Where do "unalienable rights" come from?

[Jonathan50]

I'm in the middle of a debate in the Salon.com letters forum and I've asked the question: "From whence do unalienable rights issue forth" and no one seems to be willing or able to answer it.

Anyone here got any thoughts on the subject?

[Marie26]

1. God. nt

[Jonathan50]

4. Can you point to a religious text which mentions "unalienable rights"?

Or even better, a religious text which enumerates those rights?

[Maddy McCall]

8. It's not in the bible because the Enlightenment thinkers who...

developed the notion of unalienable rights were anything BUT biblical literalists.

[Wednesdays]

77. It's not in the Bible, but it does come from our Puritan heritage...

One of the very few good things coming from our Puritan heritage. The Puritans were among the most rabid anti-Catholic, anti-pope religious sects, and one of their precepts was that the individual and not some pope or priest was responsible for his/her own salvation. This in effect stated that, in the sight of God, the Common Man was an equal to priests or even kings or popes, and therefore were born with the same rights.

IMHO, it was no accident that New England (which had the heaviest concentration of Puritans) was the crucible of the American Revolution.

[Critters2]

93. All Protestants believe all believers are equal before God

Luther's doctrine of priesthood of all believers, common to all Protestants.

What Puritans, or more accurately the Reformed tradition, gave us is a form of social contract theory known as Covenant Theology, which says that we are all in a contract, or covenant, with one another to care for one another, and that God enters into that covenant to act as caregiver for the whole community (nation, etc). This is the theory behind the Declaration of Independence, which says that King George broke the covenant or contract by not considering the needs of the people he governed. Thus, the contract was broken and the relationship severed.

The concept of unalienable rights is really more from Enlightenment thinking, a reaction against the Divine Right of Kings. Everyone has rights, not just kings. Quite a revolutionary thought at the time, but not particularly Reformed or Puritan.

[Marie26]

17. No. It's in the Dec. of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

[kenny blankenship]

27. Well yes, pick any book of the Bible and you can cull a hundred passages

supporting and elaborating the right of mortals to cower in fear of a personal and arbitrary and inscrutable God. By "personal" i think the theologians mean, a God who takes everything PERSONALLY.

[Cameron27]

15. yes

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

[Bill McBlueState]

67. which one?

If a god endowed us all with inalienable rights, it's very important to know which one was responsible.

The rights Zeus would give us may vary drastically from the rights Vishnu or Allah would give us.

So which god endowed us with inalienable rights?

[Marie26]

69. Who knows?

To be clear, I'm not saying God exists, or that one God's better than another. Or even that "inalienable rights" exist anywhere outside philosophers' minds. But the concept of "unalienable rights" arose during the Enlightenment, when philosophers like John Locke, Jefferson & Rousseau postulated that man is born with certain natural rights. And if you asked them this question, they'd say that man was endowed w/those rights by the Creator/God. So. I think "God" is the correct answer to the question. But IMO they weren't using "God" in the literal, Biblical sense, but mostly to signify that inalienable rights come from a greater authority/power & can't be taken away by human governments. It's a higher law, that human laws & leaders cannot contradict.

[Bill McBlueState]

94. I agree

"God" is simply Jefferson's shorthand for saying that these rights aren't a government's to give or take.

[TygrBright]

2. They come from an implicit contract that has evolved among...

...human societies and cultures that have developed philosophical and ethical frameworks to balance the evolutionary demands of altruism and self-interest.

Alternatively, Tom Jefferson found them in his Cracker Jacks box sometime in 1775 and said "Hey, that's good, I gotta use that sometime."

Take your pick.

helpfully,

Bright

[Greyhound]

81. LOL!

Sometimes you just hit it so perfectly! I'm a fan. Here's a recommend for your reply.:thumbsup:

[Jersey Devil]

3. deleted

deleted

[BlooInBloo]

5. Same place as all others. Ask a bible thumper, you'll get one answer...

... ask Rousseau, you'll get another. Hobbes, yet a third. Rawls, still another.

EDIT: The point is: it's not like there are two sources, an sich, for rights, viz. the inalienable ones and the alienable.

[Prophet 451]

6. Several possibles

1. God (or deity of choice)
2. Human dignity
3. Social contract

Take your pick.

[Maddy McCall]

7. Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke...

postulated that man cannot take away rights given by God.

[WillyT]

9. From The 7Up Of Aliens ???

:shrug:

[valerief]

10. Wiki knows. nt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unalienable_rights

[Jonathan50]

13. I've been to the Wiki link already..

The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Critics, however, argue that use of the word "Creator" signifies that these rights are based on theological principles, and ask which theological principles those are (since none of the major religions of the world assert the existence of inalienable rights), or why those theological principles should be accepted by people who do not adhere to the religion from which they are derived.

[Marie26]

18. It's the concept of "natural law"

The inherent rights that come from God, a higher power, or just being a human being, that cannot be taken away or abridged by any government.

[ComerPerro]

11. According to the "founding fathers", and Locke's writings,

inaleinable rights come from the condition of being human. The rights do not need to especially come from anywhere specific, and the concept of a "god" which granted this life and these rights was more of a means to an end, much more of a symbol than any religious or spiritual endorsement. To these thinkers, God is the event that triggered the beginnings of life. With that life, and as part of the condition of being human, each person has inherent rights that can not be taken away.

[WinkyDink]

12. From the brilliant minds of some original thinkers. Some ideas are like that.

And their "Creator" was the "Watchmaker God" of Deism.

Deism: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

[Orsino]

86. Yep. "Self-evident" means axiomatic. No deities needed. n/t

[Dhalgren]

14. Unalienable rights come down through a long history of civic thought.

Citizenship in a polis, Roman Law, the rights of honor among any one of a number of styles of nobility, and, of course, the right of main force. These all evolved until in the Enlightenment they came to constitute what amounts to the Rights of Man. One of the largest kernels of source for these rights is the Epicurean dictum, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." This is the basis for the establishment of agreed upon "rights"...

[frogcycle]

16. well you've hit the jackpot

if one believes in a supernatural being, they can be ascribed to that being.


otherwise, they really don't exist. Neither do "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral"

These are all contrivances of societies developed to maintain a sort of semi-peaceful coexistence. Not unlike th epecking order of chickens, or the Alpha Male and Alpha Female in a wolfpack.

They are defined by humans, and can be whatever humans choose to define them to be. That's why they vary from society to society, and over time. They are just highly-structured, formalized customs.



The various supreme beings are a convenient contrivance invoked by societies to help enforce these standards.

[Jonathan50]

19. Yes, that's rather close to my own thoughts on the matter..

Even within the USA there is certainly not total agreement on just which rights we actually have.

If you ask a libertarian you will get one set of answers, ask a conservative and you will get yet another, ask a liberal and get another and so on and so on..

[ComerPerro]

20. are you trying to imply that the non-religious cannot have morals?

that moral and immoral cannot exist without a god or supreme being, and that rights can only exist if they are granted by a supreme being?

[Throwing Stones]

21. I thought frogcycle said pretty much the opposite

This really boils down to the contract because it's probably impossible to think that all humans will ever believe in one theology. At some point, we recognize that and decide that certain norms (beliefs) are or aren't necessarily conducive to one's individual comfort. Instead of attacking, though, there's dialogue. Then growth.

[ComerPerro]

22. I don't think you need to accuse me of attacking. I just want to know what this means:

if one believes in a supernatural being, they can be ascribed to that being.


otherwise, they really don't exist. Neither do "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral"

[Throwing Stones]

23. Sorry if you took my post the wrong way

I didn't mean to imply any type of attack - I was just stating that I read that earlier post differently.

I don't think definitions of right and wrong are mutually the province of one religious belief or other (or no religious belief, for that matter). I think the point is that societies progress when people understand the simple truth that we are all driven by our own personal theology (or other "ology") so we have to find common ground; e.g., most religions would agree that homocide is a bad thing - out of that comes the inalienable right to be free from being murdered. Of course, not everyone subscribes to the common ground, but in the context of the social contract, you find that every government's penal system addresses homocide.

[ComerPerro]

24. gotcha. got defensive.

So, in fact, maybe you would say that the beliefs are independent of religion, that while found within religion they are also observed norms of society as a whole.

Wonder if religions have this common thread becasue this is a human tendancy that religion has adopted?

Although its starting to sound like a "chicken or the egg" idea when I say it like that.

[Throwing Stones]

28. I think of religion as secondary

From a Hobbesian view, religion is an outgrowth of the need to band together. That's not to deny the existence of God, but to recognize that each person has an individual relationship with their own conception of God (or at least some personal philosophy/cosmology or what have you) and while we might not agree on the particulars, there are certain overarching "rules" that we need to obey.

[ComerPerro]

29. banding together using diety as a group identifer almost

[Throwing Stones]

30. Just actually got your reference

When I said "instead of attacking", I was speaking from attacking in the nasty, brutish and short sense. That is, people who subscribe to the social contract refrain from killing their neighbor, even though their neighbor worships a different god, and instead begin a dialogue with that neighbor so that they both can continue to live side by side without constant fear. They both benefit, and civilizations are born.

[ComerPerro]

31. yeah I can read it that way. The phrasing seemed odd and got me defensive, lol

when you said "so instead of attacking". lol.

[frogcycle]

68. thanks for understanding

you got my point exactly

the whole idea that rights or morals or standards of behavior are published somewhere and we can have interminable wars arguing over whose version is correct is in itself immoral.

Rodney King said it best: "Can't we all just get along"


sure there are "commonly-accepted" standards of behavior. Elephants have them, whales have them, wolves have them dogs have them (I don't think cats have them, but that is a different matter)

People have them too. A difference is we have developed more sophisticated means of communicating and more effective techniques for enforcing, but in reality all these things are just concepts that arise withing hte brains of various lifeforms. We have gotten sophisticated and complicated enough that we want to impose our views on each other, and we get aggressive about it. Most animals reach an accord of sorts short of waging all-out war on those with differing beliefs. I suspect humpback whales, right whales, blue whales all have slightly different codes of conduct. And they all grant themselves the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in their own way. Our rights are no more or less "real" than those. We just like to say we're somehow different. But if you take away the myth that "god created man in his own image" and dictates morality, then you are left with all of these things being contrivances. I do not say they are bad, or wrong, or inappropriate, but likewise for one group to claim that its particular set is "THE" real ones is totally bogus.

[spoony]

47. If they are not from a supreme being

then they are tenuous and exist only as vague concepts based in human fear of each other (oh, excuse me, people like to call that a "social contract"). The same with morals.

It's simply common sense: if you have one unchanging source they are cut and dry, if they come from an ever-shifting imperfect human comprehension of itself, then they are vapourous.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Again, totally false premise.

Beliefs in "God" or "Gods" are hardly unchanging- they're as ever-shifting (and "imperfect") as anything else in human history.

To claim that your moral structure is logically impregnable because it's predicated on an invisible being or beings, be that Jehovah, Zeus, Unicorns or the Tooth Fairy, may seem to you to be more morally sound, or less "vague".

However, believe it or not, there are those of us who have arrived at moral means of living and relating to each other without, say, the fear of punishment from some big daddy in the sky- by, among other things, thinking certain things through: Things like, perhaps, the unity of all humanity, the preference for compassionate modes of relating to others, even an artistic, humorous approach to life that regards violence (even when, as it so often is, done in the name of foisting someone's self-righteous vision of "God" upon unwilling unbelievers) as the low-brow ugliness and stupidity and simple bad form that it so self-evidently is to many of us.

[spoony]

61. I seem to be

failing to adequately explain what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to argue that atheists or non-theistic relgions are immoral. I only mean that much of what people call morality is self-serving (I see the social contract as that) and that actual morality is a selfless thing.

"To claim that your moral structure is logically impregnable because it's predicated on an invisible being or beings, be that Jehovah, Zeus, Unicorns or the Tooth Fairy, may seem to you to be more morally sound, or less "vague"."

I've made no such claim. They are not logically impregnable, but my morality cannot change because of that predication, so while utilitarian "morals" can be reworked and reconsidered, and if apparent necessity strikes completely abandoned, mine are either met or failed. It is not situational or relative. That, I would say, is a rather sound ideology and solid ground.

"However, believe it or not, there are those of us who have arrived at moral means of living and relating to each other without, say, the fear of punishment from some big daddy in the sky"

Slow your roll, mate. This isn't meant to spike your blood pressure. I'm just trying to explain what makes me, and I think many theists, tick morally speaking. And it isn't a fear of being punished. I fall short of God's, and therefore my own, standards constantly. As a Christian I'm quite comfortable in the forgiveness and mercy of God--what drives me to do right is that grace, a spirit of motivation that comes from recognising the worth of all people; a thing this world needs much more of.

I know you and others feel you arrived at that spirit independent of God; forgive and humour me that I believe that you didn't. I think the power of the divine heart has touched and moved all good people, theist or otherwise. That's what I mean when I say I think morality comes from God.

There, have I done better at explaining myself?

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Yes. Gotcha. Thoughtful reply which deserves one in turn.

Which I don't have time to do before bed, unfortunately. Watch this space tomorrow. But suffice it to say I hear what you're saying, now. Peace.

[spoony]

65. Peace, goodnight :)

[ComerPerro]

76. religion and religious morlaity is not selfless, its self-serving

why do the religious follow moral codes? To recieve an eternal reward.

[spoony]

79. Did you even read my post?

I'll repeat myself for your benefit: Christian theology has salvation as a function of God's grace, not by humans following rules. Indeed, the whole point is that humans cannot perfectly follow rules. So no, I am not moved by the thought of an eternal "reward" I can't earn in the first place. Christian charity is the forward momentum of that grace. In its exercise it is as selfless as anything people are capable of.

[ComerPerro]

84. So any Christian goes to Heaven, no matter how they lived, eh?

Yet someone like a humanist, who believes in no afterlife whatsoever, they are just being selfish when they act moral?

[spoony]

87. Once again, your reading

comprehension is in grave question. There's no point in repeating everything I said when you are only interested in twisting anything said as it passes through the prejudiced knots in your brain.

By the by, I just saw you lend your agreement in another thread to a post hoping a certain someone "chokes on their fucking cancer," so I'm pretty sure I have nothing further to say to the likes of you.

[ComerPerro]

91. and you attack my comprehension. Nice.

My support was to the sentiment that we don't have to feel sorry for Snow just cause he has cancer. He is a horrible person.

But I am guessing you kiss his ass for the same reason you follow your religious moral codes: its in your own self interest.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Incorrect. You do not "need" a "supreme being" (whatever that is) to get concepts like morality

What a flaming crock. Right, atheists are immoral--- Never heard that one before.

How about a value system that values life, or compassion, or kindness, or generosity? Even one that values pleasure? Maybe those are arbitrary, subjective choices, but no more arbitrary than saying "my value system of good and evil is based upon fear of punishment from a giant invisible man in the sky".

Buddhists don't believe in a "supreme being". Are you telling me the Dalai Lama has no concept of morality?

[spoony]

48. To a theist

It doesn't matter if you believe in God, that's where we think the standards come from. Otherwise morals are nothing more than social contract constructs that have nothing to root themselves in besides an individual's desire to feel safe.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. "That's where we think the standards come from".

A) that is not the same statement as that is WHERE the standards come from

and

B) do you speak for all "theists"?

[spoony]

51. Lol, well

Yeah, pretty much. Aside from Deists, not many theists don't think of God as having behavioural or moral standards. Pretty common thread among theistic religions.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. And you think Buddhists don't have a moral code or structure?

They don't believe in anything resembling "God".

[spoony]

56. It is essentially still the social contract

Which is utilitarian, rather than truly moral. Of course, your reply had little to do with what I said, since I said theistic religions, a category to which Buddhism doesn't belong.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. So Buddhist compassion is "utilitarian"?

You're right. Buddhism is not a theistic religion. Seems to me, the central premise you're arguing is that without "God", you can't have "real" morals. So you're arguing Buddhists don't have real morals.

Or am I wrong?

[spoony]

62. Not entirely, please see my post #61

Where I more fully explain what I mean.

[ComerPerro]

92. oh my god, you are hoplessly naive

Otherwise morals are nothing more than social contract constructs that have nothing to root themselves in besides an individual's desire to feel safe.


What do you think religion is? You actually have the audacity to praise religion by saying that the non-religious are self-interested people who are forced into morals so they can feel safe?

What is it about pleasing an all-knowing, all-powerful god that you don't understand? You say the non-religious have some pathetic need to feel safe? That's exactly what religion is!

[frogcycle]

66. Ok, so its a flaming crock

give me a frigging break

The original poster asked where "inalienable rights" come from

my answer, and i stand by it, is that they are a contrivance of human beings. I said the concepts of morality and ethics fall in the same category.

They are NOT "etched in stone" - you can't find the "official" inalienable rights imprinted across the forehead of every newborn. Where they "come from" is that societies invent them.

Societies over history have developed varying sets of "rights" and "morals"

Some societies feel everyone should have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Those societies that threw virgins into volcanoes evidently did not feel those particular individuals had that right.

I have my own moral code and it is probably pretty close to much of what is common in most western societies. I don't believe it "came from" somewhere. no god whispered it in my ear. It is developed from living within society and having some level of empathy for others.

The "rights" that a society grants its citizens are, despite the assertions in the Constitution, only contrivances of humans. Unless, as i said, you believe in a "creator", which the authors used as the source of those rights.

Lacking that "creator", it is damned hard to say those rights come from anywhere. They don't really exist. They are concepts that people agree to subscribe to. Elaborate versions of societal norms. Nothing more.

The "morals" that I have are merely patterns in the electrochemical makeup of my brain. When I die, they will cease to be. They won't go floating through the ether to land on someone else. The "rights" I have are those granted me by society. They could cease to be. They are NOT inalienable. Just watch how fast they would be "alienated" if, say, the Taliban were to take power in the US.

They would not have to perform an exorcism to make those "rights" vanish. Those "rights" aren't floating about in the atmosphere, not hiding under rocks. They do not exist. They are just an agreement of society, collective brain patterns.


But your use of the term "immoral" offends me no end. Not having the identical personal moral code to some group that gathers together to sing songs every sunday does NOT make me "immoral", nor "amoral." I just do not choose to align myself, necessarily, with exactly YOUR moral code, nor the Dalai Lama's, nor Pat Robertson's, nor James Dobson's. And you cannot tell me that there is a single "offical" moral code out there. If you try to, then you are doing the same thing the Dobsons and Taliban do. I happen to feel I am more "moral" than most, but I don't use beads or holy water to convince myself of my eternal goodness and guaranteed place in heaven, nor do I think that blowing people up will guarantee me 80 virgins in heaven. I know that this is it. Get it right the first time, because life does not have do-overs.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. I think we're talking past each other.

My premise is that you don't need to believe in "God", or be religious, to be "moral". In regards to the big Western monotheistic religons, I'm an atheist. When I said "right, atheists are immoral"-- an assertion I've heard made, here and elsewhere- I guess I should have included this- :sarcasm:- but I thought it was obvious.

[kenny blankenship]

25. They are an agreement with ourselves--to extent that they exist at all

there's no such thing as a "natural" right to anything--not to life, not to property, not to the benign or approving regard of our fellow beings--NADA.

All so-called rights --human rights, civil rights, political rights, etc-- derive from practice in the state of civilization, not nature. As such, the rights we like to call "inalienable" are subject to continual maintenance and re-creation (and emendation). Any and all rights people may be said to have come not from their birth, or from nature, or god(s) but from Man and the LEGAL arrangements, or contracts as they are known, among human society.

The only purely "natural" right is the right to be eaten, or to eat; the right to kill without excuse (that is, the need of excuse), and to be killed: in other words no concept of "right" at all exists within nature. If a right was inherent in your DNA, (or your materialist cause(s) which an Aristotelian might approve of), or if it were inherent in what Platonists or Existentialists might call your substance or essence, respectively, then it could possibly be called ineradicable, self-evident and inalienable. To invoke the category "Man" would invoke also his "rights" in the same breath. But no such thing can be found with a microscope, nor discovered with a table of syllogisms. And God who is the other prospective ground of human rights cannot be found with a telescope. Man has no inherent, natural, inalienable rights. Look around you. Look back into history. Isn't it blindingly obvious? Rights are only what we accord or grant each other; when they exist they vary considerably from place to place and time to time; and usually most human beings have not granted nor been have granted rights (rights others were obliged to respect) at all.

To the extent that we live any better than this is due solely to our own provisioning. Inalienable rights in the strictest sense are a ridiculous absurdity. (A wish with a portentous and solemn sounding name is still just a wish. ) But through invention and vigilance we have CREATED them. Any rights that exist at all, exist solely within the operating context of a constitutional government, within a legal tradition insulated from arbitrary, centralized power, and within democratic popular sovereignty. Scratch those, or any one of those, and you will soon find any supposed inalienable "right" to be a most alienable commodity.
Whether, having created them, we can manage to keep them, is a test of our vigilance and ingenuity. There will always be those who plot to rule over society for their own narrow benefit, with minimal respect for law and utter contempt for others' rights. It's up to us to guard against barbarians, kings, and pirates in our midst. Nobody should protect our rights if we aren't willing to do it ourselves. Knowing that is we who created them in the first place, we might even manage to improve them.

[Throwing Stones]

32. That was a great post, Kenny

The social contract is not a binding agreement, unfortunately.

[kenny blankenship]

34. Thanks, the social contract sure won't enforce itself (I learned that by watching it crumble & fall)

[Jonathan50]

45. Nice post.. Good points

Thanks..

[Quixote1818]

26. I would say: Nature

As Jefferson write it in the Declaration of Independence: "Nature and Natures God"


I think they threw in "God" as an after thought and to please everyone. The laws of Nature are what Jefferson really revered.

[Throwing Stones]

33. is there a difference?

Nature, God. Do those two words really have different meanings?

[Quixote1818]

36. It depends on your religion when related to this discussion

The founders such as Jefferson believed in a deistic view of the Universe. That perhaps some kind of God created the Universe, installed the laws of nature then let it do it's own thing. That God keeps his/her hands off of the Universe now and that things like Science and understanding of probability are the best way to know God.



Other religions believe that God created the Universe and God still messes around with it so the laws of Nature are NOT a constant because God sometimes decides to get involved.


Based on a historical understanding of our founders beliefs, the first explanation is more relevant to our laws and government. Thus, "Inalienable Rights" as the founders believed, come from Nature/God and a sort of Nature that has laws that stay constant and have probability's. Because it stays constant and is based on probability mankind's roll is to work within the laws of nature and not have dominance over it. That our rights are no greater than any other part of nature. That everything in the Universe has "Inalienable Rights" because everything was created by God in the same way, (probably the big bang). Everything is on equal footing in its claim to God and God does not show favor but only gives breaks to those who understand the laws of nature and science and finds the best ways to live together. This is contradictory to most traditional religions which favor a supernatural approach to God's laws and influences.

[Mind_your_head]

37. Oh absolutely!!! God created the SYSTEM in which our

perception of nature exists.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. And who or what created "god"? nt

[spoony]

49. Turtles all the way down, then?

;)

[Warren DeMontague]

54. I think the notion that anything "needs" a "creator" is intrinsically flawed.

Shit just Is. It's our logic which is faulty when it tells us "can't be, some guy had to put it here.".

[spoony]

58. Then you do acknowledge

The existence of some brute facts that have no direct cause. Therefore you already know my answer to your own question about who created God.

Generally, though, shit isn't just there. Something caused it.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. No, shit IS here. If something HAD to cause it, then you are flailing when you blow off the question

of "who created God". Your answer is, "stuff doesn't just happen. It has to be created. It had to be created by God. Who, of course, is exempt from all the rules I just laid out. He just happens."

The Universe can't just happen, it had to be created by god.

Who just happens.

Why not skip the middleman, and say "The Universe Just happens"?

I'll give you my answer: Stuff isn't generally "created". With the exception of human tools, cds, tv sets, buildings, etc. Most of what we see in the universe isn't "created", it's the result of natural processes. Far more logical, in my mind at least, to extrapolate that everything else is a result of natural processes, too, than conjecture invisible, all-powerful beings.

[spoony]

63. I didn't say "generally created"

I said caused. As in, not necessarily being animate causes. But you seem to be accepting brute facts or things just being. I do too, but the object of your "just being" is nature while my "just being" is God. I trust we both have reasons for believing our particular "just being," that go well beyond the scope of this thread about morality.

[WinkyDink]

85. THAT, is the Big Imponderable.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Nature is visible everywhere. "God" is invisible, & apparently spends a lot of time worrying

about what the hairless apes of planet Earth do with their reproductive organs when they're not married.

Seriously, Throwing Stones (great song, BTW :thumbsup:) your post reminds me of the semantic juggling I've seen 12 steppers do with the word "God". If "God" is everything, hey, that's great- but then why not just say "everything" and leave "God" out of it. Saying everything is "god" kind of renders the word meaningless; sort of like saying everything is "big" or "smelly" or "funny".

[Greyhound]

83. I don't think so. The law of nature is the law of the jungle and we do not do well

in that environment. We are not fast enough or strong enough, we cannot fly or fit into inaccessible spaces, our only means of survival is to work cooperatively to overcome the law of nature.

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law --
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrieked against his creed. - Lord Tennyson

[Mind_your_head]

35. God....scencient being

oh, hell, you don't have any rights at all.....sit down, shut up, and do what you're told!!!!!! That's the way it was, that's the way it IS, and that's that way it shall always be!!!!! D*mn it!!!!

WhatEVER you do, don't THINK (for yourself, that is.....d*nger, danger, danger......trust me on this.....)

on edit: I hope you realize I'm being TOTALLY sarcastic, yes? :evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

39. If a truth is self-evident, it doesn't need to "come from" anywhere. It just IS.

That doesn't mean it needs a "God" to put it there, either. Most people love their kids; without being told that they should, or WHY they should. It just IS.

You want to know from whence inalienable rights issue forth, IMHO, don't look in a church. Look in a mirror.

Also, I'm wondering what your motivation for bringing this up, here and there, is. Just curious. :hi:

[Cameron27]

44. What's behind the "just is"

though, is the subject of genetic possibilities; the selfish gene, the God gene, the cooperative gene etc. Interesting and endless debates.

[Jonathan50]

46. I had an unpleasant experience a while back..

My wife's best friend died of cancer a few months ago. She spent the last four months in agony and the doctors would not give her enough pain medicine to alleviate her suffering because they are terrified of the DEA.

It lead me to consider the idea of assisted suicide and the fact that it is illegal in every state but one IIRC.

If we are not allowed to do with our own bodies as we see fit, ie: suicide at the time and in the manner of our own choosing, then it seems to me that we do not own our own bodies.

Rather, the state claims the right of life and death over us and by so doing claims ownership of our bodies.

Slaves were owned by their masters who had the power of life and death over them.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Thanks for answering my question. I agree 100%. It may come as a surprise

that while supporters of religion in government will argue endlessly that "God" is the only thing keeping the state from owning our physical personhood (the context in which I see language from the Declaration of Independence dragged out to support all manner of things, like coerced prayer in public schools) actually, I'm of the opinion that it was the church which came up with this notion of our bodies belonging to "god", and then by extension that becomes his representative on Earth, the King, which becomes the Government.

Seems to me the MOST self-evident truth of them all is that WE BELONG TO OURSELVES. Period, end of story.

Which makes examples like the one you listed in that post irritate me to no end. I think there is a strong MYOB, socially libertarian streak in the American Public (witness how the GOP miscalculated on Terri Schiavo) that is not being addressed adequately by either party. I would like OUR party to stand up strong, unequivocally, once and for all, for the notion that what a consenting adult does with his or her own body, insofar as he or she is not harming anyone else, is his or her own damn business.

That means end the drug war, legalize assisted suicide, stop the "wars" on consenting adult porn, prostitution and other private behaviors, and for fuck's sake get the DEA off the backs of doctors who want to prescribe adequate pain management medication.

But I believe the idea that our bodies belong to ourselves doesn't originate in Western Religion: If anything, it's the antithesis of it.

[Jonathan50]

70. I agree with you completely..

I too would like to see the Democrats stand up for the right of the individual to do as she or he pleases unless or until he or she violates the rights of another.

I'm not holding my breath though.

[sampsonblk]

89. God is part of what was self-evident

We hold these truths to be self-evident:
1. that all men are created equal
2. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
3. that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

[leftofthedial]

41. the unaliens

[Bucky]

43. It's a subset of the "Self evident" truths

From memory, so I might get some of this quote wrong, but it goes...

"We hold these truths to be self evident:

that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights

that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Please note that L, L, and PoH are only "among" these rights--that is that there are others, we just aren't going to set out to name them all.

So Jefferson's citation is not sourced, it's simply obvious to anyone who's alive. Look around you. If you breath and think, you have rights. That's the Enlightenment way of saying "Like, du-uh!"

[Random_Australian]

55. They don't really, really exist. Society will follow a set of rules,

written in these is that if you do something that a lot of people consider to be against the rules their society follows, there will be consequences.

Those rules came from a simple desire to make a society in which many could live, and for considerable time.

That is my view, and I'm not bieng postmodern or nothing, just saying.

[izzybeans]

71. From the humans who crafted them.

some people need an omniscent parent to guide their behavior, others prefer to put their faith and trust in humans. Either way it came from the humans that crafted them. We are those humans and so are our children.

[slackmaster]

72. Nature

Unalienable rights are inherent to us as living beings.

[frogcycle]

73. and there you have it

we have no more or less "rights" than do whales, elephants, wildebeests, oak trees, crabgrass

nature does not distinguish between "good" lifeforms and "bad" ones. life just goes on. dna seeks ways to replicate itself.

we are nothing more than complex versions of slime mold.

being complex, though, we opt to establish rules

Once you can accept that the universe is matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy - A. Einstein

We are just a transient manifestation of that matter that has expanded from nothing to something. And I, personally, claim my inalienable right to wear stripes with plaid.

[slackmaster]

75. I claim my inalienable right to grow more garlic than I can possibly use

:toast:

[Wilber_Stool]

74. Voltaire

This is just of the top of my brain but wasn't Jefferson a reader of Voltaire and used in the constitution?

[knight_of_the_star]

80. They are inherent to the human condition

That's how it was envisioned in Enlightenment thought that was the basis for our entire government philosophy. Personally I also see that as working well with any particular religious or philosophical approach to life, as it is part of being human.

[Greyhound]

82. They are the foundation of every civilization. They come from the realization

that individually we are ill-suited to survive in this world, and therefore, must work together if we are to continue.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are TJ's words to convey this social contract, without which we will not long survive, as we are now seeing again.

The ruling class has always thought themselves above this agreement, and have always, sooner or later, been made to see that they are wrong. In most instances, this realization has come immediately before their execution.

[sampsonblk]

88. God-nt

nt

[many a good man]

90. Reason?

Or are we just kidding ourselves?

And Cheney would be right. We liberals do want to hold onto the word true because we know that behind our policy proposals lurks a deep sense of right and wrong, a deep instinct about what makes life valuable and meaningful. But we do not fully articulate these beliefs, and we seldom even admit that we have them. Because they rest at bottom on conviction, not reason, and therefore cannot be justified without circularity, we hesitate to bring them into the open. We are nervous about admitting that in this sense our politics are as faith-based as those of any fundamentalist.

http://www.alternet.org/story/46756/?comments=view&cID=454381&pID=452057