Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
According to Locke there are three natural rights:
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
Indeed. And those three natural rights should be written in the law. Which is why abortion should be forbidden (except for the cases I pointed out), see the first natural right.
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
Indeed. And those three natural rights should be written in the law. Which is why abortion should be forbidden (except for the cases I pointed out), see the first natural right.
Just a quick one but does n a 1 actually care about election time? Maybe 30-40 years ago......
The first 'right' is one where you can argue with. Why let anyone come to life with a handicap he or she has to suffer with from birth?
Like I said, there are cases that are exceptions.
The problem are just those exceptions. Where do you draw the line? As abortion for spina bifida can be considerd correct, it can also be operated etcetera...
Where do you draw the line?
No idea. I don't know anything about such rare diseases. Doctors are in a far better position to judge that.
No idea. I don't know anything about such rare diseases. Doctors are in a far better position to judge that.
That it is from Locke doesn't mean there is sense to it.
He has some basically good ideas, but a lot is outdated, due to 300 years evolvement (some more, some less, some degraded) but nevertheless basic line is outdated.
Just an example: he still accepted slavery, there are several others.
Of course it is important to know about him and understand it to some part.
But the main line is, that it is outdated, and something like abortion does not fit in it anyway, due to Lockes lack of the knowledge about it.
That would be, to be precise, the same utter bs, all those religious fanatics try to find in there silly books to solve problems of today.
It is kinda lame.
He has some basically good ideas, but a lot is outdated, due to 300 years evolvement (some more, some less, some degraded) but nevertheless basic line is outdated.
Just an example: he still accepted slavery, there are several others.
Of course it is important to know about him and understand it to some part.
But the main line is, that it is outdated, and something like abortion does not fit in it anyway, due to Lockes lack of the knowledge about it.
That would be, to be precise, the same utter bs, all those religious fanatics try to find in there silly books to solve problems of today.
It is kinda lame.
I'll try to explain it as good as I can.
There are different categories: 1) Legal rights, 2) Moral rights and 3) Moral duties.
1) Is what the law at this very moment says what the rights of people are. Most of the time, it is decided democratically.
2) Is what a person believes are the basic rights of people. This is personal.
3) Is what a person believes is the right thing to do in order to be a good person.
ok, I agree.
But never mix this categories..
for the rest, no matters why people wants rules and laws. Remember there's no rule that every society had. and no rule any man likes.
There are different categories: 1) Legal rights, 2) Moral rights and 3) Moral duties.
1) Is what the law at this very moment says what the rights of people are. Most of the time, it is decided democratically.
2) Is what a person believes are the basic rights of people. This is personal.
3) Is what a person believes is the right thing to do in order to be a good person.
ok, I agree.
But never mix this categories..
for the rest, no matters why people wants rules and laws. Remember there's no rule that every society had. and no rule any man likes.
According to Locke there are three natural rights:
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
Indeed. And those three natural rights should be written in the law. Which is why abortion should be forbidden (except for the cases I pointed out), see the first natural right.
exscuse me but,
J. locke is prehistory..
there's nothing in reality called "natural rights" (*)
DEMONSTRATION:
there's no rule that is present in any society.
So you can prefer that this 3 rights are written in the law, but it is a choice as good as the opposite.
This "must" you writed, I'll read as "I would like", it can't be anything else..
(*) there's still people in this world that believe in natural rights:
-the most of them need it to keep their teories working (fe: I've made an canonic right exam, and you'll laugh at their theories if you know them..)
-the rest just forget the reality of facts and probably has not the mental instrumencts (culture, skill, ideologism-free) to analize this problem.
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
Indeed. And those three natural rights should be written in the law. Which is why abortion should be forbidden (except for the cases I pointed out), see the first natural right.
exscuse me but,
J. locke is prehistory..
there's nothing in reality called "natural rights" (*)
DEMONSTRATION:
there's no rule that is present in any society.
So you can prefer that this 3 rights are written in the law, but it is a choice as good as the opposite.
This "must" you writed, I'll read as "I would like", it can't be anything else..
(*) there's still people in this world that believe in natural rights:
-the most of them need it to keep their teories working (fe: I've made an canonic right exam, and you'll laugh at their theories if you know them..)
-the rest just forget the reality of facts and probably has not the mental instrumencts (culture, skill, ideologism-free) to analize this problem.
Can you understand that these rights have no sense if a man is totally alone ???
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Who can delete this man alone ? Nobody... Thus, there is no need of any right... End of discussion... And the right begins to exist as soon as 2 persons are concerned as Locke had imagined this... It had sense in his mind only because humans already lived on earth without legal rights... So obvious...
Of course that defining Johnny's rights doesn't have much sense while he is alone on the island but you still can't say that he doesn't have any rights. It would be more fair to say that he has maximum possible rights. He can do whatever he wants. Ergo, he has all the rights he can think of. He can even define his rights for himself like e.g. the amount of coconuts he can eat per day so we can't also say that defining the rights has no sense at all.
Even the animals and plants living there have their default natural rights and their rights can influence Johnny's rights and vice versa. E.g. Johnny's rights might be endangered if e.g. a tiger also lives there so Johnny can't walk around the island as freely as he might like. He can then kill the tiger and remove tiger's right to life and thus enhance his own rights. He can also capture the tiger and torture him and thus reduce tiger's right to his own dignity which is another example of an inherent right of all living beings.
I mentioned Locke because it is clear that he also understood and tried to define these basic inherent rights that already naturally exist for humans even before they get defined by laws. There are obviously rights that we can derive easily from pure common sense because they are simply part of our essence.
The problem is that some people often like to imagine that they are the highest authority for making laws and assigning rights in our world. Therefore, they don't like this natural approach and they try all they can to argue that the default situation is "no rights (until we say which ones exactly)". That way they also ensure that their own rights are by default larger than they would be if they also considered their natural sense and characteristics.
And so, these people are also able to argue that they can redefine the existence of unborn babies' natural rights in a way that enhances their own selfish rights. They see humans merely as intelligent animals and they are able to kill these babies using the similar reasoning as our Johnny for killing his tiger - simply to enhance their selfish freedom during their limited existence on this planet.
(edited)
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Who can delete this man alone ? Nobody... Thus, there is no need of any right... End of discussion... And the right begins to exist as soon as 2 persons are concerned as Locke had imagined this... It had sense in his mind only because humans already lived on earth without legal rights... So obvious...
Of course that defining Johnny's rights doesn't have much sense while he is alone on the island but you still can't say that he doesn't have any rights. It would be more fair to say that he has maximum possible rights. He can do whatever he wants. Ergo, he has all the rights he can think of. He can even define his rights for himself like e.g. the amount of coconuts he can eat per day so we can't also say that defining the rights has no sense at all.
Even the animals and plants living there have their default natural rights and their rights can influence Johnny's rights and vice versa. E.g. Johnny's rights might be endangered if e.g. a tiger also lives there so Johnny can't walk around the island as freely as he might like. He can then kill the tiger and remove tiger's right to life and thus enhance his own rights. He can also capture the tiger and torture him and thus reduce tiger's right to his own dignity which is another example of an inherent right of all living beings.
I mentioned Locke because it is clear that he also understood and tried to define these basic inherent rights that already naturally exist for humans even before they get defined by laws. There are obviously rights that we can derive easily from pure common sense because they are simply part of our essence.
The problem is that some people often like to imagine that they are the highest authority for making laws and assigning rights in our world. Therefore, they don't like this natural approach and they try all they can to argue that the default situation is "no rights (until we say which ones exactly)". That way they also ensure that their own rights are by default larger than they would be if they also considered their natural sense and characteristics.
And so, these people are also able to argue that they can redefine the existence of unborn babies' natural rights in a way that enhances their own selfish rights. They see humans merely as intelligent animals and they are able to kill these babies using the similar reasoning as our Johnny for killing his tiger - simply to enhance their selfish freedom during their limited existence on this planet.
(edited)
ok, I agree.
But never mix this categories..
You do understand that by agreeing with this you contradict your claim than our Johnny doesn't have any rights alone on his island? He still has moral rights (beliefs about his basic rights). He has a belief about his right to torture the tiger.
But never mix this categories..
You do understand that by agreeing with this you contradict your claim than our Johnny doesn't have any rights alone on his island? He still has moral rights (beliefs about his basic rights). He has a belief about his right to torture the tiger.
You do understand that by agreeing with this you contradict your claim than our Johnny doesn't have any rights alone on his island? He still has moral rights (beliefs about his basic rights). He has a belief about his right to torture the tiger.
this is twisting words.
johnny has no right of the first typo (law right), the only that interest us in this discussion.
the second and tirhd category are not so interesting to us in this discussion, becasue those categories will include everything and it's opposite..
(I we discuss of astronomics, is useless to debate of the freedom to believe on flat earth, this freedom exist, but what it has to do with uor discussion?)
this is twisting words.
johnny has no right of the first typo (law right), the only that interest us in this discussion.
the second and tirhd category are not so interesting to us in this discussion, becasue those categories will include everything and it's opposite..
(I we discuss of astronomics, is useless to debate of the freedom to believe on flat earth, this freedom exist, but what it has to do with uor discussion?)
Of course that defining Johnny's rights doesn't have much sense while he is alone on the island but you still can't say that he doesn't have any rights. It would be more fair to say that he has maximum possible rights. He can do whatever he wants. Ergo, he has all the rights he can think of. He can even define his rights for himself like e.g. the amount of coconuts he can eat per day so we can't also say that defining the rights has no sense at all.
escuse me, but these are bullshits.
johnny has no positive rights. The only that exist, the rest doesn't exist, it's like saying :
johnny has an unicorn. Why? Because Locke said everybody has one. SO he has one too..
but if you take a closer look to Johnny' island PROBABLY you won't find any unicorn..
the same with his natural rights.. find them...
escuse me, but these are bullshits.
johnny has no positive rights. The only that exist, the rest doesn't exist, it's like saying :
johnny has an unicorn. Why? Because Locke said everybody has one. SO he has one too..
but if you take a closer look to Johnny' island PROBABLY you won't find any unicorn..
the same with his natural rights.. find them...
Of course that defining Johnny's rights doesn't have much sense while he is alone on the island but you still can't say that he doesn't have any rights. It would be more fair to say that he has maximum possible rights. He can do whatever he wants. Ergo, he has all the rights he can think of. He can even define his rights for himself like e.g. the amount of coconuts he can eat per day so you can't also say that defining the rights has no sense at all.
Your arguments still don't sound valid for me... In your example, you took "right" word and me i would take "need" word... Useless discussion as same discussion if you told me God exists and me told you it is not.
Even the animals and plants living there have their default natural rights and their rights can influence Johnny's rights and vice versa. E.g. Johnny's rights might be endangered if e.g. a tiger also lives there so Johnny can't walk around the island as freely as he might like. He can then kill the tiger and remove tiger's right to life and thus enhance his own rights. He can also capture the tiger and torture him and thus reduce tiger's right to his own dignity which is another example of an inherent right of all living beings.
Here, i can feel a problem into your argumentation... You talked about default natural rights for animals and plants... Ok, so as far as i know no one could ever have any communication with animals and plants to konw what they think, if they think, what they want and so on, you, human impose your thought upon those lives ? Very pretentious...
I mentioned Locke because it is clear that he also understood and tried to define these basic inherent rights that already naturally exist for humans even before they get defined by laws. There are obviously rights that we can derive easily from pure common sense because they are simply part of our essence.
As i said before, Locke could find those natural rights onyl because human life has already existed and therefore there were already more than one lonely human to be able to think about it... So yes, those rights were leaded before any legal rights were formed but those natural rights only existed as soon as those ideas were used by 2 lifes... No ?... Thus, why did you use the tiger and Johnny as example ! :-p
, these people are also able to argue that they can redefine the existence of unborn babies' natural rights in a way that enhances their own selfish rights. They see humans merely as intelligent animals and they are able to kill these babies using the similar reasoning as our Johnny for killing his tiger. To enhance their selfish freedom during their limited existence on this planet.
Before answering here, i'd just like to come back with the story of Johnny and the tiger... As far as i know, the tiger will use all what is possible to survive... What are his needs : water, food (meat for most of cases as a carnivorous specie) to survive... There are some meat front of him : Johnny. He thus will use all his strenght to fight to eat this meal... (You, Sacha, here see right whereas i only see need) using the very famous : the law of the strongest... Johnny has got his 3 rights in his mind... He can't do what he wants as the tiger could eat him... 2nd right is not maintained... He wants to use the 1st right... He is entitled to live... He killed or captured the tiger... He kept his rights (or enhance as you said)... Two cases appeared : or he thinks (as you think) that tiger has same rights as him, then there is a master fail in using natural rights because one (the tiger here) lost his rights and maybe it will be good to use other type of rights : law, contract... Or he does'nt think the tiger got same human rights and who cares about those natural rights too ? As they are useless as for Johnny as for the tiger...
Thus, as the unborn baby is similar to the tiger here (you evoked that) then or YOU (so pretentious human) decide which is good for him, you decide to give him what is right or wrong for him, or you use law to find the better conditions for both (parents (mostly mother) and embryo)
Your arguments still don't sound valid for me... In your example, you took "right" word and me i would take "need" word... Useless discussion as same discussion if you told me God exists and me told you it is not.
Even the animals and plants living there have their default natural rights and their rights can influence Johnny's rights and vice versa. E.g. Johnny's rights might be endangered if e.g. a tiger also lives there so Johnny can't walk around the island as freely as he might like. He can then kill the tiger and remove tiger's right to life and thus enhance his own rights. He can also capture the tiger and torture him and thus reduce tiger's right to his own dignity which is another example of an inherent right of all living beings.
Here, i can feel a problem into your argumentation... You talked about default natural rights for animals and plants... Ok, so as far as i know no one could ever have any communication with animals and plants to konw what they think, if they think, what they want and so on, you, human impose your thought upon those lives ? Very pretentious...
I mentioned Locke because it is clear that he also understood and tried to define these basic inherent rights that already naturally exist for humans even before they get defined by laws. There are obviously rights that we can derive easily from pure common sense because they are simply part of our essence.
As i said before, Locke could find those natural rights onyl because human life has already existed and therefore there were already more than one lonely human to be able to think about it... So yes, those rights were leaded before any legal rights were formed but those natural rights only existed as soon as those ideas were used by 2 lifes... No ?... Thus, why did you use the tiger and Johnny as example ! :-p
, these people are also able to argue that they can redefine the existence of unborn babies' natural rights in a way that enhances their own selfish rights. They see humans merely as intelligent animals and they are able to kill these babies using the similar reasoning as our Johnny for killing his tiger. To enhance their selfish freedom during their limited existence on this planet.
Before answering here, i'd just like to come back with the story of Johnny and the tiger... As far as i know, the tiger will use all what is possible to survive... What are his needs : water, food (meat for most of cases as a carnivorous specie) to survive... There are some meat front of him : Johnny. He thus will use all his strenght to fight to eat this meal... (You, Sacha, here see right whereas i only see need) using the very famous : the law of the strongest... Johnny has got his 3 rights in his mind... He can't do what he wants as the tiger could eat him... 2nd right is not maintained... He wants to use the 1st right... He is entitled to live... He killed or captured the tiger... He kept his rights (or enhance as you said)... Two cases appeared : or he thinks (as you think) that tiger has same rights as him, then there is a master fail in using natural rights because one (the tiger here) lost his rights and maybe it will be good to use other type of rights : law, contract... Or he does'nt think the tiger got same human rights and who cares about those natural rights too ? As they are useless as for Johnny as for the tiger...
Thus, as the unborn baby is similar to the tiger here (you evoked that) then or YOU (so pretentious human) decide which is good for him, you decide to give him what is right or wrong for him, or you use law to find the better conditions for both (parents (mostly mother) and embryo)
johnny has no right of the first typo (law right), the only that interest us in this discussion.
the second and tirhd category are not so interesting to us in this discussion, becasue those categories will include everything and it's opposite..
(I we discuss of astronomics, is useless to debate of the freedom to believe on flat earth, this freedom exist, but what it has to do with uor discussion?)
LOL
So, you wrote an argument that a man alone on the island doesn't have any rights because you wanted to say that he has no legal rights there. :D
Well, thank you very much, el pupe. This is very useful information. Thank you for pointing that out.
This has gone from elementary school to kindergarten level...
And btw (my last try of despair) all these 3 interconnected categories: legal rights, moral rights and moral duties can include everything and, yes, it can even be opposite. There are many examples of crazy and contradictory laws as well. The point of this discussion is about which choices in all of these 3 interconnected categories are good, useful and beautiful and which are not.
Your arguments still don't sound valid for me... In your example, you took "right" word and me i would take "need" word... Useless discussion as same discussion if you told me God exists and me told you it is not.
Right is not the same as need here. Johnny has the right to kill the tiger because humans are masters of animals on Earth. Still, he doesn't need to kill the tiger to survive. He can also accept that he simply has less rights (freedom of moving around the island) and be more careful about avoiding the tiger's territory. Killing the tiger is his right but not his need.
Here, i can feel a problem into your argumentation... You talked about default natural rights for animals and plants... Ok, so as far as i know no one could ever have any communication with animals and plants to konw what they think, if they think, what they want and so on, you, human impose your thought upon those lives ? Very pretentious...
LOL
So, you think that humans are not able do understand what animals want? We are not able to understand that tiger wants to live without being tortured? I am sorry, but that is just too funny. Now we have moved away even from kindergarten level because even small kids would know what tiger thinks about this. :D
...Thus, why did you use the tiger and Johnny as example ! :-p
Because even a tiger has his natural default rights that other living beings can take away or even improve. Some people are even absurdly extreme about animal rights and they try to expand their natural rights and even equate them with human rights.
Right is not the same as need here. Johnny has the right to kill the tiger because humans are masters of animals on Earth. Still, he doesn't need to kill the tiger to survive. He can also accept that he simply has less rights (freedom of moving around the island) and be more careful about avoiding the tiger's territory. Killing the tiger is his right but not his need.
Here, i can feel a problem into your argumentation... You talked about default natural rights for animals and plants... Ok, so as far as i know no one could ever have any communication with animals and plants to konw what they think, if they think, what they want and so on, you, human impose your thought upon those lives ? Very pretentious...
LOL
So, you think that humans are not able do understand what animals want? We are not able to understand that tiger wants to live without being tortured? I am sorry, but that is just too funny. Now we have moved away even from kindergarten level because even small kids would know what tiger thinks about this. :D
...Thus, why did you use the tiger and Johnny as example ! :-p
Because even a tiger has his natural default rights that other living beings can take away or even improve. Some people are even absurdly extreme about animal rights and they try to expand their natural rights and even equate them with human rights.