Indeed. Our first law—the Declaration of Independence—sets the boundary within which the constitution operates:
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration is not really a "law" as much as it's a statement of beliefs. Strictly speaking, going by the letter of this statement, it implies that people already have these "certain unalienable rights" even without government. According to this, they are "endowed by their Creator," which would imply that they are endowed by nature.
In other words, government does not grant these rights, so within this context, there's no reason for government to exist to secure these rights. This would imply that governments are implemented in order to take away rights, not grant them, since (according to the Founders) they already existed before the first government was ever formed.
So, why do we need a government to grant or secure rights that we already have? You eschewed the concept of "practical necessity" above, so if (according to you) there's no practical reason for having government in the first place, and if government is not needed to secure rights that we already have, then there is no purpose to having a government at all, right?
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
This is a common misunderstanding. The Declaration of Independence is the first law in the US Code. It is our foundational law. See US Code
That depends on the law under which we desire to live. IE, what is self-evident is determined by the law invoked. If we invoke the law of nature, it is self-evident that no one has a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or any other right. It is a free-for-all. If, on the other hand, we invoke the law of civilization (under which we create government) it is self-evident that we all do have those rights.
If we desire to live under the law of civilization, that is correct.
If we desire to live under the law of civilization, that is correct.
This does not follow, as shown above. Under the law of nature, we have no rights, so forming governments cannot take away rights. Under the law of civilization, we must have rights, else there is no point in establishing government in the first place. Government clearly does not grant us natural rights; it can't; government is man's creation, not nature's. Government recognizes natural rights; it asserts their reality—and it is established to protect them. That's our law. Our primal law:
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Government does grant rights, just not natural rights. Government grants rights that are germane to society, such as voting.
I did not say there was no practical reason for having government. Clearly there is—to live under the law of civilization, under which we have the rights of life liberty, etc. I said that establishing government to provide practical necessities is a poor foundation.
If government is not going to recognize that, under the law of civilization, we have natural rights, then there is no purpose to establish society, and no need for government. Because without natural rights we are under the law of nature—a free for all.
Our law couldn't be more clear on these matters. Well, maybe with more contemporary wording. But it's all right there in the law.
Where do we find this "law of civilization" of which you speak? I don't think it's in the Declaration.
Who says we don't have any rights under the law of nature? According to the Declaration of Independence, humans are endowed by their Creator, which carries the assumption that the same Creator also created the functions of nature.
I'm still not clear on this "law of civilization." Depending on how one defines a "civilization" and the sovereignty of governments, it can be any number of things. If one refers to ancient civilizations, they might have systems of laws and rights which might be vastly different from what we would recognize today. Is there some universal law and standard of rights which goes across all nations and ages in human history?
I consider a right to be more of a claim than anything else. As far as the Declaration goes, it's mainly a list of grievances against the existing government the American Colonies had at the time. It's not like they just woke up one morning and decided "Oh, let's sign a document to outline and assert our rights." There's a long-term historical background behind it which is far more in depth than the words on this document.
There are some things which a government might grant to its own members of a given community. That puts it more in the realm of a claim, which is, again, a matter of practical necessity. It all comes down to practical necessity, at least inasmuch as what it's defined to be.
I did not say it was to "provide" practical necessities. I was saying that it was for reasons of practical necessity and mutual self-interest.
It stands to reason that any civilization (or country or community) wants to survive, with the understanding that their rights, claims, and/or privileges within a given society are dependent upon the political stability and internal harmony in that society. We recognize the rights of other citizens in our society because we expect them to recognize our rights, which is where the mutual self-interest comes into play. The main role of government, or the state, is to maintain the structure of its own foundation. The state's primary duty is to survive, lest it can't do anything at all, let alone secure anyone's rights. That, to me, falls within the realm of "practical necessity."
We are a society of humans, and ultimately, humans will form whatever government they see fit. They will make whatever laws they see fit. As long as most people in society agree that human beings have rights, then ideally, their government will reflect that view and enforce and honor those rights whenever they are invoked. Although in practice, things aren't really so ideal. Governments are comprised of humans, and humans sometimes fail or may be prone to various forms of mischief.
So, again, for reasons of practical necessity, it's never enough to simply say that "humans have rights" and leave it at that. The Declaration merely said that they had these rights, but it didn't offer any mechanism or legal apparatus by which these rights could be secured and enforced. They tried with the Articles of Confederation, and then the Constitution, which still have today, though even that has been amended numerous times and interpreted and reinterpreted by the Supreme Court throughout history. The issue of rights still seems to come up over and over. If it was really as clear as you say, you'd think we'd have it all figured out by now. But I guess we don't. Humans are weird.
I suppose one can say that it's kind of "natural," at least inasmuch as humans are a product of nature. We evolved, learned to cooperate, learned to speak, and slowly developed more and more elaborate and complex ways of living. That didn't really separate us from nature itself, since we required the resources of nature to survive and build our civilizations. We are still bound within the physical laws of nature.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
I apologize for not making more clear what I was referring to. The two laws I've contrasted are the law of nature (no actions subject to moral considerations) and the law of civilization (actions checked against moral considerations).
You are correct, and I don't disagree. Perhaps if I'd explained the nature vs civilization idea better there would have been no need to ask for this clarification. The point is that, while we are endowed with natural rights, the significance of that fact is null under the law of nature. IE, what difference does it make that we have the right to life if our actions are not bound in any way to a moral framework? It makes no difference at all. Under the law of nature, the taking of a life is as amoral an action as is snapping a twig or tying a knot.
You are correct; the composition of the laws that societies have applied to the question of "civilization" has been varied, and there has been no common standard of rights throughout history. Our Declaration asserts certain rights, so those are the rights we look at and deal with.
Aside: For what it's worth, I believe our Declaration distilled the question of rights to its very floor. While it did not enumerate all the rights humans have, I would offer that all the rights humans have are subsumed by the ones enumerated in the Declaration. But that's not something we need to bat around here; it doesn't bear on the present discussion.
For sure. They are intangible. We can claim they exist and claim we ought to enjoy them, but for those claims to have any weight in reality requires accord on the part of every party involved. That's why I said earlier that it depends on our basic assumption—do we want to live under the law of nature (no moral framework) or civilization (a moral framework)? If the latter, then it is self-evident that the claims we've discussed are valid and binding.
The latter part of the document is a list of grievances, yes, but that was offered as a courtesy to the sovereigns of the world ("a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that [we, the United States] should declare the causes which impel [us] to the separation" and for a substantiation of the claim to the "long train of abuses and usurpations" that the colonists asserted "evince[d] a design to reduce them [(the colonists)] under absolute Despotism." But the leading material is what is relevant to us today, except where WE THE PEOPLE have perpetrated the same, or similar, grievances upon ourselves in the years since the declaration.
You are absolutely correct. It matters a great deal what the "practical necessities" are. I see now that I never asked you to clarify what you were talking about, and I should have. I had an idea in my mind as to what practical necessities are, but I didn't ask you. My apologies. I know you mention the phrase again in the rest of your comments, but let's get your definition out where it can be seen and understood. Could you define it here, and perhaps give several examples?
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
Miss you.
I'm not sure if it's a matter of only two laws, nature vs. civilization. That is, I don't think humans instantaneously evolved from following the laws of nature to following the laws of civilization. I think it was a slow and evolutionary process. People within the same village, clan, or tribe might treat each other as kindred, giving their feelings and rights greater consideration than some outsider.
That even seems to be acceptable practice under the law of civilization. For example, Romans might have favored their own citizens from Rome, while people from conquered lands would have been considered outsiders, chattel, slaves - people without rights. Even within society, rights were distributed based on social and political class, so those lucky enough to be born into the right families were granted rights from birth, whereas those not so lucky didn't enjoy such benefits.
Such practices continued on until very recently, even since the time of the Declaration of Independence. For the first 150-175 years since the Declaration was written, rights were only given to people of a certain skin pigmentation, while people with darker skins were not given rights, at least not in practice, even if they were still written on paper. Most other societies seem to operate the same way, as people who are members/citizens of a given society are afforded rights, while outsiders generally are not.
It wasn't really until the time of the World Wars and the eventual creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the concepts of rights were taken all that seriously at all.
Well, as the 10th Amendment suggests, just because a right isn't listed or enumerated, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Well, again, this would be a practical issue. Why would we want a moral framework within civilization to live by? Is it simply out of a selfless desire to be good, decent people, or does it serve more of a practical benefit?
I see it more as a matter of cause and effect. Western liberal societies tended to favor concepts of rights because they were well aware of what can happen when a government refuses to listen to its people or grant rights to the common people. Revolutions are a common result of what happens when governments mistreat their people and deny them their rights.
The Revolutions of 1848 were a kind of wake up call in Europe. In Russia, in the early 20th century, the Tsar refused to recognize the people's rights and could not understand why there were riots, uprisings, and strikes in his domain. He thought the people should just suck it up and take it, as he saw them as nothing but peasants who should know their place in society and act accordingly. That's where he was wrong, and that's where the current leadership in the U.S. is also wrong.
The lesson here is, governments which are too arrogant, complacent, and/or refuse to listen to the pleas of their people will ultimately collapse if they don't change their ways. That's the path that the current U.S. government has taken since the 1980s, and it has led to a slow decline to the point where people are now genuinely worried about the political stability within the United States.
It's ironic, in a way. Throughout my life, I've encountered people (mainly Westerners) who have warned against the threat of communism, Marxism, socialism. They have fallen all over themselves to convince people that the USSR was the "evil empire" and how communist infiltrators were operating within the U.S. and other countries around the world to undermine and subvert the social and political system. They would cite a long list of grievances and atrocities perpetrated by communist regimes in other countries.
My response to that has generally been to point out the cause and effect of how these things happened in the first place. If people don't want there to be uprisings or the possibility of socialism in their own country (or fascism, for that matter), then that's all the more reason to pay attention to the needs of the people and not take them for granted anymore. It's really as simple as that. Pay higher wages, provide better working conditions, more affordable housing, education, food, energy, healthcare, etc. Treat people better, and they will support the existing political system. Treat them like crap, and then they will become restive and disagreeable at first, slowly escalating from there.
Unfortunately, rather than take the simple and easier path of treating the people better, the Powers That Be in this society have chosen to do the exact opposite - which will continue to fester as a problem until it's properly addressed. Just as in Russia in 1917, if the people running this country are too arrogant, cavalier, intransigent, complacent, and out of touch with the needs of the people, then there will be consequences.
As far as the opening sentences of the Declaration, one can hold these truths to be self-evident, but what does it really mean in terms of tangible, actual rights that would be enforceable in a court of law? "All men are created equal"? Do we actually practice that principle in the real world? (And some might ask, why is it "all men are created equal" and not "all men and women" or "all humans"?) And of the three enumerated rights, "life," "liberty," and the "pursuit of happiness," only "life" is the term that has any real tangible meaning. "Liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" are vague, undefined abstractions which sound good to the masses but are functionally useless in terms of actual application in real world situations.
In practice, most of these rights we enshrine are oftentimes platitudes or slogans more than anything that carries any true legal weight. All of our rights are subject to interpretation, modification, alteration - going back to the concept of what is necessary and practical for society. A common example is when people point out that freedom of speech is not an absolute right, which is perfectly correct and appropriate for the needs of society. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
I think the phrase "practical necessity" should be fairly self-explanatory, at least in terms of observing that any given community, culture, civilization, or society wants to survive. Survival is the most basic "practical necessity," and it's from that basis that concepts of government are forged in the first place.
Let's say that you and I were both cavemen out hunting. I manage to kill an animal and I'm taking it back to my cave to feed my family, for their survival. You're not so lucky and decide you want to kill me and take the animal back to your family, so they can survive. That's following the laws of nature. One of us survives, and one of us dies - and it would be similar for our families. Life can be harsh and short under such conditions, so at some point, we found ways of cooperating. Instead of killing each other for our spoils, we decide to agree and cooperate - out of mutual self-benefit and practical necessity (survival). That's the contract. We agree to share and let each other live. Eventually, enough people will be involved to form a village or community, which requires some sort of cooperation and organization to decide practical matters of who lives where, who does what jobs, division of labor, etc. - all practical functions which are necessary in an organized human community.
Humans are a social animal anyway, so one could say it's in our nature to be cooperative with each other. Our knowledge and awareness are enough to understand causes and effects and the consequences of our actions, which is enough to govern our behavior and restrain our base, primal instincts.