Can your right to life be voted away, outright?

Sure. And it the U.S. it only takes twelve votes in 32 states.

 

No, those are extenuating circumstances. There cannot be a mass vote on whether our not to kill a single individual for no reason other than a poll was made.

 

And herein you've just made my point. You want to claim that Georacer had some "God given" right that can't be taken away at the whim of the society in which he was a member. Yet you then demonstrated that it very much CAN be taken away at the whim of the society in which he was a member just as thoroughly as anything else. Hence, the notion that he has some God given, inalienable right was an illusion.

Earlier you said that "Denial of the existence of natural rights does not cause them not to exist". But, by the same token, a declaration of the existence of natural rights does not cause the TO exist, either.

Now, if you want to argue that there are certain fundamental rights that all people SHOULD have, and that governments should be instituted among people primarily to protect and ensure them AS fundamental rights among those people, then I am all on board.

First of all, the concept of natural rights is not my idea, but has been developed beginning with the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries. The founding of the USA, and its constitution, sprang from this movement.

Secondly, I understand *exactly* what you are saying, especially the last part.

Third, you are completely missing my point. By Georacer possessing natural rights that exist outside the scope of his society and social contract, he possesses a right to his own life, and a right to continue living it. This gives him moral standing to object to the subjugation of his life to his society, and moral sanction to take action to preserve his own life regardless of the will of the majority. I am not claiming that he will be successful in attempting to save his own life, I am just saying that he is morally correct to do so, and to use force if necessary.

This dovetails back to the other discussion, where I said:

Ensuring one's God given inalienable rights should never come down to a vote at the ballot box.

Natural rights are far too fragile to leave to a majority to decide.

 

No, those are extenuating circumstances. There cannot be a mass vote on whether our not to kill a single individual for no reason other than a poll was made.

But it still makes the basic point. If the person that is sentenced to death by a jury has some God-given inalienable right to life (and liberty), the how can a jury or anyone else take that right away from them? Guess it wasn't all that inalienable, after all.

 

But it still makes the basic point. If the person that is sentenced to death by a jury has some God-given inalienable right to life (and liberty), the how can a jury or anyone else take that right away from them? Guess it wasn't all that inalienable, after all.

Actually, you may voluntarily dispense with your own inalienable rights. One of the best ways to do that is to infringe on someone else's.

 

But it still makes the basic point. If the person that is sentenced to death by a jury has some God-given inalienable right to life (and liberty), the how can a jury or anyone else take that right away from them? Guess it wasn't all that inalienable, after all.

No, the question was if it is acceptable to take away a person's right to life outright, meaning without any qualification or stipulations.

 

No, the question was if it is acceptable to take away a person's right to life outright, meaning without any qualification or stipulations.

Acceptable by what standard?

 

See post # 10, drawing circles are for art majors...

 

No, the question was if it is acceptable to take away a person's right to life outright, meaning without any qualification or stipulations.

Whether it's acceptable is neither here nor there. It is possible and has happened many times in many places.

I think you and I are trying to make largely similar points but coming at it from two different angles.

My point is that "inalienable" rights are very much "alienable". I'm gathering that you are focussing more on how a society tries to enact/protect/defend rights that it's social contract declare to be inalienable.

 

delete delete

 

delete delete

 

There are two ebooks you can download, reputed to be written by Aristotle. On is Ethics and the Other is Politics.

Given that Greece was the birthplace of democracy, you might want to read Aristotle.

 

Whether it's acceptable is neither here nor there. It is possible and has happened many times in many places.

I think you and I are trying to make largely similar points but coming at it from two different angles.

My point is that "inalienable" rights are very much "alienable". I'm gathering that you are focussing more on how a society tries to enact/protect/defend rights that it's social contract declare to be inalienable.

I suppose so. I never really liked the wording of inalienable rights, since the phrase, taken literally, is clearly not correct. I take it more as hyperbole, in that, the rights are not inalienable, therefore the primary concern of a society should be to protect the rights of its constituents.

 

My rights do not depend on the opinions of others.

The only outcome of that is something like a high school popularity contest, where a small majority of socially "in" crowd destroy the rights of others. Take that to the extreme and you have Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia.

No, my rights are law, and a law higher than any other, especially higher than social fashion or political agendas.

 

My rights do not depend on the opinions of others.

The only outcome of that is something like a high school popularity contest, where a small majority of socially "in" crowd destroy the rights of others. Take that to the extreme and you have Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia.

No, my rights are law, and a law higher than any other, especially higher than social fashion or political agendas.

Exactly. And those rights are the formulation and implementation of my world theory. In my personal case, I extend those rights to the rest of the population, but not everybody does that.

If those rights are supported by the localized, both in space and time, legislation, is another matter. According to me, I have the right to be employed in the sector I choose. My country may think otherwise. Thus, the motive develops for me to immigrate, if I hold this right dear.

I 'd also like to point out the factor of education. I could talk about slavery in the US, but I opt to talk about the Greek revolution in the 19th century against the Ottoman Empire, since I 'm more familiar in it.
Greek populations in the general area of Greece existed under Turk rule for over 400 years. However, they were greatly assimilated with other populations and more or less accustomed to operate in the system of an Empire.
When, in the 19th century, leaders decided to organize a revolution in the premises of national freedom and independence (national, as in, "Nation of Greeks"), and claim it a rightful purpose to pursuit, people had first to be educated about what a "nation" is and what is their place in it. People had to be introduced to those rights before they came to claim them.

 

I had never read UDHR until this thread started ....

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1

 

I had never read UDHR until this thread started ....

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1

If you notice, there is no right to keep and bear arms. And the wheels start to fall off around Article 22.

Human Rights != Natural Rights

 

My rights do not depend on the opinions of others.

The only outcome of that is something like a high school popularity contest, where a small majority of socially "in" crowd destroy the rights of others. Take that to the extreme and you have Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia.

No, my rights are law, and a law higher than any other, especially higher than social fashion or political agendas.

I agree, however, for a society to exist, terms must be agreed upon, as not all members of a society has the same value system. Typically, social contract mirrors natural rights, but not always.