tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post2727979470147045272..comments2024-03-14T08:15:15.207-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: Inalienable Rights -- an open discussion invitationBKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-16676580517781961142008-11-07T03:49:00.000-08:002008-11-07T03:49:00.000-08:00Matt, I understand your point about God's judgment...Matt, <BR/><BR/>I understand your point about God's judgment and justice. I'm just trying to leave God out of the equation. <BR/><BR/>I'm looking at it through a sort of survival and capability model--a Darwinist model of sorts. Definitely as societies have long survived with ethics less than what we would think of as ideal, there's not as big a selection pressure on normative misjudgments. That adudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060925478720656455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-62462276023094080542008-11-06T02:34:00.000-08:002008-11-06T02:34:00.000-08:00Jason,OK, bad analogy. Perhaps if we switch to my...Jason,<BR/><BR/>OK, bad analogy. Perhaps if we switch to my other example it will make things clearer. An "electron without charge" just isn't an electron, and my proposal is that the same applies for "human being without value" - both descriptions are contradictions in terms.<BR/><BR/>I didn't mean to suggest that the value of a person is proportional to their power or knowledge; that's not Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-52517763758644936022008-11-05T19:50:00.000-08:002008-11-05T19:50:00.000-08:00"Secondly, treating (e.g.) massive bodies as if th..."Secondly, treating (e.g.) massive bodies as if they aren’t massive will get you into practical difficulties, while treating beings of intrinsic value as if they’re valueless will get you into normative difficulties*."<BR/><BR/>Very well said, Matt. Misjudging physical properties results in a denial of mastery or power. However kingdoms have long ignored these the normative "realities". Greek, adudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060925478720656455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-71014377381408334272008-11-05T12:49:00.000-08:002008-11-05T12:49:00.000-08:00Matt,{{These rights are inalienable because human ...Matt,<BR/><BR/>{{These rights are inalienable because human beings possess them just by virtue of being human beings – it's no more possible to remove a human being’s human rights than it is to remove a material body’s mass.}}<BR/><BR/>I may have misunderstood your meaning here: because while I can see that in one sense you're appealing to the law of noncon (a human being cannot both have the Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-65379358666101545452008-11-05T12:36:00.000-08:002008-11-05T12:36:00.000-08:00Adude,{{As a practice, no right is inalienable.}}T...Adude,<BR/><BR/>{{As a practice, no right is inalienable.}}<BR/><BR/>This leads to the interesting question of whether, given that persons in principle have inalienable rights, are those rights <I>actually</I> being undone or revoked by various temporal authorities in practice?<BR/><BR/>Which is to be distinguished, of course, from the position that persons do not have inalienable rights at all.<Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-68612523703582876382008-11-05T08:13:00.000-08:002008-11-05T08:13:00.000-08:00Jason,Thanks for the nudge. The idea is that God ...Jason,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the nudge. The idea is that God is the being of maximal value (along with power, knowledge and goodness), and we ourselves have some value by virtue of those aspects of God's nature which we share (i.e. have in common) – sharing aspects of God's nature is what I understand by being made "in his image" (exactly which aspects and to what degree is a Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-76081639165818063222008-11-05T08:09:00.000-08:002008-11-05T08:09:00.000-08:00"Rights, as we conceive them..." Who's "we"? We "b..."Rights, as we conceive them..." <BR/><BR/>Who's "we"? We "birth" them? So it sounds like it depends on <I>the group</I> who is talking about rights, and the rights as they conceptualize their set of rights. And as long as a "right" can be in dispute, it doesn't sound very inalienable at all.<BR/><BR/>As a practice, no right is inalienable. History and many governments around the world have shownadudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060925478720656455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-42071230668428167962008-11-05T06:25:00.000-08:002008-11-05T06:25:00.000-08:00Oh, and just in case it hasn't sunk in, yet: YOU L...Oh, and just in case it hasn't sunk in, yet: YOU LOST!<BR/><BR/><B>Not me! I won. But you know the fact that you were for the side I was far did make me think about the idea that maybe my side is wrong after all. But then I realized, naw, that guy is so confused he could easily be a republican too.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-47415805183208817912008-11-05T06:12:00.000-08:002008-11-05T06:12:00.000-08:00Matt,also for purposes of looking for more detail:...Matt,<BR/><BR/>also for purposes of looking for more detail: If God exists and makes us in His image, how would our property of "value" follow from that being true? God has a similar property of "value", therefore we would also do so as entities made in His image? (Whatever it means to be "made in His image"?)<BR/><BR/>Also, supposing the rights of persons to be directly (proportionately?) Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-67810921478937609542008-11-05T06:02:00.000-08:002008-11-05T06:02:00.000-08:00{{All rights are therefore inalienable by definiti...{{All rights are therefore inalienable by definition.}}<BR/><BR/>Just for clarity's sake, I take it you're referring to the part of the definition where you talked about rights defining "the scope of conduct that an individual can engage in <B>free from any coersion by other individuals</B>"?<BR/><BR/>If so that raises the question of whether rights under this definition either don't exist or Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-91523478390394546472008-11-05T05:53:00.000-08:002008-11-05T05:53:00.000-08:00The deleted comment, incidentally, was the same "Y...The deleted comment, incidentally, was the same "YOU LOST" (in case it hadn't sunk in yet) but with a lot of direct profanity that insulted women and homosexuals. Not-incidentally, it had nothing to do with discussing how a claim of "inalienable rights" can be true within various worldviews.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, Gol, I wasn't supporting either Obama or McCain. As far as this election Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-65101555371132722002008-11-04T20:35:00.000-08:002008-11-04T20:35:00.000-08:00Oh, and just in case it hasn't sunk in, yet: YOU ...Oh, and just in case it hasn't sunk in, yet: YOU LOST!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-11388249700136908912008-11-04T20:32:00.000-08:002008-11-04T20:32:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-79549817400037531662008-11-04T18:17:00.000-08:002008-11-04T18:17:00.000-08:00I thought about it for a while, and here goes:A "r...I thought about it for a while, and here goes:<BR/><BR/>A "right" is a principle that defines how a human being is legitimately entitled to act and what he or she is legitimately entitled to expect in a social context. It defines the scope of conduct that an individual can engage in free from any coersion by other individuals.<BR/><BR/>All rights are therefore inalienable by definition. Bear inAlejandrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08578877429793660591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-78233297929478264832008-11-04T11:03:00.000-08:002008-11-04T11:03:00.000-08:00I suggest, tentatively, that human beings have the...I suggest, tentatively, that human beings have the property "value" in a similar way to how e.g. material bodies have "mass" or certain subatomic particles have "charge". As a Christian, I understand this as following from the fact that human beings are made in God's image.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-50295992268839848632008-11-04T07:36:00.000-08:002008-11-04T07:36:00.000-08:00Just a comment to sign up for comment tracking. {g...Just a comment to sign up for comment tracking. {g}<BR/><BR/>JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.com