Natural Rights, Atheism, Collectivism vs Individualism

[kalami]

Natural rights and Consequentialism. I identify myself as a consequentialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#Natural_rights_and_consequentialism

 

[Matt_R]

Great post. It's making a lot of sense. Since they all seem based on survival, however, can you make a simple case for the right to life? Not talking abortion, thanks.

You want to survive and it doesn't hurt anyone else. You should have the freedom to do as you please, as long as your actions do not have a direct negative impact on another individual.

 

[literatim]

If there is no higher power to dictate to you laws, then everything you believe in is relative. You may think your natural rights are life, liberty, and property, but someone else may disagree.

 

[Matt_R]

If there is no higher power to dictate to you laws, then everything you believe in is relative. You may think your natural rights are life, liberty, and property, but someone else may disagree.

Human reason is a higher power. Reason tells us we don't like certain things, so we should not do those to other. To continue living happily is the basic function of human life, so doing anything that would destroy this to others are wrong. Rights come from mutual agreements to not infringe on another person life.

 

[literatim]

Human reason is a higher power. Reason tells us we don't like certain things, so we should not do those to other. To continue living happily is the basic function of human life, so doing anything that would destroy this to others are wrong. Rights come from mutual agreements to not infringe on another person life.

Human reason varies for everyone because everyone reasons differently. Some reason that it is best and natural to rule or be ruled. It is called moral relativism.

 

[Naraku]

Great post. It's making a lot of sense. Since they all seem based on survival, however, can you make a simple case for the right to life?

Each human being commands their own life and have a natural need to survive for as long as possible, usually until they have a natural death. Humans do not usually need to take the life of others in order to live themselves. Only when life is threatened is life taken reasonably.

 

[Corydoras]

You can't prove natural rights exist any more than you can prove God exists.

 

[Matt Collins]

You can't prove natural rights exist any more than you can prove God exists.

You don't have to prove they exist. They are self-evident.

 

[Corydoras]

You don't have to prove they exist. They are self-evident.

Just try telling people that the existence of God is self-evident. Nothing is self-evident.

 

[NMCB3]

You can't prove natural rights exist any more than you can prove God exists.

Maybe not, but if you dont believe in natural rights then where do your rights come from, the state? And if the state grants you your rights, they can surely take them away. Thats not a right but a privilege. There is something inherently unnatural about positivism, you are at the mercy of those in power, akin to a domesticated animal such as a Cow or a Sheep. Therefore even atheists would be wise to champion the natural law, lest they be slaves.

 

[stochastic]

Consequentialism. If the result of particular liberties is more conducive to human progress through means of technology and/or culture, then those particular liberties should be sought. In this way, liberty isn't a moral principle per se, but more of a pragmatic principle.

 

[WayOfTheDodo]

Science Against Evolution

Excuse me, but why are you linking to an anti-scientific site like that?

To demonstrate: I just clicked the first link to an article I could find:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i9f.htm

Quote: "Many people (including us) have done the calculations and discovered that the Moon’s orbit would have equaled the Earth’s radius less than 3 billion years ago."

Which is nonsense, as explained here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

It looks like this site is basically run by young earth creationists, which explains a lot:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i2e.htm

It basically concludes with:

"Our Gut Feeling"

Heh.

 

[Matt Collins]

Just try telling people that the existence of God is self-evident. Nothing is self-evident.

The existence of God (or some other higher power/force etc) IS self-evident. Every culture in the world has recognized some sort of supernatural force/power/being etc. It's pretty universal for humans to believe in this sort of thing. Atheists must actively make a choice not to believe this at some point in their lives because it is self evident in all humans.

Im not going to comment on whether that choice is right or wrong, but growing up everyone believes in a higher force/power/being etc. It's part of human nature whether people realize it or not.


However being an atheist doesn't nullify the fact that our rights are self-evident because we are human. If one believes in evolution as an atheist would, then one would recognize that humans have the ability for reason and self-awareness. That makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Nature has given us a special set of rights simply based upon our existence. That is undeniable.

 

[hypnagogue]

I am an Atheist. This is how I explain natural rights.

Firstly, I feel that referring to them as rights is a misnomer. A right is a guarantee. Nature provides no guarantees. What natures does provide are the instincts and drives to prosper. Each human being has a rough understanding of what they need to fulfill their desires. When you study human beings you find that these instincts and drives are fairly universal. We all desire to live, we all desire to be free from coercion, we all desire to keep what we have made or earned, etc.

What our form of government does, is look to the principles of human nature, take those things which all men desire, and posit them as rights. We secure these rights through a social contract. That is, we all agree to abide by these mutual rules, and in so doing, secure for ourselves the freedom to pursue our natural desires.

Still, no governance can be a perfect reflection of human nature, and so we must exclude the freedom to deprive others of their freedom. In this way we preserve every natural human instinct and drive to the fullest extent possible.

It stands to reason that human beings who are guaranteed the freedom to pursue their own ends will be the most happy and prosperous. This does, however, rely on the belief that human nature is good for human beings. There is debate on that subject.

To summarize, we allow human beings to behave like human beings so far as they do not impede the ability of another human being to do the same. We secure these freedoms with our social contract; in our case, the Constitution.

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

It's simple: You are Born Free. There are no chains on you when you come out of the womb, so freedom is your natural state.

But obviously, to keep that freedom, you have to want it and to fight for it. We are all learning that every day of this campaign!

There is no magical "right"... the universe is indifferent. So we must always protect our freedom.