Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court
-
Natural rights are not granted by society (government) but inhere to the individual. So what rights inhered to people 30k years ago?
Or, as I suggested, are “natural rights” to be understood in an “ought” rather than an “is” framework? Something they should be granted?
Or am I speaking Greek to you?
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Natural rights are not granted by society (government) but inhere to the individual. So what rights inhered to people 30k years ago?
Or, as I suggested, are “natural rights” to be understood in an “ought” rather than an “is” framework? Something they should be granted?
The way I see it: You can of course not look at our touch natural rights. You cannot discover them with science.
That does not mean they don't exist.
My somewhat Schopenhauer-esque take on the issue is that we can "will" natural rights into existence. Each of us makes a choice of whether natural rights exist or not. That's not the same as "should exist".
-
Ok, then feel free to correct me. What natural rights did Homo Sapiens possess on the savanna 30,000 years ago?
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Ok, then feel free to correct me. What natural rights did Homo Sapiens possess on the savanna 30,000 years ago?
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Natural rights are not granted by society (government) but inhere to the individual. So what rights inhered to people 30k years ago?
The same natural rights as all human have. Rights are principally grounded in moral responsibility, since the moral agent must be free to act morally in respect of one's obligations.
Obviously systems of governance and law and philosophy have developed which better understand, recognize, and uphold the rights of man than whatever occurred on the plains of Africa 30,000 years ago. But the rights have always inhered in the human person as a moral agent.
Or, as I suggested, are “natural rights” to be understood in an “ought” rather than an “is” framework?
As the law is ordered to the common good as a matter of justice, and the recognition of natural human rights are required for a just society, the State (those in charge of the community) have the moral obligation to establish laws which respect the natural rights of the members of the society. This is necessary that all members of the society might be able to fulfill their moral obligations to self, family, and society.
Something they should be granted?
Yes, not only should but the State morally must uphold the natural rights of the members of the society. The validation of the authority, as the raison d'être of the State, is found in the ability to establish, promote, and maintain the common good. The common good is the very order of society which allows for human flourishing.
Or am I speaking Greek to you?
It's easier in Latin, if you prefer.
-
Again that seems obviously false.
I mean, how much sense does it make to go to the landfill near an abortion clinic in California and dig up a fetus and tell him he has and had the right to life, it just wasn’t enforced. But - and this is important, Mr Fetus - do rest assured that the right was inalienable.
“Inalienable rights are alienable rights” is nonsense. This topic is purely normative.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
It’s that we recognize that it’s normative. But even in your example it is societally contingent.
Again, imagine 30kya Horace with 4 male relatives waiting patiently for a lion to tire of his kill, so you and your friends could get the scraps. You enjoy it for 30m only to be chased off by hyenas.
What does it really mean to say you had “inalienable rights” granted by your creator?
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
It’s that we recognize that it’s normative. But even in your example it is societally contingent.
Again, imagine 30kya Horace with 4 male relatives waiting patiently for a lion to tire of his kill, so you and your friends could get the scraps. You enjoy it for 30m only to be chased off by hyenas.
What does it really mean to say you had “inalienable rights” granted by your creator?
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
It’s that we recognize that it’s normative. But even in your example it is societally contingent.
Again, imagine 30kya Horace with 4 male relatives waiting patiently for a lion to tire of his kill, so you and your friends could get the scraps. You enjoy it for 30m only to be chased off by hyenas.
What does it really mean to say you had “inalienable rights” granted by your creator?
It means God will not judge you for your failure to not get eaten, and it means that in time, you would contribute your ideas and energies to creating a social framework in which the lion would be prevented from eating you.
-
It’s that we recognize that it’s normative. But even in your example it is societally contingent.
Again, imagine 30kya Horace with 4 male relatives waiting patiently for a lion to tire of his kill, so you and your friends could get the scraps. You enjoy it for 30m only to be chased off by hyenas.
What does it really mean to say you had “inalienable rights” granted by your creator?
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
It’s that we recognize that it’s normative. But even in your example it is societally contingent.
Again, imagine 30kya Horace with 4 male relatives waiting patiently for a lion to tire of his kill, so you and your friends could get the scraps. You enjoy it for 30m only to be chased off by hyenas.
What does it really mean to say you had “inalienable rights” granted by your creator?
I don't think that is an argument against inalienable natural rights. A hyena will do what a hyena will do by instinct. There is no moral act on the part of the hyena. There is no inalienable right to not be eaten by a hyena. There is a natural right to defend yourself from being eaten by a hyena. No one can morally prohibit you from defending yourself against being eaten by a hyena.
Furthermore inalienable rights are not granted by the creator in any positive sense. Rights are said to inhere in moral agents in respect of their moral obligations. As we have both personal and corporate/ social/ civic responsibilities so we have both personal rights and civil rights.
Civil rights might be socially contingent, and obviously admit of a lot of variation in various ages and cultures. Civil rights are generally considered as positive law, though grounded in the natural right the members of the society have toward participation in the good of the society.
-
@Larry said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
Maybe we arent using the same definition of "natural rights".
Then reread my original post maybe you’ll agree with it. It seems objectively true.
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@Larry said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
Maybe we arent using the same definition of "natural rights".
Then reread my original post maybe you’ll agree with it. It seems objectively true.
No, the more you say the clearer the problem in your logic becomes to me, and the more i disagree with your entire premise. Youre not speaking Greek to me at all. In fact, it is you that lacks understanding. Im just not sure if i want to invest the time and effort into it.
-
Again that seems obviously false.
I mean, how much sense does it make to go to the landfill near an abortion clinic in California and dig up a fetus and tell him he has and had the right to life, it just wasn’t enforced. But - and this is important, Mr Fetus - do rest assured that the right was inalienable.
“Inalienable rights are alienable rights” is nonsense. This topic is purely normative.
@jon-nyc >I mean, how much sense does it make to go to the landfill near an abortion clinic in California and dig up a fetus and tell him he has and had the right to life, it just wasn’t enforced. But - and this is important, Mr Fetus - do rest assured that the right was inalienable.
Well, apart from the nonsense about talking to a corpse, it seems the same as rescuing a kidnap victim who was sold into slavery and telling them that the kidnappers violated their inalienable to not be enslaved.
Do you really think that people don't have actual rights to not be kidnapped and sold into slavery, but that this is just some sort of normative social accommodation?
-
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. Everybody here would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. Everybody here would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. We would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
Did native americans have a right to live, even if they were slaughtered by colonists? Of course in casual speech you can find support or contradiction for anything you please, but a claim that rights are necessarily enforceable is absurd on its face. Murdered people had a right not to be murdered, QED.
Education is extremely important.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
Maybe we arent using the same definition of "natural rights".
@Larry said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
Maybe we arent using the same definition of "natural rights".
Endowed by their Creator...
Jon doesn't believe in that. Biologically speaking, people have no more worth than a pig, an elephant or a hummingbird. Man is not made in a Divine image, for nothing is Divine. Man is just a mass of cells, making up tissues, organs, systems and melding into a single human. Life is ephemeral and in a historical sense, cheap.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. We would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
Did native americans have a right to live, even if they were slaughtered by colonists? Of course in casual speech you can find support or contradiction for anything you please, but a claim that rights are necessarily enforceable is absurd on its face. Murdered people had a right not to be murdered, QED.
Aren’t you being a little tribal here?
Or does Horace 2.0 actually believe in a creator god that granted us “inalienable” rights which for some reason have been alienated from us for almost the entirety of our existence as a species?
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
It seems to be an obvious empirical truth that rights are societally contingent.
'Natural rights' makes sense only as a normative concept.
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
It seems to be an obvious empirical truth that rights are societally contingent.
'Natural rights' makes sense only as a normative concept.
Natural rights as a normative concept are neither natural nor rights. You're gutting the words of all meaning, and we have perfectly good language for what you are talking about without confusing it with the language and intellectual structure of "natural rights".
They are more like designated privileges -- as if you are granted the privilege to not be enslaved or killed with impunity, or to have access to the system of impartial justice, or the right to found a family, or the right to participate in the political life of your community, etc. either personally or as a class member or society member.
If you really think that its only a normative (rules of acceptable behavior) concept, then why complain of Hitler's treatment of the Jews? Why complain of slavery? Wouldn't any dystopian society have the same claim to authenticity?
-
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. Everybody here would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. Everybody here would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
Upon reflection, people would perhaps actually say that people cannot exercise their right to free speech because the government is oppressive and brutal.
People in China also don't have the right to keep their kidneys and other transplantable organs. Are you going to allow for that use of "people don't have rights" without blinking an eye?
-
Aren’t you being a little tribal here?
Or does Horace 2.0 actually believe in a creator god that granted us “inalienable” rights which for some reason have been alienated from us for almost the entirety of our existence as a species?
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Aren’t you being a little tribal here?
Or does Horace 2.0 actually believe in a creator god that granted us “inalienable” rights which for some reason have been alienated from us for almost the entirety of our existence as a species?
I've already admitted that the "rights" under discussion can be believed in or not believed in by any individual. Your attempt to dismantle the existence of such rights is incoherent, in that it relies on the claim that rights must always be enforceable. That is obviously not the sort of "right" Jefferson was referring to. In fact he was invoking these rights as the moral underpinning of the social structures which make it possible to enforce them.
-
No, I’ll just put the word ‘should’ in front of ‘have rights’ to acknowledge the actual situation humans have always faced.
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
No, I’ll just put the word ‘should’ in front of ‘have rights’ to acknowledge the actual situation humans have always faced.
By which you will always mean, "should have the ability to appeal to an authority to enforce those rights". Thus confusing the conversation, for those who might want to discuss the sorts of rights that can exist without an ability to enforce them.
Education is extremely important.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. We would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
Did native americans have a right to live, even if they were slaughtered by colonists? Of course in casual speech you can find support or contradiction for anything you please, but a claim that rights are necessarily enforceable is absurd on its face. Murdered people had a right not to be murdered, QED.
@Horace said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Did native americans have a right to live, even if they were slaughtered by colonists? .
It varied
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/charters.html
In 1705, Robert Beverley described the extent of Virginia with specific limits on north, east, and south, but with the western edge extending all the way to the Pacific Ocean:6
Virginia's claim to land stretching all the way across the continent to "the Californian Sea" ended in 1763. At the end of the French and Indian War (known as the Seven Years War in Europe), negotiators in Paris determined a new boundary for the western edge of Virginia.
So, for a while, just about any native American between the Atlantic and Pacific was trespassing. And as a trespasser I assume they had limited rights.
