[jessupjonesjnr87]

There are no natural rights, this is demonstrated by the common cruelty displayed in the animal kingdom.
Even mankind has robbed their unborn of what should be the most crucial right of them all, the right to life. There are rights but we've made them all up, none are natural.

[Truth To Power]

There are no natural rights, this is demonstrated by the common cruelty displayed in the animal kingdom.

Animals have instincts. Rights only apply to people.

Even mankind has robbed their unborn of what should be the most crucial right of them all, the right to life.

Rights are for people, not pre-viable tissue.

There are rights but we've made them all up, none are natural.

They are made up in the sense that they are social constructs, but some are too universal to be arbitrary.

[SolarCross]

Animals have instincts. Rights only apply to people.

Tell that to the RSPCA and the animal rights activists.

Rights are for people, not pre-viable tissue.

Tell that to Catholics and the pro-life activists.

There are rights but we've made them all up, none are natural.

They are made up in the sense that they are social constructs, but some are too universal to be arbitrary.

Rights are usually not arbitrary, they are for some entities advantage often to some other entities disadvantage. That however makes them artificial rather than natural.

[Truth To Power]

Animals have instincts. Rights only apply to people.

Tell that to the RSPCA and the animal rights activists.

I do. They are wrong about animals having rights because they do not understand the basis of rights in human nature.

Rights are for people, not pre-viable tissue.

Tell that to Catholics and the pro-life activists.

I do. They are wrong because they refuse to know the fact that what cannot live separately is by definition not a separate life.

There are rights but we've made them all up, none are natural.

They are made up in the sense that they are social constructs, but some are too universal to be arbitrary.

Rights are usually not arbitrary, they are for some entities advantage often to some other entities disadvantage. That however makes them artificial rather than natural.

Non sequitur. Our superior human brain power is certainly natural, not artificial, yet it, like rights, is to our advantage and the disadvantage of competing organisms.

[SecretSquirrel]

A secular humanist philosophy does not permit any justification for inalienable human rights. any secular humanist who attempts to argue for inalienable himan rights within that framework is engaging in special pleading.

[Rich]

A secular humanist philosophy does not permit any justification for inalienable human rights. any secular humanist who attempts to argue for inalienable himan rights within that framework is engaging in special pleading.

Indeed. This why democracy is a negotiation of interests and preferences.

[SolarCross]

I do. They are wrong about animals having rights because they do not understand the basis of rights in human nature.

The basis of rights in human nature is that we want those entities we care about to have rights. Those people who care about animals will then want animals to have rights. They are not wrong they just care about different entities than yourself.

Rights are for people, not pre-viable tissue.

Tell that to Catholics and the pro-life activists.

I do. They are wrong because they refuse to know the fact that what cannot live separately is by definition not a separate life.

That might be relevant distinction to your world view but it isn't to a catholic or pro-life activist. Again it is just that they care and want rights for those they care for.

Rights are usually not arbitrary, they are for some entities advantage often to some other entities disadvantage. That however makes them artificial rather than natural.

Non sequitur. Our superior human brain power is certainly natural, not artificial, yet it, like rights, is to our advantage and the disadvantage of competing organisms.

I missed out a word. Try this: Rights are usually not arbitrary, they are contrived for some entities advantage often to some other entities disadvantage. That however makes them artificial rather than natural.

[Heinie]

...
I missed out a word. Try this: Rights are usually not arbitrary, they are contrived for some entities advantage often to some other entities disadvantage. That however makes them artificial rather than natural.

People are not supernatural so whatever we contrive is a product of nature in some sense.

[SolarCross]

People are not supernatural so whatever we contrive is a product of nature in some sense.

Yes, but then putting a man on the moon is natural.

[Truth To Power]

A secular humanist philosophy does not permit any justification for inalienable human rights.

Refuted by my posts in this thread.

any secular humanist who attempts to argue for inalienable himan rights within that framework is engaging in special pleading.

"Special pleading"? No. Just willingness to know the fact that appropriate social structures are based on the nature of the individuals involved. Human nature is different from the nature of other social animals like dogs, ants, or chimpanzees, and that's why we have rights while they each have instincts appropriate to their nature.

I do. They are wrong about animals having rights because they do not understand the basis of rights in human nature.

The basis of rights in human nature is that we want those entities we care about to have rights.

Wrong. We want other people -- especially other people in our society -- to have rights whether we care about them or not because THEIR rights redound to OUR evolutionary advantage.

Those people who care about animals will then want animals to have rights. They are not wrong they just care about different entities than yourself.

Yes, they are objectively wrong, because animals are not entities that can have rights based on their identity.

Rights are for people, not pre-viable tissue.

Tell that to Catholics and the pro-life activists.

I do. They are wrong because they refuse to know the fact that what cannot live separately is by definition not a separate life.

That might be relevant distinction to your world view but it isn't to a catholic or pro-life activist.

Right, because my world view is called, "knowing objective facts," and theirs is called, "holding beliefs that are factually incorrect."

Again it is just that they care and want rights for those they care for.

Circular. Caring is an emotion that may or may not be justified by fact, not a fact that can be used to justify itself.

Rights are usually not arbitrary, they are for some entities advantage often to some other entities disadvantage. That however makes them artificial rather than natural.

Non sequitur. Our superior human brain power is certainly natural, not artificial, yet it, like rights, is to our advantage and the disadvantage of competing organisms.

I missed out a word. Try this: Rights are usually not arbitrary, they are contrived for some entities advantage often to some other entities disadvantage. That however makes them artificial rather than natural.

Again, "contrived" does not express the source of rights accurately. Rights theorists try to discover rights in human nature, not concoct them with a view to private advantage; and rights emerge in society over centuries or millennia through innumerable social interactions, not as a result of some individual's self-seeking.

[Unthinking Majority]

No rights come from Nature; rights are recognized by people who have been educated in the principle of equality.

Well I kind of agree. Rights aren't "natural" nor "unnatural". Rights are concepts of the human mind created through logic of what a "just" society should be for people living in that society. What should and shouldn't be a "right" is completely subjective from one person and one society to the next. If there is truly anything we could justly call "universal human rights" they would be what every single society could agree on as common rights all societies acknowledge and have in common.

[Unthinking Majority]

People are not supernatural so whatever we contrive is a product of nature in some sense.

Ok that's entirely arguable. Therefore rape and incest and child molestation is natural because they occur in nature and throughout human history. I'd argue that's true too. I'm not saying those things are "good" or healthy for a good society but they're natural. "Healthy" is different than "natural. You could then say that no human behaviour is "unnatural".

[AuRomin]

I believe that there is only one right of humans, and we provide it for ourselves. It is the right to exercise our power to the fullest extent. This is, of course, always true. It is a natural and universal right because it can never be incorrect. It is impossible to infringe upon this right. I wouldn't think anything of this, though, since it is so self-evident, and rights are usually defined by society, not logic. Since 'rights' are a social construct, though, they can never be natural (if you define natural as not including the product of human intervention, or something similar).

[Truth To Power]

I believe that there is only one right of humans, and we provide it for ourselves. It is the right to exercise our power to the fullest extent.

That's an ability, not a right.

This is, of course, always true. It is a natural and universal right because it can never be incorrect. It is impossible to infringe upon this right.

Which should be a clue that it isn't a right.

I wouldn't think anything of this, though, since it is so self-evident, and rights are usually defined by society, not logic.

Bingo.

Since 'rights' are a social construct, though, they can never be natural (if you define natural as not including the product of human intervention, or something similar).

Equivocation fallacy (Marx would be proud). "Natural" rights are the rights just laws are founded on, as opposed to artificial "rights" founded on law.

[AuRomin]

This. ^

Don't do it. Line by line analysis is angering and usually useless. It is also fully unnecessary. If you have an opinion on the substance of a claim, just state it.

[Truth To Power]

This. ^

Don't do it.

I'll do as I please within the forum rules, thank you very much.

Line by line analysis is angering and usually useless.

Comprehensive refutation of claims is only angering to those who value their beliefs above the truth. And IMO it is quite useful in showing just how many false ideas go into one false belief system.

It is also fully unnecessary.

I find it clarifying.

If you have an opinion on the substance of a claim, just state it.

Thanks for the input.

[AuRomin]

Comprehensive refutation of claims

It is not comprehensive when you comment on single sentences without consideration for the larger message.

[Truth To Power]

Comprehensive refutation of claims

It is not comprehensive when you comment on single sentences without consideration for the larger message.

The larger message consisted of the elements I comprehensively refuted. I don't know what else you could be referring to. I proved your claims were indefensible, and now you're feeling butt-hurt. Simple.

[Zamuel]

It is not comprehensive when you comment on single sentences without consideration for the larger message.

I agree ... it's decidedly NON COMPREHENSIVE both literally and definitively ... a cheap device to try and discredit arguments that the writer cannot address cohesively, so he breaks them up into small bits that can be attacked outside of their compiled context.

Zam

[Truth To Power]

It is not comprehensive when you comment on single sentences without consideration for the larger message.

I agree ... it's decidedly NON COMPREHENSIVE both literally and definitively ... a cheap device to try and discredit arguments that the writer cannot address cohesively, so he breaks them up into small bits that can be attacked outside of their compiled context.

No. The fact is, as in this case, it is frequently difficult to discern exactly what the author (often incorrectly) imagines his "larger message" to be. A sentence, by contrast, is either grammatical -- in which case its meaning can be known, considered, and either supported or refuted -- or not, in which case one can't really know what it means or address it.