Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (20555)	6/21/2005 4:50:18 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 28931

I think your view that the only rights that really exist are those a given society, ruler or government chooses to grant and protect would fall under the humanist school, would it not? Rights are what we choose to make them, essentially. It's a rudderless ship. It has no moral compass, to confuse the metaphor a little. It's a view that has been used mostly to excuse tyranny or anarchy. But you do raise an interesting question. How can someone who does not believe that God or any kind of supreme force or Creator exists say that there are such things as "natural rights" or any moral absolutes whatsoever? If we are not endowed with them by "our Creator", then by whom? And if we are not endowed with them by some force greater than us, then is nothing inherently wrong? Do we merely choose to refrain from some acts because it is in our own interest to do so? BTW, as you may know, Adam Smith became famous first for his A Theory of Moral Sentiments, which addresses this issue of the origin of morals. He attributed it to the ability of humans to step outside themselves, so to speak, and become disinterested observers, judging objectively the right or wrong of something by empathizing with the parties to it. In other words, we are moral because we are sympathetic. That's surely an oversimplification, but I think it's the essence of it.

To: epicure who wrote (20555)	6/21/2005 5:28:33 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

As you may remember from past discussions on this issue, I personally take "natural rights" to be a rational expression of self interest when people must live in community. This begins with the assumption that Man is a rational animal and that the reasoning which led to the Jeffersonian version of Natural rights is sound. Although I use the vernacular for sake of discussion, I do not believe literally that "God" or "Nature" grants these "rights". As you said, they exist by common consent. But if one believes they are supported by a rational foundation of self interest within community (as I do), then one may present them as axiomatic. In the discussion with RD, I sometimes used axiomatic or other similar words in order to indicate that I was not using a tunnel vision approach related to Locke, Aquinas, Rousseau, Fuller--or any other. RD (like Greg or e) apparently fails to appreciate the scope of Natural Rights theory. At least, it seems that way to me. And being away from my books and limited by dial-up...I am not going to address that scope. I have done so on this thread many times, in any case. My point with RD was that a belief in inalienable rights was incompatible with the clear violation of those rights. He is certainly right that society can dump those rights if she so chooses or can carve them up so that eggs, zygotes, or fetuses are considered legal persons as greg or e argues they should be. I just barbequed some chicken breasts and Sue made potato salad and we are off for a picnic. Just gotta pick out the wine. Have a good one.