Summations Only

And here I thougt the topic was harvest of animals. I agree that well managed hunting is fine. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is unfettered harvesting with no regulations. And that evidence would be . . . what?

Human rights are intrinsic to being human, and no government can take them or grant them. At least that is what Locke and many others have argued, and what the Founding Fathers alluded to as well. Governments can only protect or violate human rights.Going back to the water example, if Congress passes a bill stating that water is no longer wet does water stop being wet? No. Wetness is intrinsic to water. In the same way, some rights are intrinsic to being human (e.g. life and liberty). These are the natural human rights.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I guess I could argue that the property of being wet is just a consensus of what we agree on, right? What would that evidence be?

You are confusing an is with an ought (Hume's Is/Ought problem). One is not the other. Rights are statements of how things ought to be. They are not derived from how things are (the is). Can a government hypothetically do whatever it wants? Yes. No one is disagreeing with this. However, human rights are not contingent on what the government does or does not do. The argument of whether or not a person has a specific right is not determined by the actions of the government. Rather, specific rights are determined by reason and morality.Just so you don't think that I am talking out of my ass, here is a paragraph from the wiki page on natural rights:

quote:

---

17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."[11] Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John), who came into conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell governed republic, argued for level human basic rights he called "freeborn rights" which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.

---

You can certainly debate the legitimacy of this school of thought, but I thought I would let you know that I am drawing from the work of others.

They have the ability to, yes. A government could even have laws that state they have the right to. However, they would still be violating human rights.You are once again confusing an is with an ought. It is an important distinction.

He did. Others violated those rights. Along with jar, you are confusing an is with an ought.Again, human rights are not a list of things that humans are physically incapabe of doing. Natural rights can be violated. No one is disagreeing with this. As much as we pretend that reason and morality exist. No, it is reason and morality, two things often missing from religion. In the deist or pantheist sense, yes. In this school of thought, the Creator can be nature and the argument is unaffected. Natural rights are not derived from infallible proclamations of a supernatural deity. They are derived from reason and empathy. Euthyphro's Dilemma is a good example of what I am talking about. Socrates once asked, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?". IOW, is morality separate from the supernatural? Is morality something we have access to independently of the supernatural? I would argue that we judge for ourselves whether the commandments of a god are moral or not. Morality is not obedience.

Hence the Is/Ought problem.Playing the Godwin card . . . many Nazi officers used what is now famously called the Nuremburg defense ("I was just following orders"). This was not accepted as an excuse for violating human rights. Just because you are allowed to do something, or in fact ORDERED to do something, does not acquit you of acting morally.

They were guilty of violating human rights regardless of any court.

That has been the topic of philosophy for quite some time now. Locke proposed three basic rights: life, liberty, and estate (property). Natural rights have been debated for centuries, and no complete and final list has been produced. Codifying morality has always been problematic.

That has nothing to do with whether or not they were guilty of violating human rights. A government ought not violate human rights. The Nazis did. They are guilty of violating human rights. Whether or not someone is punished has nothing to do with whether or not they violated those rights. Again, the Is/Ought problem.

It has to do with how we shape human society, how we make the oughts become a reality. The "oughts" are the goal of the social contract. Legal rights, yes. Natural rights, no. You are born with natural rights, and no government can grant or revoke those rights. You don't impose human rights. You already have them. What we can do is construct a government that punishes those that violates those rights. The imposition is the justice system.

They grant and revoke legal rights, not natural rights. Legal rights are the "is", and natural rights are the "ought". Oughts are not derived from the Is. Natural rights exist as much as reason and empathy exist. Both reason and empathy are abstract concepts as are natural rights. I can no more show evidence of natural rights than I can show evidence of reason or logic. What I can show is the reasoning behind natural rights which deals with fairness and empathy. The Golden Rule was mentioned before, and that is a good approximation.

Of course. So will morality. We all have a sense of fairness and empathy (at least normal people do). Using a childhood example, you will often hear kids yell "But that's not FAIR!!!". What is the response? "Life isn't fair, kid". We all have a sense of fairness, and we realize that the reality of life often falls short of that ideal. Like morality, natural rights are somewhat vague and difficult to nail down in specific cases, but the fundamental reasoning is still there. We don't want our lives taken from us. We don't want our stuff stolen from us. We want to live our lives how we see fit as long as it doesn't break the first two rules. It is simple to say, but it is very difficult to put into practice. Are fairness and empathy arbitrary? I don't think so, but perhaps you do.

Justice is built into human rights. If you violate the human rights of others then you can be punished. I fail to see how this distinction is relevant in any way.Yes, there are such things as abstract concepts. I am not arguing otherwise. I am also arguing that these abstract concepts are important for how we construct political systems and how we interact with each other. I see fairness as the same topic. Someone who is enslaved is being treated unfairly. Someone who is discriminated against because of their skin color is being treated unfairly. Someone who has their stuff stolen is being treated unfairly.Also, any discussion of natural or legal rights necessarily involves human societies. A single person living on an isolated island who never comes into contact with another soul doesn't have to worry about rights. I thought it was a given that we were talking about human societies. I 100% agree that Oughts are abstract concepts. What I am trying to convey is that Oughts are IMPORTANT.

They depend on the beliefs that I don't want my life taken from me, I don't want my stuff stolen, and I don't want to spend the rest of my years in jail for no good reason. Those seem to be universal beliefs, and they are rights that we are born with. That doesn't stop them from being important for how we form human societies.