A Moral Question.

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]Justified as in justice in the eyes of the law? Or to moralitly? I assume the latter. If so, then no. Yes, this man has done evil to those less fortunate then him, but like you said, he may help the poor in the future. You never know, and its an unecassary chance. Bob should just try and make the most of what he has and be grateful he isn't snobby and evil, like the rich man.MFaraz_Hayat

[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] You only say it's not justified because society has raised you up that way. And it's done that mostly because of religious effects on our society for the last few thousand years. Now he said in a world religion doesn't exist. Society has not been raised with the killing = bad aspect. In this situation We still have a roman sense of view where killing can be justified in many different situations. (which can be seen by the many forms of execution, war, killing etc that took place throughout the empire.) In this case killing would be ok, because he is able to justify it with logic.

MFaraz_Hayat

But Bob has some say indeed, for he has the ability to take away this 'greatest of gifts'. Any reason why he shouldn't? Why should he respect this man's right to live, considering(as given in orig post) that Bob himself will not blame anyone who kills him for the same purpose.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Dude, you are deducting an "ought" from an "is". Just because we do not live in an ideal does not mean we ought not strive to protect those rights that are protected in an ideal world.tycoonmike

And you're missing the primary point I'm making: if you have to fight for it that thing IS NOT A RIGHT. It is a privilege! We live simply because the people in high places allow us to live. We are so obsessed with the concept of rights that we forget that one truth: right is a function of might. If you cannot fight for it or in some way purchase it you cannot have it. Indeed, if you're so up in arms about how we all have natural rights, to take a page out of George Carlin's book, look up the Japanese-American internment camps during the Second World War. They had NO rights simply because they or their ancestors were born in the wrong place and as such were forced, not asked to but forced, to live on reservations that can be called little more than shacks in the middle of the desert. If everyone had rights, least of all the right to live, why were those poor souls forced to live on those reservations?

And we don't live simply because the people in high places allow us to live. To think such a way is incredibly dangerous, and incredibly irresponsible. I am not a mere subordinate of the state, who only lives because the state allows me to live. It's a two way street. That very principle is what all of western civilization is founded upon. The idea of a social contract between the governed and the government. The governed give up some rights, in return for social order and the protection of the natural rights that all men are entitled to. The only reason why the people in high places are in those high places is because the general public allows them to be in those places. A state that doesn't have the will of the people is not going to remain a state for very long.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Dude, you are deducting an "ought" from an "is". Just because we do not live in an ideal does not mean we ought not strive to protect those rights that are protected in an ideal world.-Sun_Tzu-

And you're missing the primary point I'm making: if you have to fight for it that thing IS NOT A RIGHT. It is a privilege! We live simply because the people in high places allow us to live. We are so obsessed with the concept of rights that we forget that one truth: right is a function of might. If you cannot fight for it or in some way purchase it you cannot have it. Indeed, if you're so up in arms about how we all have natural rights, to take a page out of George Carlin's book, look up the Japanese-American internment camps during the Second World War. They had NO rights simply because they or their ancestors were born in the wrong place and as such were forced, not asked to but forced, to live on reservations that can be called little more than shacks in the middle of the desert. If everyone had rights, least of all the right to live, why were those poor souls forced to live on those reservations?

And we don't live simply because the people in high places allow us to live. To think such a way is incredibly dangerous, and incredibly irresponsible. I am not a mere subordinate of the state, who only lives because the state allows me to live. It's a two way street. That very principle is what all of western civilization is founded upon. The idea of a social contract between the governed and the government. The governed give up some rights, in return for social order and the protection of the natural rights that all men are entitled to. The only reason why the people in high places are in those high places is because the general public allows them to be in those places. A state that doesn't have the will of the people is not going to remain a state for very long.

As we've already covered the "right" to live, let's cover the magnificent poetry that is Thomas Jefferson.

Liberty: The men who signed that document, our Declaration of Independence, pledged to fight for liberty with their honor, their fortunes, and their lives. To quote ironically enough Thomas Jefferson, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The men who created the United States of America, not just the Founding Fathers but every single footslogger in the Continental Army, fought against what they saw as tyranny and many of them died in that pursuit of liberty. Of all the rights ever established by man, the right to liberty is perhaps the most fraudulent of all because it must be fought for or else it WILL perish from this earth. That is human nature, to dominate, and neither decree nor document will EVER change that.

Pursuit of Happiness: This pursuit is indeed inalienable, but is by no means a right. Lock me up, torture me, crown me emperor, no matter what one does to me I can pursue happiness so long as I can muster conscious thought, but no power on Earth can ever guarantee that I will find it.

Now to cover everything else. If the rights you have named are, indeed, inalienable then they CANNOT be infringed upon, no matter what. To prove this, I give to you several definitions of inalienable, from www.dictionary.com, listed in order from top to bottom:

1. Not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated

2. That cannot be transferred to another or others

3. Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright.

4. Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

All except for the second definition talk of how something that is inalienable cannot be transfered or repudiated. I think we can both agree that the Japanese-American's rights were repudiated by their forced exile to the internment camps, so how can we consider those rights inalienable. Furthermore, if these rights aren't inalienable and, thus, can be surrendered how are they rights in the first place? If their "rights" preventing the illegal seizure of their property (their bodies) were so easily surrendered to the United States government, how can we even consider ANYTHING in the Bill of "Rights" to be truly rights at all? Do not mistake this for infringement, because infringement implies there is something that can be infringed. Indeed, how can that even be considered infringement if the same government that grants these privileges, because they can only be considered privileges, decides to take them away? Isn't that just like a father taking away a privilege for an alleged wrongdoing?

Right is a function of might because in order to enjoy the privilege of a right there must be a force behind that right to protect it. To illustrate this, imagine a child sitting at the dinner table demanding candy. The child believes that it is his right to eat whatever he so chooses and if what he wants is candy then that's what he'll get! The parents, however, do not give him candy because it will ruin his dinner. Now, of course, the child will rant and rave about how he hates brussel sprouts and broccoli and how much he wants the candy, but the parents don't give in. Although this may take several weeks, if not months, of reinforcement, the child will ultimately understand that he does not have the right to eat candy for dinner. He'll still try to sneak a piece in here and there, but he gets severely punished if he does so.

Now, imagine, the same child ranting and raving about wanting candy but instead of holding firm the parents give in and give him the candy. Now, after significantly less reinforcement, the child believes he has the right to eat candy whenever he wants to and, when the parents actually grow a pair between them and stop giving him candy, the child will believe his right has been "infringed" upon. The child doesn't realize, however, that he held power over his parents in the form of his ranting and raving driving them up a wall. He had the ability to protect his rights until his parents discovered that he is just a boy and that they are the parents and must rein in his behavior. The prior example, thus, can be shown as the inverse: the child's parents hold power over him in the form of the strict punishments, thus they can curtail any supposed rights he has, beyond those which the parents themselves recognize.

The example I've given you should prove how people do not have rights, but rather privileges, that are dolled out by a grudging master.

Now, to address the remaining points in your post. The only thing that is irresponsible is the dereliction of one's duties. I'm not speaking of duties to the state, but rather the duties to question, to comment, and if need be to rebel. So long as we remain enslaved to this concept of rights we are subordinates of the state, no matter what you may think, because it is the state that dictates the terms of the social contract. Indeed, I can name of a few dozen nations, kingdoms, and empires that totally refute the idea of the social contract, but to condense the list I'll name the biggest ones: China, Rome, Russia, Ethiopia, Mongolia, the Aztecs, as well as the colonial empires (specifically the citizens of the colonies themselves) of Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, and Japan. One only needs a beginners knowledge of their respective histories to know that the citizens entered into no such contract or indeed had such a contract forced on them. The governed gave up nearly all, if not then all, of their rights for nothing except pain, suffering, humiliation, and destruction at the hands of a privileged few who enjoyed these rights you name because they had the power to enforce them. If we stop questioning our government or we assume that the rights we enjoy are inalienable and, thus, cannot be taken away then we WILL lose the privilege to worship as we want to or to speak out against the government or to do many of the things we are lucky enough to be able to do. Right is a function of might and so long as the people forget that then we have no rights. Indeed, if you want a modern example of this, then look up the name of the female senator who is refusing to fill out the majority of her census form because ACORN is involved with it. She, and I can't remember her name for the life of me, faces steep fines and potentially jail time because it is the decree of the majority that to refuse to fill out the census results in those punishments. She believes she has the right to keep private information to herself, but because the government has already spoken on the issue she does not have that right, nor indeed do any of us who live in the US and have to fill out a census form.

tycoonmike: *epic wall of text*

You, sir, deserve a medal.

No. And what does religion have to do with this anyways?

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]

killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.

stepnkev

You call that justification logical?! What's this world coming to?

[QUOTE="stepnkev"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] You only say it's not justified because society has raised you up that way. And it's done that mostly because of religious effects on our society for the last few thousand years. Now he said in a world religion doesn't exist. Society has not been raised with the killing = bad aspect. In this situation We still have a roman sense of view where killing can be justified in many different situations. (which can be seen by the many forms of execution, war, killing etc that took place throughout the empire.) In this case killing would be ok, because he is able to justify it with logic.

ferrari2001

You call that justification logical?! What's this world coming to?

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="stepnkev"]

You call that justification logical?! What's this world coming to?

0Tyler0

Unless this rich man directly threatened the well being of this "Bob" character, then absolutely not.-Sun_Tzu-

Why not? Any reason?

[QUOTE="0Tyler0"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] I do not find it logically acceptable because of the society that I have been raised in. However if Bob was raised in that proposed society he would be able to justify that killing with simple logic. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]

killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.

ferrari2001

Actually i wrote in the example that Bob will get the money, will escape from law (though will accept punishment wholeheartedly if caught). And will use that money to help the poor, previously oppressed by that rich man. While I may agree that foundations are good, but ultimately the system itself isn't. Why should Bob care about it? He doesn't have any reason to do so. He blames society, and rightly so for even though foundation is good, yet system itself is flawed.MFaraz_Hayat

Anyway, to answer this point I would have to introduce other components and issues and maybe go off topic (and I will :P).

Basically there is no clean-cut and formulated answer as to why certain things mustnt be done. There is no single phrase you can tell someone to convince him/her of an error, a truth, a fact etc etc. Its the ongoing process of education (not only school of course).

It is true of course that by luck some get good education from their homes and by the same luck (but misfortune here) some dont. Education that will feed them with ideals and standards. To me there is no inherent direction a human would take (ie I dont believe in an evil human nature, neither in a good nature). But I do believe that goodness benefits everything. Maybe thats the closest I can get to a clean cut statement as to why some things shouldnt be done (still too vague and not persuasive). But your example revolves more around the emotions Bob feels and not what his logic might dictate and therefore there is no persuasion factor, is there?

Even if I do find a reason why, still Bob's feelings will be the same.

Anyway another point you are bringing up of course is the issue of luck. The luck that has "treated" Bob unfairly and has "treated" the rich man like a king. Sure luck brings people to the worst of situation sometimes. But to my mind this impression has stayed: that any, ANY experience can help a person become better if dealt with the right way. Sure easy to say but thats where education can help. Neither Bob nor the rich man received proper education. Bob has not learned that human life should not be taken away, and the rich has not learned that greed does not benefit the people around him (in fact it damages their welfare).

In other words, ignorance makes people evil (or put more accurately, the doers of evil, either willingly or unwillingly).

I hope that made sense and I actually said something relevant. :P

Life has an inherent value that a price cannot be placed on. With no religion, life would hold an even higher value as that is all a person gets.

The orignal question's answer from me depends on whether we can reach a consensus as to whether or not the knowledge of good from bad is innate or learned.D3nnyCrane

Good point.

I think that deep down it is innate but on its own, without further developement is inadequate.

It is easy imo to see that it is generally innate because if drawn to the extreme case, the wrong (the opposite of good) leads to harm. If harm is desired is not debatable imo and therefore we do have a general consensus that wrong is to be avoided.

Of course we are not only interested in the extreme cases of "wrong" and humans somehow must learn to realise and detect the wrong in less extreme (but not less important) cases where it is not so obvious.

[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]

killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.

ferrari2001

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]Actually i wrote in the example that Bob will get the money, will escape from law (though will accept punishment wholeheartedly if caught). And will use that money to help the poor, previously oppressed by that rich man. While I may agree that foundations are good, but ultimately the system itself isn't. Why should Bob care about it? He doesn't have any reason to do so. He blames society, and rightly so for even though foundation is good, yet system itself is flawed.Teenaged

Anyway, to answer this point I would have to introduce other components and issues and maybe go off topic (and I will :P).

Basically there is no clean-cut and formulated answer as to why certain things mustnt be done. There is no single phrase you can tell someone to convince him/her of an error, a truth, a fact etc etc. Its the ongoing process of education (not only school of course).

It is true of course that by luck some get good education from their homes and by the same luck (but misfortune here) some dont. Education that will feed them with ideals and standards. To me there is no inherent direction a human would take (ie I dont believe in an evil human nature, neither in a good nature). But I do believe that goodness benefits everything. Maybe thats the closest I can get to a clean cut statement as to why some things shouldnt be done (still too vague and not persuasive). But your example revolves more around the emotions Bob feels and not what his logic might dictate and therefore there is no persuasion factor, is there?

Even if I do find a reason why, still Bob's feelings will be the same.

Anyway another point you are bringing up of course is the issue of luck. The luck that has "treated" Bob unfairly and has "treated" the rich man like a king. Sure luck brings people to the worst of situation sometimes. But to my mind this impression has stayed: that any, ANY experience can help a person become better if dealt with the right way. Sure easy to say but thats where education can help. Neither Bob nor the rich man received proper education. Bob has not learned that human life should not be taken away, and the rich has not learned that greed does not benefit the people around him (in fact it damages their welfare).

In other words, ignorance makes people evil (or put more accurately, the doers of evil, either willingly or unwillingly).

I hope that made sense and I actually said something relevant. :P

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And you're missing the primary point I'm making: if you have to fight for it that thing IS NOT A RIGHT. It is a privilege! We live simply because the people in high places allow us to live. We are so obsessed with the concept of rights that we forget that one truth: right is a function of might. If you cannot fight for it or in some way purchase it you cannot have it. Indeed, if you're so up in arms about how we all have natural rights, to take a page out of George Carlin's book, look up the Japanese-American internment camps during the Second World War. They had NO rights simply because they or their ancestors were born in the wrong place and as such were forced, not asked to but forced, to live on reservations that can be called little more than shacks in the middle of the desert. If everyone had rights, least of all the right to live, why were those poor souls forced to live on those reservations?

tycoonmike

And we don't live simply because the people in high places allow us to live. To think such a way is incredibly dangerous, and incredibly irresponsible. I am not a mere subordinate of the state, who only lives because the state allows me to live. It's a two way street. That very principle is what all of western civilization is founded upon. The idea of a social contract between the governed and the government. The governed give up some rights, in return for social order and the protection of the natural rights that all men are entitled to. The only reason why the people in high places are in those high places is because the general public allows them to be in those places. A state that doesn't have the will of the people is not going to remain a state for very long.

As we've already covered the "right" to live, let's cover the magnificent poetry that is Thomas Jefferson.

Liberty: The men who signed that document, our Declaration of Independence, pledged to fight for liberty with their honor, their fortunes, and their lives. To quote ironically enough Thomas Jefferson, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The men who created the United States of America, not just the Founding Fathers but every single footslogger in the Continental Army, fought against what they saw as tyranny and many of them died in that pursuit of liberty. Of all the rights ever established by man, the right to liberty is perhaps the most fraudulent of all because it must be fought for or else it WILL perish from this earth. That is human nature, to dominate, and neither decree nor document will EVER change that.

Pursuit of Happiness: This pursuit is indeed inalienable, but is by no means a right. Lock me up, torture me, crown me emperor, no matter what one does to me I can pursue happiness so long as I can muster conscious thought, but no power on Earth can ever guarantee that I will find it.

Now to cover everything else. If the rights you have named are, indeed, inalienable then they CANNOT be infringed upon, no matter what. To prove this, I give to you several definitions of inalienable, from www.dictionary.com, listed in order from top to bottom:

1. Not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated

2. That cannot be transferred to another or others

3. Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright.

4. Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

All except for the second definition talk of how something that is inalienable cannot be transfered or repudiated. I think we can both agree that the Japanese-American's rights were repudiated by their forced exile to the internment camps, so how can we consider those rights inalienable. Furthermore, if these rights aren't inalienable and, thus, can be surrendered how are they rights in the first place? If their "rights" preventing the illegal seizure of their property (their bodies) were so easily surrendered to the United States government, how can we even consider ANYTHING in the Bill of "Rights" to be truly rights at all? Do not mistake this for infringement, because infringement implies there is something that can be infringed. Indeed, how can that even be considered infringement if the same government that grants these privileges, because they can only be considered privileges, decides to take them away? Isn't that just like a father taking away a privilege for an alleged wrongdoing?

Right is a function of might because in order to enjoy the privilege of a right there must be a force behind that right to protect it. To illustrate this, imagine a child sitting at the dinner table demanding candy. The child believes that it is his right to eat whatever he so chooses and if what he wants is candy then that's what he'll get! The parents, however, do not give him candy because it will ruin his dinner. Now, of course, the child will rant and rave about how he hates brussel sprouts and broccoli and how much he wants the candy, but the parents don't give in. Although this may take several weeks, if not months, of reinforcement, the child will ultimately understand that he does not have the right to eat candy for dinner. He'll still try to sneak a piece in here and there, but he gets severely punished if he does so.

Now, imagine, the same child ranting and raving about wanting candy but instead of holding firm the parents give in and give him the candy. Now, after significantly less reinforcement, the child believes he has the right to eat candy whenever he wants to and, when the parents actually grow a pair between them and stop giving him candy, the child will believe his right has been "infringed" upon. The child doesn't realize, however, that he held power over his parents in the form of his ranting and raving driving them up a wall. He had the ability to protect his rights until his parents discovered that he is just a boy and that they are the parents and must rein in his behavior. The prior example, thus, can be shown as the inverse: the child's parents hold power over him in the form of the strict punishments, thus they can curtail any supposed rights he has, beyond those which the parents themselves recognize.

The example I've given you should prove how people do not have rights, but rather privileges, that are dolled out by a grudging master.

Now, to address the remaining points in your post. The only thing that is irresponsible is the dereliction of one's duties. I'm not speaking of duties to the state, but rather the duties to question, to comment, and if need be to rebel. So long as we remain enslaved to this concept of rights we are subordinates of the state, no matter what you may think, because it is the state that dictates the terms of the social contract. Indeed, I can name of a few dozen nations, kingdoms, and empires that totally refute the idea of the social contract, but to condense the list I'll name the biggest ones: China, Rome, Russia, Ethiopia, Mongolia, the Aztecs, as well as the colonial empires (specifically the citizens of the colonies themselves) of Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, and Japan. One only needs a beginners knowledge of their respective histories to know that the citizens entered into no such contract or indeed had such a contract forced on them. The governed gave up nearly all, if not then all, of their rights for nothing except pain, suffering, humiliation, and destruction at the hands of a privileged few who enjoyed these rights you name because they had the power to enforce them. If we stop questioning our government or we assume that the rights we enjoy are inalienable and, thus, cannot be taken away then we WILL lose the privilege to worship as we want to or to speak out against the government or to do many of the things we are lucky enough to be able to do. Right is a function of might and so long as the people forget that then we have no rights. Indeed, if you want a modern example of this, then look up the name of the female senator who is refusing to fill out the majority of her census form because ACORN is involved with it. She, and I can't remember her name for the life of me, faces steep fines and potentially jail time because it is the decree of the majority that to refuse to fill out the census results in those punishments. She believes she has the right to keep private information to herself, but because the government has already spoken on the issue she does not have that right, nor indeed do any of us who live in the US and have to fill out a census form.

And I have no idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis the social contract, and I'm starting to think you don't understand the concept of it. The concept of inalienable rights and the social contract do not hinge on the lack of questioning of one's own government. It's not like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine said "Hey, these rights are inalienable; meaning they cannot be infringed upon; therefore the British government hasn't done anything wrong". That's not what they said at all. They said "Hey, these rights are inalienable, the government is infringing upon them, the social contract is now null and void, we have the right to rebel and start anew" The concept of a social contract reinforces the idea of being skeptical of ones own government, it does not refute it. I'm not saying it is impossible for rights to be infringed upon; I've been saying this whole time that rights OUGHT NOT be infringed upon.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Why not? Any reason?

Spicy-McHaggis

Killing can never be truly "Justified" IMHO

can anyone plzzz rephrase the whole story in the form of Q?

. I'm not saying it is impossible for rights to be infringed upon; I've been saying this whole time that rights OUGHT NOT be infringed upon.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]. I'm not saying it is impossible for rights to be infringed upon; I've been saying this whole time that rights OUGHT NOT be infringed upon.Vandalvideo

Alright, I do. You don't have to agree with the concept, but the concept is my justification for why Bob killing this wealthy individual is wrong, but if you are going to disagree with me, it is one thing to say as much and leave it at that or provide a sound rebuttal; it is another to provide a fallacious rebuttal.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Alright, I do. You don't have to agree with the concept, but the concept is my justification for why Bob killing this wealthy individual is wrong, but if you are going to disagree with me, it is one thing to say as much and leave it at that or provide a sound rebuttal; it is another to provide a fallacious rebuttal.Vandalvideo

Dude, no. Just no. You're wrong. What you are doing is fallacious. You are deducting "oughts" from "is's" and "is's" from "ought's". When something is inalienable it OUGHT not be infringed upon, not that it is something that cannot by definition, be infringed upon. You have this notion that rights are a function of might, and yet you have yet to provide a justification for that claim. The only "justification" is that because rights have been infringed upon, they ought not be rights, and since people have fought for the protection of their rights, they aren't really rights at all. That doesn't make any sense. You need to fill the the "is"/"ought" gap for your argument to be sound.

And I have no idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis the social contract, and I'm starting to think you don't understand the concept of it. The concept of inalienable rights and the social contract do not hinge on the lack of questioning of one's own government. It's not like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine said "Hey, these rights are inalienable; meaning they cannot be infringed upon; therefore the British government hasn't done anything wrong". That's not what they said at all. They said "Hey, these rights are inalienable, the government is infringing upon them, the social contract is now null and void, we have the right to rebel and start anew" The concept of a social contract reinforces the idea of being skeptical of ones own government, it does not refute it. I'm not saying it is impossible for rights to be infringed upon; I've been saying this whole time that rights OUGHT NOT be infringed upon.

-Sun_Tzu-

The very fact that they CAN BE INFRINGED UPON, as you so insist they were infringed upon, is all the evidence you need to show that right is a function of might. The Japanese-Americans who were, for lack of a better term, imprisoned could not defend their rights, thus they lost them. The government had the power to take their rights and thus did so. That is the justification, if something can be taken away it is a privilege, NOT a right. I can be enslaved, by the notion of rights, thus I do not have a right to liberty. I can not find happiness, thus I don't have a right to be happy. I can be killed, thus I don't have a right to live. Unless I can defend those "rights," unless I can guarantee that I will find happiness, that I cannot be enslaved, that I cannot die, I do not have them and indeed no one has them.

If you want more justification for how rights are functions of might, look at a nation like Zimbabwe. If the right to life is inalienable, why have millions died as a result of civil unrest and famine? If they had that right, wouldn't the earth provide for them? They could not defend against the forces of nature and government, thus they lost the privilege of their lives.

If you want justification for how rights are functions of might, look at a nation like Iran. If the right to liberty is inalienable, why has the government there authorized the use of tear gas, water cannons, and live ammunition to be used against protesters? If they had that right, wouldn't the government accede and let them protest? Although the protests continue, the ultimate goal of the protests has not been fulfilled, thus how can liberty be considered a right?

If you want justification for how rights are functions of might, look at humanity itself. If the right to happiness is inalienable, why do so many swing between misery and elation? If the right to happiness were inalienable, wouldn't everyone be happy all the time? Because we cannot defend against the forces and whims of nature, we suffer misery, thus we lose the right to happiness, but NOT the pursuit of happiness. We can pursue, but nothing will guarantee we get it.

Rights OUGHT NOT be infringed upon, I agree. Unfortunately because they can be and are infringed upon they are not rights. Jefferson, Paine, Washington, Franklin, they all knew that and fought so that they could protect those privileges. That is what I'm arguing against, not the idea that rights/privileges ought not be infringed upon, but the idea that those rights are indeed rights at all.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Dude, no. Just no. You're wrong. What you are doing is fallacious. You are deducting "oughts" from "is's" and "is's" from "ought's". When something is inalienable it OUGHT not be infringed upon, not that it is something that cannot by definition, be infringed upon. You have this notion that rights are a function of might, and yet you have yet to provide a justification for that claim. The only "justification" is that because rights have been infringed upon, they ought not be rights, and since people have fought for the protection of their rights, they aren't really rights at all. That doesn't make any sense. You need to fill the the "is"/"ought" gap for your argument to be sound.

And I have no idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis the social contract, and I'm starting to think you don't understand the concept of it. The concept of inalienable rights and the social contract do not hinge on the lack of questioning of one's own government. It's not like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine said "Hey, these rights are inalienable; meaning they cannot be infringed upon; therefore the British government hasn't done anything wrong". That's not what they said at all. They said "Hey, these rights are inalienable, the government is infringing upon them, the social contract is now null and void, we have the right to rebel and start anew" The concept of a social contract reinforces the idea of being skeptical of ones own government, it does not refute it. I'm not saying it is impossible for rights to be infringed upon; I've been saying this whole time that rights OUGHT NOT be infringed upon.

tycoonmike

The very fact that they CAN BE INFRINGED UPON, as you so insist they were infringed upon, is all the evidence you need to show that right is a function of might. The Japanese-Americans who were, for lack of a better term, imprisoned could not defend their rights, thus they lost them. The government had the power to take their rights and thus did so. That is the justification, if something can be taken away it is a privilege, NOT a right. I can be enslaved, by the notion of rights, thus I do not have a right to liberty. I can not find happiness, thus I don't have a right to be happy. I can be killed, thus I don't have a right to live. Unless I can defend those "rights," unless I can guarantee that I will find happiness, that I cannot be enslaved, that I cannot die, I do not have them and indeed no one has them.

If you want more justification for how rights are functions of might, look at a nation like Zimbabwe. If the right to life is inalienable, why have millions died as a result of civil unrest and famine? If they had that right, wouldn't the earth provide for them? They could not defend against the forces of nature and government, thus they lost the privilege of their lives.

If you want justification for how rights are functions of might, look at a nation like Iran. If the right to liberty is inalienable, why has the government there authorized the use of tear gas, water cannons, and live ammunition to be used against protesters? If they had that right, wouldn't the government accede and let them protest? Although the protests continue, the ultimate goal of the protests has not been fulfilled, thus how can liberty be considered a right?

If you want justification for how rights are functions of might, look at humanity itself. If the right to happiness is inalienable, why do so many swing between misery and elation? If the right to happiness were inalienable, wouldn't everyone be happy all the time? Because we cannot defend against the forces and whims of nature, we suffer misery, thus we lose the right to happiness, but NOT the pursuit of happiness. We can pursue, but nothing will guarantee we get it.

Rights OUGHT NOT be infringed upon, I agree. Unfortunately because they can be and are infringed upon they are not rights. Jefferson, Paine, Washington, Franklin, they all knew that and fought so that they could protect those privileges. That is what I'm arguing against, not the idea that rights/privileges ought not be infringed upon, but the idea that those rights are indeed rights at all.

That's not fill the is/ought gap. Just because there are people who obtain rights through might does not mean that only through might, one is entitled to life, liberty, yadda yadda yadda thus diminishing them to nothing more than a privledge. All the people you listed considered those things rights, not privledges. A privledge implies having to earn something. None of those people you listed believe that one must earn rights through might in order to be entitled to them. It was quite the opposite. They believed that we are all born with those rights; that they are intristic in our nature. It would be one thing if you said that one must fight for the privledge to not have their rights infringed upon; but saying that because rights have been infringed upon, then they are not rights at all is a non sequitar. It does not follow. And I never said that there was a right to hapiness. And even there was, that right, like all other rights, can be infringed. But all I said was that there was the right to the pursuit of happiness. And you bring up Iran. What the Iranian government is doing is not right. But that does not mean that the Iranian protestors do not have a right to do what they are doing. The Iranian protestors are in the right, the Iranian government is in the wrong; but that does not refute inalienable rights.-Sun_Tzu-

You EARN life by the mother paying for it in pain and suffering. Our forefathers EARNED liberty and the pursuit of happiness by fighting and, in some cases, dying for it. Nothing in life is free of cost, least of all "rights." As you have stated, a privilege implies earning something. If life is a right, then the mother wouldn't have to either go under the knife or go through severe pain to bring the child into the world. If liberty and the pursuit are rights then our forefathers didn't have to fight and die to witness it. They BOUGHT AND EARNED all three of them with pain and suffering and, in some cases, death. By your own words, would that not relegate all rights to the status of privileges?

Frankly, the only thing that is fallacious in this entire argument is your notion that these things are just GIVEN to us at our birth. If that were the case, why did we fight Hitler and Hirohito in the Second World War? Why did we fight the British in our revolution? Why have people had to die in order to secure the freedoms and "rights" we abuse by claiming they are simply granted to us?

Frankly, the only thing that is fallacious in this entire argument is your notion that these things are just GIVEN to us at our birth. If that were the case, why did we fight Hitler and Hirohito in the Second World War? Why did we fight the British in our revolution? Why have people had to die in order to secure the freedoms and "rights" we abuse by claiming they are simply granted to us?

tycoonmike

No one has ever suggested that if inalienable rights existed, oppression wouldn't. The two are not mutually exclusive. No one has ever suggested that the existence of inalienable rights does not mean that it is unnecessaryfor people from time to time have to refresh the tree of liberty just because there are certain inalienable rights. Again, the protection of inalienable rights are an "ought", not an "is". And just because inalienable rights have been infringed upon, that does not mean they don't exist at all. That is a non sequitar; it does not logically follow.

Because although we are born free, everywhere man is in chains. I'm not saying rights are given to people on a silver platter. I'm not saying that it is physically impossible for the government to come into my house one night and kill me, because I have the inalienable right to life. That's not what I'm saying at all. But we are all born with the right to life; i.e. there is no need for a justification of that right.Ceteris paribus, my right to life is nonnegotiable.

No one has ever suggested that if inalienable rights existed, oppression wouldn't. The two are not mutually exclusive. No one has ever suggested that the existence of inalienable rights does not mean that it is unnecessaryfor people from time to time have to refresh the tree of liberty just because there are certain inalienable rights. Again, the protection of inalienable rights are an "ought", not an "is". And just because inalienable rights have been infringed upon, that does not mean they don't exist at all. That is a non sequitar; it does not logically follow.

-Sun_Tzu-

If something must be fought for, if it isn't given to us on a silver platter it is not a right by your own admission. You ignore my point, again. My point isn't that rights are an ought/is relationship, my point is that they do not exist so long as they must be fought for and suffered for and killed for. How difficult is that to understand? If you must pay for it, whether with money, pain, blood, or life itself, it is not a right. It is a privilege that must be fought for so that it can be retained, if even for five more minutes. That, above all else, proves that rights are fallacies born from a government who wishes to enslave its people.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Because although we are born free, everywhere man is in chains. I'm not saying rights are given to people on a silver platter. I'm not saying that it is physically impossible for the government to come into my house one night and kill me, because I have the inalienable right to life. That's not what I'm saying at all. But we are all born with the right to life; i.e. there is no need for a justification of that right.Ceteris paribus, my right to life is nonnegotiable.

No one has ever suggested that if inalienable rights existed, oppression wouldn't. The two are not mutually exclusive. No one has ever suggested that the existence of inalienable rights does not mean that it is unnecessaryfor people from time to time have to refresh the tree of liberty just because there are certain inalienable rights. Again, the protection of inalienable rights are an "ought", not an "is". And just because inalienable rights have been infringed upon, that does not mean they don't exist at all. That is a non sequitar; it does not logically follow.

tycoonmike

If something must be fought for, if it isn't given to us on a silver platter it is not a right by your own admission. You ignore my point, again. My point isn't that rights are an ought/is relationship, my point is that they do not exist so long as they must be fought for and suffered for and killed for. How difficult is that to understand? If you must pay for it, whether with money, pain, blood, or life itself, it is not a right. It is a privilege that must be fought for so that it can be retained, if even for five more minutes. That, above all else, proves that rights are fallacies born from a government who wishes to enslave its people.

1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval

2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property -often used in plural (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature

3: something that one may properly claim as due

There is nothing in any of those definitions that suggests that the act of fighting for a specific right diminishes that right to nothing more than a privilege. You have yet to make sense of that claim. Everything I've said fits in perfect accordance with what a right is.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Ah I must have missed it (it was reaaaaally late when I was typing...).

Anyway, to answer this point I would have to introduce other components and issues and maybe go off topic (and I will :P).

Basically there is no clean-cut and formulated answer as to why certain things mustnt be done. There is no single phrase you can tell someone to convince him/her of an error, a truth, a fact etc etc. Its the ongoing process of education (not only school of course).

It is true of course that by luck some get good education from their homes and by the same luck (but misfortune here) some dont. Education that will feed them with ideals and standards. To me there is no inherent direction a human would take (ie I dont believe in an evil human nature, neither in a good nature). But I do believe that goodness benefits everything. Maybe thats the closest I can get to a clean cut statement as to why some things shouldnt be done (still too vague and not persuasive). But your example revolves more around the emotions Bob feels and not what his logic might dictate and therefore there is no persuasion factor, is there?

Even if I do find a reason why, still Bob's feelings will be the same.

Anyway another point you are bringing up of course is the issue of luck. The luck that has "treated" Bob unfairly and has "treated" the rich man like a king. Sure luck brings people to the worst of situation sometimes. But to my mind this impression has stayed: that any, ANY experience can help a person become better if dealt with the right way. Sure easy to say but thats where education can help. Neither Bob nor the rich man received proper education. Bob has not learned that human life should not be taken away, and the rich has not learned that greed does not benefit the people around him (in fact it damages their welfare).

In other words, ignorance makes people evil (or put more accurately, the doers of evil, either willingly or unwillingly).

I hope that made sense and I actually said something relevant. :P

bluebusiness

It is justified, as it did have a cause, but he must acknowledge that he did indeed took away a life, and therefore denied the rich man's right to enjoy life and his money. It doesn't matter how bad he was or whatever the rich man has done, he has the right to enjoy life simply because he is able to.

Hence, the murderer acted is a "wrong" way, as it involved taking one's life, but it indeed was not unjustified, and it might have been even beneficial to everyone else.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Because although we are born free, everywhere man is in chains. I'm not saying rights are given to people on a silver platter. I'm not saying that it is physically impossible for the government to come into my house one night and kill me, because I have the inalienable right to life. That's not what I'm saying at all. But we are all born with the right to life; i.e. there is no need for a justification of that right.Ceteris paribus, my right to life is nonnegotiable.

No one has ever suggested that if inalienable rights existed, oppression wouldn't. The two are not mutually exclusive. No one has ever suggested that the existence of inalienable rights does not mean that it is unnecessaryfor people from time to time have to refresh the tree of liberty just because there are certain inalienable rights. Again, the protection of inalienable rights are an "ought", not an "is". And just because inalienable rights have been infringed upon, that does not mean they don't exist at all. That is a non sequitar; it does not logically follow.

-Sun_Tzu-

If something must be fought for, if it isn't given to us on a silver platter it is not a right by your own admission. You ignore my point, again. My point isn't that rights are an ought/is relationship, my point is that they do not exist so long as they must be fought for and suffered for and killed for. How difficult is that to understand? If you must pay for it, whether with money, pain, blood, or life itself, it is not a right. It is a privilege that must be fought for so that it can be retained, if even for five more minutes. That, above all else, proves that rights are fallacies born from a government who wishes to enslave its people.

1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval

2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property -often used in plural (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature

3: something that one may properly claim as due

There is nothing in any of those definitions that suggests that the act of fighting for a specific right diminishes that right to nothing more than a privilege. You have yet to make sense of that claim. Everything I've said fits in perfect accordance with what a right is.

And you criticized me for using dictionary definitions...

You seem to have neglected another definition of rights, that which states rights are human, not natural, constructs (LINK, forgive the Wikipedia). "On the other hand, these basic rights may be considered to be of a purely posited nature, i.e., the idea of legal rights, which are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and subject to change." My position is also supported, so who is right, no pun intended? Rights created by legislative authority are created because the legislative authority has the power to defend them. Now, perhaps, you can see where I'm coming from? I believe VandalVideo said it best, this is basically Socrates debating Lao-Tzu. Both of our arguments are defended by others who can put them more eloquently and more concisely.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

If something must be fought for, if it isn't given to us on a silver platter it is not a right by your own admission. You ignore my point, again. My point isn't that rights are an ought/is relationship, my point is that they do not exist so long as they must be fought for and suffered for and killed for. How difficult is that to understand? If you must pay for it, whether with money, pain, blood, or life itself, it is not a right. It is a privilege that must be fought for so that it can be retained, if even for five more minutes. That, above all else, proves that rights are fallacies born from a government who wishes to enslave its people.

tycoonmike

1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval

2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property -often used in plural (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature

3: something that one may properly claim as due

There is nothing in any of those definitions that suggests that the act of fighting for a specific right diminishes that right to nothing more than a privilege. You have yet to make sense of that claim. Everything I've said fits in perfect accordance with what a right is.

And you criticized me for using dictionary definitions...

You seem to have neglected another definition of rights, that which states rights are human, not natural, constructs (LINK, forgive the Wikipedia). "On the other hand, these basic rights may be considered to be of a purely posited nature, i.e., the idea of legal rights, which are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and subject to change." My position is also supported, so who is right, no pun intended? Rights created by legislative authority are created because the legislative authority has the power to defend them. Now, perhaps, you can see where I'm coming from? I believe VandalVideo said it best, this is basically Socrates debating Lao-Tzu. Both of our arguments are defended by others who can put them more eloquently and more concisely.

Anyway, you didn't say that rights are simply a human construct. If you said that I wouldn't have a problem with your argument. What you did was make a pseudo-distinction between rights and privileges, and made it seem like the concept of inalienable rights leads one to complacency (which doesn't make any sense when you look at who advocated for the concept of inalienable rights throughout history).

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Dude, no. You obviosuly don't know what the definition of a right is.

1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval

2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property -often used in plural (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature

3: something that one may properly claim as due

There is nothing in any of those definitions that suggests that the act of fighting for a specific right diminishes that right to nothing more than a privilege. You have yet to make sense of that claim. Everything I've said fits in perfect accordance with what a right is.

-Sun_Tzu-

And you criticized me for using dictionary definitions...

You seem to have neglected another definition of rights, that which states rights are human, not natural, constructs (LINK, forgive the Wikipedia). "On the other hand, these basic rights may be considered to be of a purely posited nature, i.e., the idea of legal rights, which are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and subject to change." My position is also supported, so who is right, no pun intended? Rights created by legislative authority are created because the legislative authority has the power to defend them. Now, perhaps, you can see where I'm coming from? I believe VandalVideo said it best, this is basically Socrates debating Lao-Tzu. Both of our arguments are defended by others who can put them more eloquently and more concisely.

Anyway, you didn't say that rights are simply a human construct. If you said that I wouldn't have a problem with your argument. What you did was make a pseudo-distinction between rights and privileges, and made it seem like the concept of inalienable rights leads one to complacency (which doesn't make any sense when you look at who advocated for the concept of inalienable rights throughout history).

I said rights are a function of might, my original premise and the premise upon which this entire argument is based. The above definition supports my position: the decisions of alegislative body are generally supported by the rest of the government and, by extension, the military, thus the rights the legislative body grants to the people they rule over are protected by the government and military that represents them; rights as a function of might.

I have no problem with the concept of rights, but I do have a problem with people who claim these rights are natural. Perhaps I should have been clearer, not rights in general but the concept of natural or inalienable rights?

I am debunking the idea of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and it is by that standard I make the claim that these rights are nothing more than privileges. If these rights are inalienable then they CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY by any power in this universe. We can die, we can not find happiness, and half the world lives under either authoritarian governments or authoritarian cultures, all three of these facts, as per the definition of inalienable (something that cannot be repudiated, see previous post) are not inalienable. If we have a right to live, why do we die? If we have a right to liberty, why do half the people on earth live under authoritarian conditions? If we have a right to pursue happiness, why don't all of us find it? If we have an inalienable right to all three of these things why do we need to defendthem against nature and humanity unless they all derive from theability to enforce them whether by medicines, vices, or arms?

Unless you are stating that the definitions of both inalienable and rights are open to interpretation beyond that which is written in encyclopedias and dictionaries? A logical fallacy on my part, to assume such a thing and use it against you, but something I want cleared up.

killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.

LeGoofyGoober

If these rights are inalienable then they CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY by any power in this universe.

tycoonmike

Again, that is notwhat inalienable rights are. The term "inalienable" is used not in the sense that it is literally impossible for certain entitlements to be taken away by any authority in the universe, but in a more rhetorical sense that is used in order to express the idea that these are rights that cannotjustly be compromised or taken away all together between two or more parties, unless one of those parties infringes on the rights of another.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]If these rights are inalienable then they CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY by any power in this universe.

-Sun_Tzu-

Again, that is notwhat inalienable rights are. The term "inalienable" is used not in the sense that it is literally impossible for certain entitlements to be taken away by any authority in the universe, but in a more rhetorical sense that is used in order to express the idea that these are rights that cannotjustly be compromised or taken away all together between two or more parties, unless one of those parties infringes on the rights of another.

Inalienable, definition: not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated.

Repudiate, definition: to reject as having no authority or binding force

Both from www.dictionary.com

In reference to my argument about how God can be considered the universe, our positions are reversed. Don't blame me for bringing it up, because you were the one that did so in the first place. You are trying to apply a wishful definition upon the word inalienable whereas I'm sticking to the textbook definition.

Beyond that, though, you are ignoring the definition of inalienable. On the web page for the word's definition, all but one of the definitions mention, in some way, how something described as inalienable as being unable to be repudiated. If you die, your right to life is repudiated. If you are enslaved, whether by a government, a culture, a religion, or an idea, your right to liberty is repudiated. If you find misery, your right to pursue happiness has been, albeit temporarily, repudiated. Because all three can be and are repudiated every single day the only thing I can conclude is that the three must not be inalienable.