Gee…you’re right. I’ve never seen one of those before. Oh wait! What am I thinking? Your confident-sounding, unsupported assertion had me second-guessing myself there for a second. I have seen them before! (Depending on what you mean by proof.)
What? Who are the “they” of whom you speak?
Ah…bold a confident-sounding, unsupported assertion for emphasis and people might just believe it’s true!
You are thinking that you know this discussion too well.
I challenge you to provide a proof of natural rights.
how does this work in a society whose population is increasing and is bound by finite resources? if property rights are hereditary does this not create class war?
That’s probably because I have a PhD (I just successfully defended my dissertation lat week) in political philosophy. I’ve studied this subject extensively.
Nice rhetorical trick, but you’re not going to get off the hook that easily. You made unsupported assertions. You need to back them up. Try to provide detailed, scholarly critiques of some of the best theories. They aren’t hard to find, and I assume you’re already read them carefully and formulated well-reasoned objections or else you wouldn’t have made the claims you’ve made, right? Show me you have a good grasp of the relevant literature. Spell out your assumptions too. You artfully dodged my questions about what you mean by proof and who “they” are. Try answering them instead of deflecting.
I am not the one making the assertion that natural rights exist. You are and that is what is being questioned in the Opening Post of this thread.
The people making the assertion that natural rights are an objective truth are the ones who need to prove it.
See, I believe natural rights exist but only axiomatically. If you want to assert that natural rights are more than that, go ahead but the onus is on you to provide the proof.
Natural rights arise from the fact that man is a rational animal with a specifc nature and natural end. Self-direction is constitutive of a person’s natural end. The use or the threatened use of aggression violates a person’s self-direction by imposing the agressor’s will onto the victim. Thus, one has a normative right to liberty, from which other rights are derived. You respect these rights because it also is constitutive of your own natural end; the properly rational (and thus human) life is one where deliberation and voluntary exchange are used instead of aggressive force. Therefore, a person aiming correctly towards their natural end will respect other’s right to liberty.
What is the specific nature and natural end of, say, a sociopath?
In case you didn’t notice, I responded to your unsupported assertions. Your continued dodges tell me you are full of hot air and not worth my time. There are many published books and articles on this subject. You refuse to deal with them and you refuse to answer my simple questions.
You’re also mistaken about the nature of the original post. It is about whether rights are self-contradictory because they are not self-enforcing and you do not have a right to force others to enforce your rights. My answer is that it seems fairly obvious that a right to force others to enforce your rights is a self-contradictory conception of rights since rights are a claim against such aggression, but the original poster recognizes this. His mistake is in thinking that the fact that rights can be violated somehow makes them privileges rather than rights. This is to misunderstand the nature of rights as natural normative principles. Rights are not body armor or magical shields. Natural rights are not the same thing as positive legal rights successfully enforced; rather, the former are the normative foundation of the latter. He also makes a mistake in thinking of rights - namely the basic rights to life, liberty and property - as goods. They aren’t, by the Austrian definition. We also do not have a claim to rights; rights are claims - legitimately enforceable moral claims against the prior obligations of others to refrain from the threat or use of initiatory physical force against us. The issue you raise is different than the one raised by the OP; though it too calls into question the existence of rights, it is different and off topic. I hope you read the top natural rights scholars more carefully than you read the OP, assuming you’ve read them at all, that is.
Once again, that’s already been done in a number of published books and articles. Given this fact and your unsupported assertions, the burden of proof is on you. PM me if/when you decide to debate like a philosopher rather than a lawyer.
At the most general level, the same as everyone else’s; it’s just that he was either born defective or is mistaken about what his natural end is. Aggression is not a constitutive part of any rational being’s flourishing. There are universal and particular aspects of human flourishing; the particular aspects vary from person to person.
I think you added this later. You’re wrong, for the reasons I explained in a previous post. And sorry, your position is not a privileged default. As you implicitly admit in the quote above, you’re the one who made the initial assertions challenging a vibrant, published tradition. If you want to actually back up your unsupported assertions against published arguments, start a new thread on the subject. It’s off topic for this thread. On the other hand, if you’re going to continue with this eristic farce, well then I’m not going to waste my time.
I can make farting noises by sticking my hand in my armpit, and pumping my arm.
That’s nice. Relevance?
You know, you come across as most arrogant.
(and before I edited this I must have come across as an idiot)
I just wanted to get my skillz and credentials into the topic as well.
Seriously, you’re a super smart guy. But you don’t have to remind us of that. We get it. You know your stuff. We respect you.
What difference should that make? other than making you feel better, that is?
You are doing no different. Do not be so arrogant.
You can not prove natural rights are objective proofs and nobody has done so in this thread.
The term “Natural Rights” refers to a objective justifiable claim. It relies totally on the assumption that we own ourselves and, as an extension, we own the product of our labor - and further that this all is justifiable. I am a believer in natural rights by faith, not necessarilly by solid logic, since we must first prove the assumption which I am unable to do (though I take it to be true).
So what is your criticism of natural rights as a constitutive part of eudaimonia?
As opposed to your arrogant, strident dismissal of rights? Offer a definition of the kind of proof you want, as Geoffrey asked, rather than evoking the burden of proof where it is not relevant. FYI, if you’re going to argue that natural rights cannot be proven, you’re beholden to the burden yourself.
Scineram, instead of repeating that tired response to Aristotelian NR theory, why don’t you actually read up on it, as opposed to relying on weak strawmen? It might make your comment actually relevant to what Wombatron is arguing.
It means, especially combined with the fact that there are published arguments in favor of natural rights that you are challenging, that you have the burden of proof.
Nonsense. I referred you to published arguments which presumably you’ve read. You’re the one being an arrogant blowhard. What are your arguments?
You’re continuing to dodge. You’ve got nothing, else you wouldn’t be putting up this smokescreen. You’re a strange kind of solipsist. What, you can’t read anything that isn’t posted in this thread or on this forum? By the way, do you mean objective truths there? Sounds like you’re using proof as some kind of magic totem. You still haven’t explained what you mean by it. You also haven’t explained which natural rights theorists you were talking about before. And you have so far refused to actually back up your unsupported assertions. I think that is because you can’t.
And Charles Anthony, with his unsupported assertions and ridiculous demands and refusals to back up his claims, does not? Give me a break.
I don’t have time to waste debating someone who acts like he knows what he’s talking about but shows no evidence of actually knowing what he’s talking about. There are countless numbers of such people online. If I catered to their overblown egos I would never have time for anything else. Charles Anthony gives every indication of being one of them.