The third definition shall suffice.
Looking back, you’re right Jon, I misspoke. I should have said “way to refute the allegations of ‘skepticism’,” instead of “demolish.” If you’d like to continue on the topic of skepticism in light of this clarification, I’d be glad to. At this point, however, I have nothing to add to Lilburne’s comment.
Thank you. Now back to the original context:
Plugging in the definition from above, I understand your definition of “rights” to be
“Claims that establish obligation between two or more individuals and are enforceable in accordance with law or established legal forms and requirements.”
If this is what you intended, what do you mean by “law” (US law? common law?) or “established legal forms and requirements” (which ones?)? If this differs from your intended definition, please clarify.
Just a nitpicking point here but I would like to announce that the basis for law is the enforcement of natural rights. Therefore the law was established to ensure this continious obligation. Bluntly, if we have natural rights and a society that at all times follows the obligations of these rights then law would not be necessary since there can be no transgression. Since we reside in a world of free will and people can disregard these obligations established by natural rights, then law is a necessary product for ensuring reparations towards the victims.
You have to be more clear on ‘US law’ because US law has some sense of common law itself.
My $0.02 worth on “natural law” and “rights” in general:
http://cygielski.com/blog/2009/08/05/another-take-on-rothbard/
In brief, I see nothing that would support the existence of “natural law”, and in fact I can see examples that would refute its existence.
You carrying out voluntary exchange in a non-violent mannerand respecting the property rights is not supportive of ‘natural law?’
Not in a “logical proof” kind of way. The empirical fact is not proof of the existence of an underlying principle, especially if there are counter-examples, or if you can logically deduce the opposite.
Maybe it’s coherent to you because you have some special theory of logic by which one can wily-nily substitute “oughts” for “is’s” in deductions. But I’m not privy to it. So I (as well as anyone else without this amazing new theory of logic) am forced to regard “is/ought” hybrid syllogisms as incoherent.
That is a rather naive-sounding presentation of a false choice.
Although Angurse has been very clear, and has patiently repeated himself, you have yet to address his point that you are conflating the issue of "morally good/“morally bad” with the issue of “factually correct”/“factually incorrect”.
The statements involved are statements like “that is illogical”. Are you saying, “that is illogical” is a moral value statement?
The sophistry of your line of argument in this thread is shocking, AC.
Categorizing ALL value statements as moral statements is a ridiculously broad definition of morality, and would only be useful if you want to muddy the discussion in order to foist up your pet theory.
Maybe I’m missing something, but over 8 pages of arguments I still don’t see anything that would resemble a logical proof of the existence of “natural law”. Anybody?
AJ I think perhaps some of the confusion and talking over head going on is that you are comming are wanting *verifiability (*logical proof) while the natural law advocates are comming from a falsifiability standpoint. While I am not a natural law advocate, perhaps that will give you some perspective as to where the arguments are comming from and why they exist.
After breifly going through this thread, I don’t think I have actually seen anyone clearly say “No natural law can not be logically proven at this point, but here is the ground work why I believe in it…”. A comment along those lines would probably be much more productive and useful.
That doesn’t make sense.
It is a result from reflection on the reality around me and I am not guilty of trying to mystify the logic of natural rights in order to scam you.
Because natural law is factual. It exists as an abstract deduction hence why we are discussing it. I would think it is a huge waste of time if this topic was devoted to a premise that we believe is factually incorrect yet talk about its existence.
Saying something is illogical implies that it is bad, does it not?
Hence why morality is a very large subject. Saying what is right and wrong [ value statement ] is implying a code of conduct.
Ok, let me explain as clearly as I can - you cannot deduce the existence of natural law from the empirical fact that I have conducted voluntary transactions. I may have also forced people to do things (counter-example). In terms of logical arguments, the biggest strike against “natural law”, at least the way Rothbard presents it, is the fact that all your “rights” (self-ownership, life, etc.) that it implies work ONLY in society - i.e. you can claim them in the face of other humans. Ownership is moot if there are no other people around to contest it, an attacking tiger would not worry about your right to live, and so on. If there is no “natural law” in a setting outside of society, then there must be no “natural law”. That would be my argument - of course I haven’t been trained in classical logic, so I may be committing some kind of error there. I’d just like to hear a clear, step-by-step proof of the existence of natural law, if anyone can actually produce one. Otherwise it just becomes yet another religious argument - I believe this, I don’t believe that. Not very convincing.