Summations Only

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.

You keep claiming that "You are born with natural rights, and no government can grant or revoke those rights" yet governments, societies, cultures, communities, religions, clubs, individuals do grant and revoke rights.You may think they are goals or ideals that "ought to be recognized" but you have not shown any evidence that "human rights" or "natural rights" even exist outside of the consensus of a government, society or culture.

But this will vary from society to society. If we don't know what these "natural rights" are I am not sure how we can possibly know whether we have them or not. In what sense can I possess such rights if nobody knows what they are? And what makes "human rights" so inalienable? Do gorillas have inalienable rights too? Do intelligent aliens?I'm still sympathetic to the idea of constructing a set of rights that can be reasoned and implemented on a large scale based on broad consensus with that reasoning. I'd even be happy to call these "universal" rights.But the idea that humans specifically have some sort of special claim to rights that are independent of human society seems like a rather arbitrary assertion on your part.

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.

Yet the governmental entity that was the Nuremberg Tribunal revoked the rights of life and liberty from those tried and found guilty.I can see evidence that the capability to reason exists and the capability to feel empathy exists, but no evidence that either reason or empathy exist.You now change the topic to fairness, again, something that does not exist except within the context of a particular government, society and culture.Oughts, by definition, do not exist. They are an abstract development of a State, culture or society.

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.

Oughts though depend on the belief system of a State, community, culture, group. There is nothing innate or universal or inalienable about "oughts"."Oughts" do not exist.

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.

No one said that "oughts" are not important, only that "oughts" exist only within the framework of a State, society or culture.

I think I got it right last time:

quote:

---

Natural rights aren't really real, they're just some imaginary things that people think other people ought to have, regardless of whether or not having them benefits that person in any way.

---

And it doesn't make sense to call natural rights "unalienable" if they're just ought's... how can you loose something you never really had in the first place?Or wait... is that what it means? You can't lose natural rights because they don't really exist to loose in the first place?And how can you determine that there's an ought. If I think that the Mona Lisa ought to be smiling a little more, does that exist as something? I think its even more pretend than those. Okay, but every person has a different set of natural rights from every other person based on what they think you ought to have. I don't see how you can say those things exist independently.

Fair enough. I've never seen well exemplified conservatism without a strong religious backing though, so I'd only find it fair to draw those conclusions.

Sure, religious people are gonna back conservatism. But being touchy about things that aren't your business stems from religious ideals, not conservative ones.

Well, if I bought some heroin for my kids from an undercover policeman, first they would take my cocaine from me (loss of property) and then they would imprison me (loss of liberty). Certain countries would then sentence me to death (loss of life).Would that government be prosecuted for breaching my inalienable human rights?
Would the European Court of Human Rights demand I be released?
Would Amnesty International even raise an eyebrow?
Would even you object?

It has been determined that drug trafficking threatens the human rights of others, namely the increase in crime rates. This is why drug commerce is punished. As to the death penalty, many organizations do consider that to be a violation of human rights.