[Zamuel]

Zam, Are you saying that rights exist intrinsically?

By George, I think you've got it !

And if so, are they self-sustaining?

To whatever extent possible, yes. It's possible to repress them, but impossible to extinguish them.

Do they have a beginning? Were we "endowed by a creator" with these rights?

That's the popular religious context, there are others, personally I prefer to consider them a "universal truth" that accompanies life itself.

By what right do "rights" exist?

By the same right that you exist. They are a part of you, of me, and of everyone else. Don't ask me to quantify that right. If you are privy to the "Meaning of life" please share (no cop outs).

I see no more reason to believe in the sanctity of rights

Neither do I, "sanctity" is a value judgment and those do nothing but muddy the waters and distort whatever context you apply.

empowered only by the strength of many, and are intrinsically worthless.

No not worthless, priceless. They are our "raison d'être" they justify the development and employment of strength, amongst other things. "Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness," sums them up pretty well ... they motivate everything we do.

Zam

[Stormvessel]

Neither do I, "sanctity" is a value judgment and those do nothing but muddy the waters and distort whatever context you apply.

That's precisely my point. This is exactly what you are doing. You are saying that rights possess inherent value and are alluding to the metaphysical to support your stance. You are captivated by illusory notions and lack the correct biological components to break free of sociological influence. This is a common flaw in certain human specimens. In a proper society you would be castrated so as not to perpetuate inferiority, and it would be the right of the State to impose such a measure.

[Zamuel]

You are saying that rights possess inherent value and are alluding to the metaphysical to support your stance.

If you want to choose a metaphysical context, that's fine, I would call the context I just explained " Logical" Lets try a physical context, you have a vivid imagination ... So ... You are at the seashore, you're stripped naked and tied to an Iron cross as if you were to be crucified, but they don't hoist you into the air, they take you down and drop you on your back in the sand. The Tide is coming in and it's not far off ... You are powerless, your strength avails you nothing, you squirm, you struggle, it doesn't help and the tide is very close now.... - Do you feel ? you have a RIGHT to live? Is it motivating your struggling even though you realize it's useless. When the waves start lapping your feet is your brain screaming to you that this is wrong ? When it reaches your waist, do you KNOW that you should not be restrained like this ... Do you wonder why no one is helping, as the water rolls up your chest to your neck, don't they know this is wrong? You know this is wrong, don't you. When it wets your lips, do you give up ... do you accept that you no longer have a right to life?

And when the angel appears above you, and your chains fall off as she touches them and you scramble back and rise to your feet ... Do you understand what it was inside you that made you keep fighting and struggling to deny death ... ? That motivation, that hope, that drive, was your right to life. And you will never again forget that it DOES exist.

Zam

[Potemkin]

Zamuel, this is actually just the survival instinct, without which no complex organism could survive for long. And I have no doubt that a cow or a sheep feels a similar "right to life", but that doesn't stop us from slaughtering them by the million every year.

[Stormvessel]

I am not without sympathy for Zamuel as I have friends and family who believe as he does. Earlier today I asked my partner about the existence of rights and he responded that "rights exist where sympathy exists". Of course we are polar opposites - he is a bleeding heart liberal (typical of his demographic) - yet, I can respect that answer and appreciate where he is coming from. The only difference is that I have the capacity to understand where these thoughts and ideas come from. Once you make the necessary connections, things become much simpler to explain. No need for piety or metaphysical mumbo-jumbo once you understand the science involved.

Obviously, people can attach value to whatever they want. But in my opinion, value is only value if it has backing. If you don't have the capability to live, then from a naturalistic perspective, you do not have the right to live. This is very simple.

[mikema63]

Certainly the idea that values, rights, and morals are human constructs is a much simpler explanation than metaphysics, God, or some other mysterious mystery. Occums razor would dictate that the former is the more likely scenario.

Sure it does ..."Measurable parameters."

I can appreciate the desire to find and use something measurable, or to assign measurable values to subjective experiences, but not all variables are meaningful and assigning value to somethings is a fools errand. Any value you assign to any subjective metric is going to be bias and value laden. What you perceive as normal may only be normal in the context of your society or era, and not normal in the sweep of human history. How would you even define a particular behavior as normal? Is it he average behavior? The median? The middle 50% of the distribution of possible behaviors? How do you put different but similar behaviors near each other? Is making a sandwich more normal than making a pot roast?

Yes, at least subconsciously and within the limits of their experience.

Claiming their behavior is subconscious sounds dangerously like forcing your explanation onto them without evidence.

You gotta problem with the golden rule? ... MOM !

Not particularly, but you can't just state a moral rule without justification. Besides, in practice it's not always good to treat others as you'd like to be treated. If I murdered someone I would prefer if everyone sort of forgot about it and let me go on with my life, but I'm not going to extend that courtesy to someone else.

Yes it does, the Golden Rule is a simplistic recognition that familiarizes us with our own internal sense of rights.

The golden rule is a simplistic recognition of the cognitive factors we've evolved to facilitate social groups.

The lack of this vital connection is a major factor in sociopathy.

The lack of empathy is, yes.

[Zamuel]

Certainly the idea that values, rights, and morals are human constructs is a much simpler explanation than metaphysics, God, or some other mysterious mystery.

BS ... There's nothing simple about the logical contortions required to attribute human creation to a natural phenomenon.

Yes, at least subconsciously and within the limits of their experience.

Claiming their behavior is subconscious sounds dangerously like forcing your explanation onto them without evidence.

There's plenty of evidence if you want to look for it. Human behavior is largely autonomous, we don't pay any attention at all to about 90% of what we do. There are many whose level of development is below conscious awareness of higher functions. Amongst them, those who consider things they don't comprehend to be "metaphysical."

Zam

[Truth To Power]

What I mean is that strength creates rights. Rights do not exist where strength does not exist.

That's absurd, sorry. On what basis is strength applied, if rights do not precede strength?

If there is no strength or law, from whence come your precious rights?

Our nature as human beings.

If I kill a child on Pluto, whose rights were violated?

The child's.

And what makes them rights?

A societal undertaking to respect them.

It seems a clear cut case of strength over weakness to me.

But it is not.

I mean, you can call them "rights" until you are blue in the face. You can protest and jump up and down, maintaining that a grave injustice has been done. But what good does it do? You can allude to some abstract, spiritual law until your little heart's content. But it doesn't cut the mustard.

There is a difference between an intention and the power to carry it out. Rights are a societal undertaking -- an intention to constrain its members' liberty wrt one another -- that must precede the power to carry out that intention.

How can rights exist absent the ability to enforce said rights?

On what basis would that ability be applied, if rights did not pre-exist it? How could a decision to use strength in support of a right be made if the right did not come first?

They cannot...otherwise they aren't "rights"! This isn't hard, people.

It seems to be very hard for some people....

[mikema63]

BS ... There's nothing simple about the logical contortions required to attribute human creation to a natural phenomenon.

My position is that rights are not natural phenomena, they are made up by humans. It is you who is arguing that rights are objective and exist outside human creation.

There's plenty of evidence if you want to look for it. Human behavior is largely autonomous, we don't pay any attention at all to about 90% of what we do. There are many whose level of development is below conscious awareness of higher functions. Amongst them, those who consider things they don't comprehend to be "metaphysical."

I'm not doubting the sub conscious, I'm doubting that people's unknowable subconsciousness conveniently contain what you believe them too.

That's absurd, sorry. On what basis is strength applied, if rights do not precede strength?

A variety of things, all leading back to the desires, values, and beliefs of the person or group exerting strength.

Our nature as human beings.

This is not a sufficient explanation. Our nature as human beings is to procreate, this does not make procreation right. Thats a much more solid part of human nature than something as amorphous and ill defined as rights.

A societal undertaking to respect them.

Pray tell how society goes about respecting those right? Oh right, through force. By forcing people who don't give two figs about those rights to either obey or be punished.

On what basis would that ability be applied, if rights did not pre-exist it? How could a decision to use strength in support of a right be made if the right did not come first?

Rights are enforced beliefs. Before they are enforced they are merely beliefs you hold about the world.

[Zamuel]

BS ... There's nothing simple about the logical contortions required to attribute human creation to a natural phenomenon.

My position is that rights are not natural phenomena, they are made up by humans.

Which gives rise to all sorts of complications, considerations, and implications ... evolution, morality, ethics, religion, authority, enforcement, etc ...

It is you who is arguing that rights are objective and exist outside human creation.

Which requires no convolutions of external logic, where is Occam's Razor falling now?

On what basis is strength applied, if rights do not precede strength?

Exactly ... and the logical extension is, if rights don't exist, why is strength necessary?

Zam

[Truth To Power]

That's absurd, sorry. On what basis is strength applied, if rights do not precede strength?

A variety of things, all leading back to the desires, values, and beliefs of the person or group exerting strength.

We were talking about strength applied to secure rights. Obviously animals exert their strength based on desires, and people may do so on any number of pretexts. I guess I should have made it clear I was not talking about just any application of strength, but strength applied to secure rights, which has been claimed to be the origin of those rights. That's obviously circular.

Our nature as human beings.

This is not a sufficient explanation.

It's the only possible one, unless you are just asking for more specific details.

Rights come from our evolved nature as social beings, and the resulting evolutionary tension between the reproductive success of the individual and the success of the society of which he is a member, which greatly affects the former.

Our nature as human beings is to procreate, this does not make procreation right.

Yes, it does, because that's what "right" means.

Thats a much more solid part of human nature than something as amorphous and ill defined as rights.

Rights are not simple, or unvarying, but they are a real part of our existence.

A societal undertaking to respect them.

Pray tell how society goes about respecting those right?

By not abrogating them, and imposing sanctions on those who do.

Oh right, through force.

No, force is only required to SECURE rights when someone does NOT respect them.

By forcing people who don't give two figs about those rights to either obey or be punished.

They are not forced to "obey," but only to refrain from abrogating others' rights. It is obviously self-contradictory to claim rights for oneself while abrogating the like rights of others.

On what basis would that ability be applied, if rights did not pre-exist it? How could a decision to use strength in support of a right be made if the right did not come first?

Rights are enforced beliefs.

No, they are not.

Before they are enforced they are merely beliefs you hold about the world.

Nope. A right is a societal undertaking to constrain its members behavior wrt each other.