Summations Only

Through the application of reason. They are based on empathy and reason. Surely you can figure out that if you don't like your stuff stolen that other people don't like it either. Sure we do. We can interview the girl and find out if she understood what was happening to her and able to consent. If not, then it is wrong. Not that hard actually. Her rights were violated, not taken away. What is Order, other than a set of rules based on human rights? How do we determine which rules to live by, and who gets to determine those rules? Allowing a consensus to make rules for society is, in itself, a human right. Locke and others were arguing against a system where a ruling elite made the rules for the majority. Locke argued that the natural state of man is people forming a consensus based on natural human rights. No, it is not. The ICC is an extension of the UN which was initiated to protect human rights in the wake of the atrocities in both world wars. The tribunals in both Tokyo and Nuremburg were models for the ICC. People convicted in these tribunals were not punished simply because we could do it. Rather, they were convicted because they violated human rights.

Being 'mentally ill' is irrelevant. The main requirement is not knowing what 'intrinsic' means.
Go on - look it up. I double dare you! If you are unable to remember what the fuck you are talking about, then it is possible to click the links at the bottom of these posts and read what you have written. If all that geologists were doing was positing an opinion then yes.
But geologists have evidence to back up there claims.
Whereas you do not. Because your false premises make your conclusion regarding human rights invalid.
That's how logic works: false premises = invalid conclusion. But that is not what you said. You are now altering your premises because they were shown to be invalid.
They have now changed to "MOST people fear death. MOST people are able to determine that others fear death."
'Most' is not 'All'. It is also not compatible with 'inalienable', 'intrinsic' or 'universal'.
Your blatant goal-post moving shows that even you know your premises were wrong.
But the further you move the goal posts, the more obvious the invalidity of your conclusion becomes. Those are not 'objective rights' (LOL at "for no good reason")
In fact, they are not even 'rights'.You continue to be unable to provide a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective.
This fact alone says more about your baseless claim than anything else.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I already posted a definition. I have looked it up. I guess you are incapable of remembering as well? My evidence is that the vast, vast majority of people do not like to be killed, do not like to have their stuff stolen, and do not like to be put in jail for no good reason. Would you agree that the vast majority of people do not want to be killed, do not want their stuff stolen, and do not want to be put in jail for no good reason? The fact that the exceptions are the mentally ill does not negate the argument. The fact that we can determine that there is something wrong with the mentally ill only stresses the conclusion that human rights do exist. Otherwise, how could we say that they are mentally ill? If it all just subjective, why can't we say that they are normal? They are objective observations of the human condition. I have supplied three: life, liberty, and property.

And when, through the application of reason, you come to different answers, you're not going to be able to determine that one opinion is more correct than the other.That's a big problem with your Rationalist approach. I'm still wondering why you're content on employing Rationalism here when you seem to normally oppose an approach like this in every other discussion you're in. Are you just training or something? But not everyone has the same opinions on what rights people ought to have, so there's still no way for anyone to support any universal-ness to them. And if she did, and was cool with it, then I guess she didn't have that ought to begin with? How is that in any way intrinsic or universal? It seems very dependent and individual to me. But the only ought that got violated is the one that you believe should exist based on your own opinions. That's not really something that can be meaningfully said to be existing and being violated. It could be a set of legal rights, drafted by a community, based on pragmatics. But again, that's just an opinion based on Rationalism with no way to detemine any amount of veracity to it. It misleading to say that it "exists". Do you have a link to their conclusion? Are you sure it wasn't based on legal rights?

But you seem to have forgotten what it means.
It is not possible for a single person to lack something that is "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a [person]".
If some people (however few) don't have something - it is, by definition, not intrinsic. Wrong. I remember perfectly well.
You are the one asking what it is you are talking about.
I suggest that you click the links below to refresh your memory of what you have written. I repeat my previous post:
'Most' is not 'All'. It is also not compatible with 'inalienable', 'intrinsic' or 'universal'.
You have provided no evidence of intrinsic rights.
Instead you keep describing how human rights are not applicable to everyone. And "objective observations of the human condition" are not 'rights'.
So....back to my first statement: you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective. So, if a person's unconditional right to liberty was taken away then the perpetrator would be committing a breach of that person's human rights?
Would you like me to list the countries than need to be arrested?Ah...but, as you stated earlier, a person's right to liberty is dependant on many different factors.
So - liberty would be a very conditional human right, right?
Someone that refuses to pay a speeding fine doesn't have the human right to liberty.Your other examples are equally as situational, conditional and subjective.

I understand that Taq has not proven or demonstrated that there are inherent rights.But I don't understand the line of reasoning behind your question. If there were rights that were inherent or intrinsic rather than being granted, then how would a count of countries who do not recognize those allegedly inherent right be relevant? Does the long length of a list of evil doers make the list invalid?Further, even if countries violate legal rights that are on their own books, other countries don't necessarily gain the right to enforce those legal rights. Yet no one is claiming that legal rights do not exist. This would seem to be a question about the scope of the right to liberty and not whether there is any such right to liberty.

But Taq disagrees that countries that imprison people are "evil doers".
He thinks that imprisonment is fine under certain circumstances.
The "list of evil doers" becomes relevant when someone (e.g. Taq) denies that they are evil.
My question was mainly to point out the inconsistency of Taq's position. But also, no-one is claiming that legal rights are intrinsic to being human.
Legal rights are (usually) created by governments. This is sometimes by a consensus of opinion; sometimes by just the word of a despot.
They are not universal, intrinsic or inalienable rights.
And they only exist in the context (e.g. country) that they are created.Human rights also only exist in the context (e.g. personal imagination) that they are created.
Human rights are created based on our own personal morality.
To claim that universal human rights exist is as false as claiming a universal morality exists. Do we have a right to liberty? Or do we only sometimes have a right to liberty?
Taq's position is that we only sometimes have that right.
But if we only sometimes have a right to liberty, then that right is neither inalienable nor intrinsic.
And if our right to liberty can be legitimately overwritten by a country's laws, then human rights are based on the non-universal laws of whatever country you happen to be in.

I don't see any problem or inconsistency with Taq's position in that regard. You seem to think that inherent rights must be absolute in scope. Why can't there cannot be an inherent right against imprisonment without just cause. Natural rights might not be inalienable.Perhaps only a few rights are inalienable. More rights are inherent, but alienable. At least such a state of affairs is possible and forms a consistent position. It could be that alienation requires action on the right holder's part and cannot be accomplished by unilateral action i.e. absent some forfeiture action on the part of the rights holder.So a right of freedom of motion might be inherent but forfeitable if you murder your brother.

Because 'just cause' is subjective.How many people are imprisoned for possession of cannabis?
How many people consider that to be a "just cause"?
How many people consider all those governments to be breaching human rights?
Who is correct? For the sake of this discussion about inalienable human rights, I was thinking that we could ignore the alienable human rights and focus on just the inalienable human rights. Rights can't be both 'inherent' and 'alienable'. Yes. A consistent paradox. But those actions are different, depending on which country you happen to be in.
The rights you are describing vary, depending on where you live, what you do, who you are, etc. 'Murder' is a legal term. What constitutes murder is dependant on which country you live in.
This means that the human right you are describing is based on specific country's legal laws and is not inalienable.You are moving towards claiming that:
"You have a right of freedom of motion as long as you don't kill your brother in certain ways* in specific countries**. [*Please refer to each individual country's laws to see which 'ways' are pertinent. **Countries where there are no laws against murder do not have this restriction.]"
Does that sound like an intrinsic, inalienable, universal human right, to you?Eventually you will be left with just the vague claim that "We sometimes have the right to do certain things at certain times in certain places. The specifics vary considerably."Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Is anyone arguing that all rights are intrinsic or inalienable? Perhaps here is no intrinsic right to possess cannabis.At least I can understand your position, although I don't agree with it. If there are any absolutely inalienable rights in the sense that can never be forfeited in any circumstance, those rights are probably very limited in number. I would list the right not to be tortured by others among those rights. But the fact that many countries, including the US, don't respect such a right is not proof that the right does not exist. Instead, the lack of respect is simply an argument that such countries ought to be soundly condemned for their stances.

There also appears to be no intrinsic right to liberty.You implied that liberty is possibly an inherent right:

quote:

---

Why can't there cannot be an inherent right against imprisonment without just cause.

---

Since some people are imprisoned for cannabis possession and some people consider cannabis possession to not justify imprisonment, are the governments that imprison people for cannabis possession breaching their human right to liberty?
And is someone disagrees with your answer, how do we determine who is correct? Some people disagree with your suggestion that the "right not to be tortured by others" is an absolutely inalienable human right.
Some people agree with your suggestion that the "right not to be tortured by others" is an absolutely inalienable human right.
Who is correct and why?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Which returns us to the point that rights only exist within the context of a State, culture or society.

That is exactly my point. Human rights are intrinsic to being human. I am saying that human rights are intrinsic to being human. The observations that lead to the conclusion of human rights are objective making human rights an objective conclusion. Yes, please. Did I ever argue that no country was currently violating human rights? Part of the reason that the UN was formed was to put pressure on countries that were violating human rights. It is also dependent on a person's right to self defense as part of that liberty. When you threaten another person's liberty you can be punished. As Locke puts it:

quote:

---

And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom -- i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that in the state of Nature would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.--John Locke, An Essay Concerning the true original, extent, and end of Civil Government, 1690, para. 11
http://www.mcrkba.org/w0.html

---

I would hope that we could come to the correct conclusion through discussions like these. Perhaps. This is why I was pointing to the universal-ness of people wanting life, liberty, and property (excluding the mentally ill for Panda's sake). I don't know of a fully functioning human who thinks nothing of being jailed for the rest of their life simply because they wore the wrong colored shirt one day. Do you? If you look back through the last 300 years of history, those oughts have been very powerful and very meaningful. It has shaped modern western civilization. In the US, we revere these ideas as the very meaning of what it is to be an American citizen. We are taught in government classes that we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Why? Because we were born with those rights, not as Americans but as humans. They exist as much as any conclusion drawn from premises. The Nuremburg trial was founded on the London Charter which was further based on the Moscow Declaration: Statement on Atrocities:

quote:

---

The final section of the Moscow Declaration is entitled Statement on Atrocities and it was signed by the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin. They noted that "evidence of atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded mass executions which are being perpetrated by Hitlerite forces in many of the countries they have overrun and from which they are now being steadily expelled". They went on to state that Germans would be sent back to the countries where they had committed their crimes and "judged on the spot by the peoples whom they have outraged".As for those Germans whose criminal offenses had no particular geographical localization, they would be punished by joint decision of the governments of the Allies.

---

Obviously, they were disgusted by crimes against humanity that were being perpetrated in locations controlled by Hitler's Germany. They felt that people should be held accountable for these gross violations of human rights.

Your repeated reference to "the vast majority of people" proves your own argument false.
Until you are unable to state "all people" then human rights are by definition not intrinsic. And you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective. Did I ever say that you did? No.
Now try answering the question: If a person's liberty was taken away then the perpetrator would be committing a breach of that person's unconditional human right to liberty, yes? So....that would be a situational, conditional and subjective human right, then.And we are back to my first statement: you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.