- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is the source of our rights?
Posted on 3/31/26 at 1:15 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 3/31/26 at 1:15 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
So what is a right?
I gave my definition.
quote:
Just words?
If you don't think morality/justice exists, then sure. I do think it objectively exists.
If you don't, that's fine. But that means you need to stop acting like anything is actually wrong or bad or evil or anything other than just not to your personal tastes, which you wouldn't expect anybody else to care about.
quote:
A moral entitlement is not a right.
Yeah. That's exactly what a right is. A moral entitlement absent a duty. Meaning that you don't have to do anything to be entitled to it. It's not dependent upon a transaction. It's inherent, or as our founders called it, inalienable.
quote:
I have a moral entitlement for people to treat me decently, too, but all bets are off once I post anything here.
I would dispute that being held in polite regard (which is really what you mean by "treating you decently") is a right, but even if I agreed that it was, what you're referring to is the enforcement of that right, not the existence of it.
Is it really possible that you can't see the difference in those things?
quote:
You're just saying what should and shouldn't happen
Yes, that's what morality is. It's what people ought to do. Not what they do.
The first is prescriptive and the other is descriptive.
quote:
as long as people cooperate
No, I'm saying the opposite of that. That's what YOU'RE claiming.
I'm saying there's a moral ought even when people don't follow it.
You're saying that there is no moral ought. People just do stuff and there's nothing in the universe that dictates that their actions are good or bad or right or wrong or just or unjust. There's no moral difference between giving a woman $5,000 or dragging her behind a dumpster and raping her.
How you can claim to be a Christian and say those things is beyond me, except that I think you have to be parroting this philosophy without a full understanding of what you're saying. This is just the moral relativism of your graduate student reading being regurgitated, right?
It's either that or you're being intentionally dishonest.
0
Posted on 3/31/26 at 2:09 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Slaves were DENIED rights not given rights.
Women were DENIED rights not given rights.
This is Natural Law. This is innate human nature and moral reason brought to the law.
If Natural Law cannot guarantee protection or enforcement, how is it meaningfully different from a moral ideal?
ETA: I'm not the one downvoting your posts, but I've been upvoting them to counterbalance the grumpy downvoter.
It actually makes me uncomfortable when my posts are upvoted so please don't return the favor.
This post was edited on 3/31/26 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 3/31/26 at 2:36 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
If Natural Law cannot guarantee protection or enforcement, how is it meaningfully different from a moral ideal?
A moral idea is optional and subjective (it is nice to help an elderly person across the street), Natural Law is inviolable and binding-as it's grounded in human nature itself-the universal nature of mankind-the moral stuff of which we are made, and not in preference or consensus.
For instance, let's go back to the theft of private property. Even in a totally lawless place, say the Amazon jungle, if someone steals your provisions, you don't think "well society hasn't defined this yet' you recognize it as a violation of your natural right to own something that keeps you alive, It's yours. THAT HUMAN INSTINCT IS A STANDARD-BASED IN HUMAN NATURE-THROUGH MORAL REASON-THAT WAS A STANDARD EONS PRIOR TO THE LAW, WHICH DID NOT MAGICALLY "CREATE" THIS NATURAL LAW.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 4:25 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
say the Amazon jungle, if someone steals your provisions, you don't think "well society hasn't defined this yet' you recognize it as a violation of your natural right to own something that keeps you alive, It's yours. THAT HUMAN INSTINCT IS A STANDARD-BASED IN HUMAN NATURE-THROUGH MORAL REASON-THAT WAS A STANDARD EONS PRIOR TO THE LAW, WHICH DID NOT MAGICALLY "CREATE" THIS NATURAL LAW.
Feeling that something belongs to you when it’s taken from you shows that humans have possession and survival instincts. An instinct or reaction does not automatically create a moral principle or natural law.
The sense of violation may be genuine, and the harm may be morally significant, but that doesn’t establish the existence of a natural right.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 6:53 pm to 4cubbies
You’re right Cubbies, that instinct alone doesn’t create a moral principle—but that’s NOT the argument. The instinct reveals a consistent human experience, and REASON interprets it into a principle: that what a person creates or possesses isn’t rightfully subject to arbitrary taking.
If it were only instinct, we couldn’t call theft wrong, only unpleasant. The moment you say the harm is morally significant, you’ve already stepped into natural law. You are unknowingly championing Natural Law. Good to have you with me, bestie.
If it were only instinct, we couldn’t call theft wrong, only unpleasant. The moment you say the harm is morally significant, you’ve already stepped into natural law. You are unknowingly championing Natural Law. Good to have you with me, bestie.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 7:06 pm to Lsupimp
I’m an anarchist at heart. Laws are all unnatural. But I’m still #teampimp
Posted on 3/31/26 at 7:36 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Laws are all unnatural
Define natural law as defined by Catholicism whoops had the wrong link originally. catholic answers
This post was edited on 3/31/26 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 3/31/26 at 7:40 pm to gaetti15
Ah - Thomas Aquinas- the natural law OG.
Cubbies is Catholic by the way. She should know this.
Cubbies is Catholic by the way. She should know this.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 7:42 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Ah - Thomas Aquinas- the natural law OG.
Cubbies is Catholic by the way. She should know this.
As a fellow Catholic, its a continual learning.
They don't teach this kinda stuff in RCIA
Most people have the intellect of a potato. So I dont blame them sometimes
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:48 pm to Lsupimp
Not a reference to the dumb ox!
I prayed the sorrowful mysteries today so I hope I can be forgiven.
Man-made systems are highly flawed. It’s hard to reconcile all of this stuff. I’m still working on it.
I prayed the sorrowful mysteries today so I hope I can be forgiven.
Man-made systems are highly flawed. It’s hard to reconcile all of this stuff. I’m still working on it.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:24 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Man-made systems are highly flawed. It’s hard to reconcile all of this stuff. I’m still working on it.
Yeah.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:29 am to Mike da Tigah
God is the source for all rights. We are made in His image and He sets the boundaries for what one image-bearer can lawfully do to another.
He is also the eternal judge, so even if one’s rights are violated in this life, He will provide justice in the age to come.
Without God, there are no inalienable rights. There would only be preferences that can change over time and apply when those humans with power choose to do so, with no opportunity for justice if not given in this life
He is also the eternal judge, so even if one’s rights are violated in this life, He will provide justice in the age to come.
Without God, there are no inalienable rights. There would only be preferences that can change over time and apply when those humans with power choose to do so, with no opportunity for justice if not given in this life
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:19 am to 4cubbies
You are doing fine. Normals like us just ask questions and read the scholars and learn from their wisdom. Only SFP has ALL the answers and he does it without reading the canon. It is a miracle. We don’t have that luxury.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:20 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Only SFP has ALL the answers
Continuing to add to your straw man collection ITT?
Sad
And a bit ironic.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:28 am to Lsupimp
quote:
, let's go back to the theft of private property. Even in a totally lawless place, say the Amazon jungle, if someone steals your provisions, you don't think "well society hasn't defined this yet' you recognize it as a violation of your natural right to own something that keeps you alive, It's yours. THAT HUMAN INSTINCT IS A STANDARD-BASED IN HUMAN NATURE-THROUGH MORAL REASON-THAT WAS A STANDARD EONS PRIOR TO THE LAW, WHICH DID NOT MAGICALLY "CREATE" THIS NATURAL LAW.
Best definition I e seen. Been trying a long time to do as well
??
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 8:30 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
Sorry to disappoint you, O great one. I will cease my 40 year study of political philosophy and human nature and defer to you from now on. Who needs to read and consider all those who have written about Natural Law for centuries from every angle when they can just go through your impressive post count. Tell us next how God is a human construct. And maybe later teach us how religion is a superstition. We await your superior wisdom . Please do not hurt me, Hammer.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:19 am to ChineseBandit58
I just stole it from St Thomas Aquinas and Locke and others. Just regurgitating in my limited language.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:37 am to Lsupimp
You know pimp, I really appreciate you as a poster. There are only like 3-4 posters here that I think "get" me. Like can tell when I'm just being silly and when I'm being serious. You don't take everything too seriously but you still can offer some intelligent discourse. It's refreshing. \
I don't understand that people that come here just to heckle other posters. None of us even know each other so how does it even feel good to be rude to strangers? I don't understand the benefit that is gained from that. Obviously there is one or people wouldn't repeat that behavior but I just don't get it.
Anyway, my husband just dropped off some snacks to me for the clients here and I think it put me in a next-level good mood so I want to spread the cheer. You're a neat guy.
I don't understand that people that come here just to heckle other posters. None of us even know each other so how does it even feel good to be rude to strangers? I don't understand the benefit that is gained from that. Obviously there is one or people wouldn't repeat that behavior but I just don't get it.
Anyway, my husband just dropped off some snacks to me for the clients here and I think it put me in a next-level good mood so I want to spread the cheer. You're a neat guy.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:38 am to Lsupimp
quote:
A moral idea is optional and subjective (it is nice to help an elderly person across the street), Natural Law is inviolable and binding-as it's grounded in human nature itself-the universal nature of mankind-the moral stuff of which we are made, and not in preference or consensus.
For instance, let's go back to the theft of private property. Even in a totally lawless place, say the Amazon jungle, if someone steals your provisions, you don't think "well society hasn't defined this yet' you recognize it as a violation of your natural right to own something that keeps you alive, It's yours. THAT HUMAN INSTINCT IS A STANDARD-BASED IN HUMAN NATURE-THROUGH MORAL REASON-THAT WAS A STANDARD EONS PRIOR TO THE LAW, WHICH DID NOT MAGICALLY "CREATE" THIS NATURAL LAW.
Off topic, but the more I read, the more convinced I am that LSUpimp is the greatest troll the SEC boards has ever seen....one Mr WilliamTaylor21.
You may now go back to your regularly scheduled programming. Interesting back and forth, but sorry Cubbies, I side wholly with Pimp.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:40 am to UtahCajun
quote:
I side wholly with Pimp.
trolls tend to stick together.
ETA and on topic: but we have to acknowledge the role language plays in our definition of these supposed "natural laws." Do these laws exist even without language? Are they true for other animals?
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 9:42 am
Page 14 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News