re: What is the source of our rights?

quote:

---

If the absence of the objective existence of justice and morality are not connected to the non-existence of moral entitlements, can you please explain how you conceive of these elements?

It's not entirely necessary to connect them, but if they are not connected in your mind then there must be some other reason that you feel that moral entitlements based on justice do not exist, but morality and justice do.

Can you explain?

---

I have explained this, ITT, but they are conceptually connected and from the same source.

I’ve done the work of defining it, you’re doing the work of pretending I haven’t. Which is a function of your highly unusual need to control the direction of threads through obstinacy and arrogance. You are the only person on this thread who is invested in NOT understanding my argument and everyone here knows why.

On this Good Friday I want to sincerely express my hope that you find peace someday , meaning beyond yourself, wisdom in thoughts and words that didn’t originate with you fifteen minutes ago, and I will include you in my well wishes and prayers.

quote:

---

I’ve done the work of defining it,

---

In the most malleable sense and you can't even give anything close to a comprehensive list.

quote:

---

You are the only person on this thread who is invested in NOT understanding my argument and everyone here knows why.

---

I understand the general framework of your argument (since its lacking in details there are none to understand) and understand the architecture enough to describe your motte and bailey fallacy.

quote:

---

that you find peace someday

---

That's basically every day for me

quote:

---

Stop being intentionally dishonest. It’s unseemly.

---

Give a specific, finite operative definition of natural rights

Don't do it in terms of reference or using vague and generic largesse.

You can't. Because the vagueness and malleability is required for your defense of the term.

quote:

---

Amazingly and shockingly Natural Rights don’t require 10,000 words

---

Who said they did?

quote:

---

Natural rights are the objective claims grounded in human nature—life, liberty, and property—that limit how others may treat you, and calling that “vague” is just a way to avoid admitting they can be violated

---

No. They are vague because you listed three. Are those 3 specific rights the limit of "natural rights"? Because you gave a different answer previously using subjective evaluation to expand on them (using the flowery "rationality" language).

And your use of "objective" is interesting, especially considering you can't give a full definition. Wouldn't objectivity fix your problem in this regard? Conversely, the inability to do so argues against this claim of "objectivity". If these rights were truly objective, then a full definition, description, and listing would be easy. Since you can't accomplish this, that's a problem.

quote:

---

and that you have not read the many volumes written on Natural Rights over the last two thousand years

---

I have. Again, dishonest.

I just have the ability to critique them.

They're dead. They can't defend themselves. Since you can't do much more than repeat what they say without your own analysis/critique, it appears you can't defend them, either.

quote:

---

You have a natural right to not be murdered.

---

Where can I find this natural right?

quote:

---

Where can I find this natural right?

---

The way they're defining "natural rights", there is no utility or value for them outside of content for philosophers, academics, politicians, and message boards.

You are spitting out a post every few minutes this morning. Sad and impressive at the same time.

Really? Look at your timestamps through the past few pages. It's impressive and sad

You don’t “ find” it somewhere- you RECOGNIZE it through REASON in HUMAN NATURE , which is why you would call it WRONG if someone were to attempt to do it.