re: What is the source of our rights?

Wild Bill is the GOAT and it is not even close. His troll humor drives the humorless INSANE. Hes a national treasure. And now he has Lane Kiffin bro troll with- 2026 will be AMAZING lol.

quote:

---

those who are arguing honestly, which you do consistently.

---

She's the most dishonest poster on this board.

quote:

---

I did think you asked good questions.

---

I'm glad you came around. I think we were sworn enemies not that long ago.

quote:

---

This place isn't really that serious anyway.

---

Depends on who you ask

quote:

---

Many animals do have a sense of property and a propensity to guard that property, but I think bringing it down to beings with less abilities of thought or morals muddies the water.

---

My perception is that "natural laws" would exist in nature. They wouldn't only be applicable to humans. While other animals do have some sense of property, they don't petition the courts if another animal takes control of a thing that the first animal previously had control of - they recognize that what we call property rights are really just who has control of a thing at a given time.

quote:

---

Some people absolutely REVILE you if you challenge them. It’s a function of a fragile ego or - as we know from reading this thread- a narcissistic response. And others just release internal anger or frustration ( mea culpa ) on others. I so want people to “ get it” and that’s a me thing. Frustration.

---

It all boils down to ego. It's a constant battle and one that I think can't be waged without belief in a higher power.

This is Holy Week and we're reminded that Jesus was humiliated and tortured to death for simply being a good dude. We're not gods but we can certainly tolerate some mild discomfort on a message board without turning into savages.

quote:

---

I hear you but is it really accurate to call the complex systems human create "natural laws"?

---

We agreed earlier in this thread when we both said rights are a social construct. They are most definitely a social construct. When the idea of rights inherent to our being were being tossed around in the minds of great thinkers of the past, I guess they thought "natural law" made sense.

If you disagree with that name, I understand. I really do not know if I like it that much. I mean Pimp tried to tie this into the "mine!" phase of childhood. Not only do these children not really understand rights, they really do not understand property of another yet. Us parents teach that. Is why every child always covets the "mine" of other child.

Edit to say this...we now think of these rights as being inherent to our being. We did not always think so nor do we apply it evenly. Even today we think powerful societies and their allies have rights we wish to deny to other, less desireable societies.

quote:

---

They are ego-driven, which inherently is a survival instinct. Their concept of "mine" isn't rooted in morality.

---

Because we have to teach morality.

quote:

---

Is the societal concept of "mine" rooted in morality?

---

I would say yes since the concept of theft is tied to "mine".

quote:

---

Private property might be necessary for the society we have created and organized, but that doesn't make it moral. Or "natural."

---

I think it is tied to all societies more or less. Hardcore Marxist societies believed in "personal property". It was basically the same thing, but when it came to housing, it was yours until death and you could not pass it on to your kids. But cars, clothing, and other items were still called personal property and was basically the same things as private property.

Old school, only the most powerful had their own abode, but with trade and economy, us peons were able to aquire it. I kinda like having my own...or more(don't judge).

quote:

---

Same for different people/demographics within our society. We (as a human species) continue to build systems to stratify society to the benefit of the powerful -- which, at the end of the day, is also just a survival instinct

---

All this goes back to what we talked about earlier. The strongest, meanest, most dangerous among us have always been the driver of society. We may not always or ever like it, but it has gotten us here.

quote:

---

These things all exist, but it's really impossible for me to claim they are rooted in morality. Seems like it's all rooted in ego

---

Maybe it is all ego, but the belief in at least a bit of morals gives us little people at least a toe-hold.

quote:

---

Because we have to teach morality.

---

How did it originate?

quote:

---

All this goes back to what we talked about earlier. The strongest, meanest, most dangerous among us have always been the driver of society. We may not always or ever like it, but it has gotten us here.

---

It's interesting that we still cling to morality when really the most immoral people tend to lead societies.

edit: I think a good summation of my position is if morality has to be taught, and if the strongest and most dangerous people tend to shape society, then it seems like morality isn’t something that naturally governs behavior. It’s something we develop and try to maintain, even though it’s often overridden or disregarded.

Since that's reality, I’m not sure what it means to call rights “natural.” It makes more sense to me to think of them as moral ideals we’ve constructed and try, imperfectly, to enforce... when it benefits us? Or some?

I guess I’m trying to understand whether you see natural rights as something that actually operates in the world, or more of a standard we appeal to even when reality doesn’t reflect it.

derp, I edited after you posted this.


edit: I think a good summation of my position is if morality has to be taught, and if the strongest and most dangerous people tend to shape society, then it seems like morality isn’t something that naturally governs behavior. It’s something we develop and try to maintain, even though it’s often overridden or disregarded.

Since that's reality, I’m not sure what it means to call rights “natural.” It makes more sense to me to think of them as moral ideals we’ve constructed and try, imperfectly, to enforce... when it benefits us? Or some?

I guess I’m trying to understand whether you see natural rights as something that actually operates in the world, or more as a standard we appeal to, even when reality doesn’t reflect it.

quote:

---

edit: I think a good summation of my position is if morality has to be taught, and if the strongest and most dangerous people tend to shape society, then it seems like morality isn’t something that naturally governs behavior. It’s something we develop and try to maintain, even though it’s often overridden or disregarded

---

Careful, the anarchist in you is showing. But yeah, we have always had a ruling class. One that is above even the rules of decency society tends to give itself.
Believe it or not, I once considered myself a Voluntarist....a kinda anarchist. I got older and it just means less now. I still care about others, but only so far as "is there something I can do". If there is not, then have the wisdom to let it go.

quote:

---

Since that's reality, I’m not sure what it means to call rights “natural.” It makes more sense to me to think of them as moral ideals we’ve constructed and try, imperfectly, to enforce... when it benefits us? Or some?

---

They should benefit the most...outside the ruling class who can overstep anything.

quote:

---

I guess I’m trying to understand whether you see natural rights as something that actually operates in the world, or more as a standard we appeal to, even when reality doesn’t reflect it.

---

Yes, I believe in them. I feel they are needed even if some do not follow.