# Natural rights?



## Ruger#3 (Apr 3, 2022)

Curious as to how atheists view natural rights as we know them in our political system.

Are all rights dependent upon man to provide them?

If rights are not natural rights does it follow man can alter and strip you of them, not a right at all?

Not trying to raise a debate, just curious of the perspective.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 3, 2022)

@Ruger#3 looks like you gotta give ‘em a multiple  choice question - you stumped-’em ?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 3, 2022)

Its alot more complicated than it would seem. Would be easy to spout the usual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but that fact is those can be taken away from you. Just ask a prisoner or someone who fried in the electric chair etc. Some who were/are in fact innocent.
So I guess life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with conditions.
So not provided by man/society but man/society sets the conditions.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 4, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Curious as to how atheists view natural rights as we know them in our political system.
> 
> Are all rights dependent upon man to provide them?
> 
> ...



It all depends on what country/society you live in. You can consider a right natural and "God given" all you want, but if you live in Sandboxistan the government can alter and strip you of any and all rights if they want to.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 4, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> It all depends on what country/society you live in. You can consider a right natural and "God given" all you want, but if you live in Sandboxistan the government can alter and strip you of any and all rights if they want to.



Point taken, speaking strictly about our system.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 4, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Its alot more complicated than it would seem. Would be easy to spout the usual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but that fact is those can be taken away from you. Just ask a prisoner or someone who fried in the electric chair etc. Some who were/are in fact innocent.
> So I guess life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with conditions.
> So not provided by man/society but man/society sets the conditions.



Samuel Chase spoke of it in the first SCOTUS decision.

_An act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact and on republican principles must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded._


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Curious as to how atheists view natural rights as we know them in our political system.
> 
> Are all rights dependent upon man to provide them?
> 
> ...



What specific Natural Rights do you mean?
Life, Liberty, Happiness, Self Defense?
Natural Rights existed before any Politician.
Natural Rights are not granted or given by anyone. They are born with a person upon birth. Take your first breath and you have a right to life.
If politicians are involved the rights are granted by people who have decided your rights for you based off of the morals of whatever society you belong to.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2022)

Basically God for some people and Nature for other people can be and are substituted equally as the answer for where the Right to Live comes from.
Once born a person is part of the Natural System. I don't think anything specific is granted or gifted to anyone other than they are now alive and life is an uphill battle.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 4, 2022)

I believe in natural rights. (Different from natural law)

Sorry, guess I need to clarify. When I say, natural rights, it is the rights I get from being born. The right to defend myself if attacked, the right to worship who I want or not worship at all. Basically the right to be left alone unless I affect someone's rights.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 4, 2022)

All I know is you gotta fight......for your right....to paaaaaaarty!


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 4, 2022)

Mr Locke said it was life, happiness and property. Property could be control of one’s self to assure the others. As Walt rightly noted this right can be removed but we have due process for that, though it admittedly fails from time to time.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2022)

i need to amend my response a bit after giving it more thought and a little research.
It would appear the concept of "natural rights" is basically a philosophy that gained traction and was adopted by society. So indeed supplied by man. Conditioned by man. Taken away by man.


> Natural rights and legal rights are two types of rights. Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy, and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was subsequently alluded to in the Bible, and then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.


Was a good question. Definitely got me thinking.


----------



## JustUs4All (Apr 4, 2022)

What specific rights would Athiests believe are granted by Nature in the way that Christians believe them to be granted by God? 

And in a similar vein, what do Athiests believe that Nature have to say about right and wrong in the same sense that Christians believe that they were outlined by God  in the Commandments?

Like Ruger, I am curious as to the differences, not looking to argue the merits


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Mr Locke said it was life, happiness and property. Property could be control of one’s self to assure the others. As Walt rightly noted this right can be removed but we have due process for that, though it admittedly fails from time to time.


These rights that can removed are usually after a person violates another persons rights that were granted by man/politicians.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 4, 2022)

bullethead said:


> These rights that can removed are usually after a person violates another persons rights that were granted by man/politicians.



Agreed, hence the due process to bring justice.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> All I know is you gotta fight......for your right....to paaaaaaarty!


I wouldnt have pegged you for a Beastie Boys fan


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> i need to amend my response a bit after giving it more thought and a little research.
> It would appear the concept of "natural rights" is basically a philosophy that gained traction and was adopted by society. So indeed supplied by man. Conditioned by man. Taken away by man.
> 
> Was a good question. Definitely got me thinking.


I try to think it back to a human born 20,000+ years ago.
You may have been lucky enough to be born in the safety of a cave surrounded by adults to protect you or it could have been out in a field with just you and mom.
At that point you are at the mercy of the forces of nature no different than any animal. If left to yourself it is certain death in short order even if nothing else eats you, so at that moment you now fall under the protection and rules of your parents and whatever semblance of society they are part of. 
The reality is that many aren't even awarded the chance of taking a first breath.
I see that as a result of Nature rather than some intelligence with the powers to start everyone off on the same level playing field by "giving" them or granting them something.
We aren't born in our prime with 40 acres and a mule. It's a struggle to get there. Factor in at what time a person is born in history and where and every instance varies.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2022)

> What specific rights would Athiests believe are granted by Nature in the way that Christians believe them to be granted by God?
> 
> And in a similar vein, what do Athiests believe that Nature have to say about right and wrong in the same sense that Christians believe that they were outlined by God in the Commandments?


Most of us responding arent actually Atheists but thats probably not really neither here nor there but anyway....


> What specific rights would Athiests believe are granted by Nature


Could you define what you mean by "Nature"?


> And in a similar vein, what do Athiests believe that Nature have to say about right and wrong in the same sense that Christians believe that they were outlined by God  in the Commandments?


I view them as a compilation of "lessons learned" from previous and current societies at that time with Christian dogma thrown in. But a valuable list none the less.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 4, 2022)

“When we focus on the recipient of the natural law, that is, us human beings, the thesis of Aquinas’s natural law theory that comes to the fore is that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature. The notion that the natural law  constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature. 

The precepts of the natural law are binding by nature: no beings could share our human nature yet fail to be bound by the precepts of the natural law. This is so because these precepts direct us toward the good as such and various particular goods. The good and goods provide reasons for us rational beings to act, to pursue the good and these particular goods. As good is what is perfective of us given the natures that we have, the good and these various goods have their status as such naturally. It is sufficient for certain things to be good that we have the natures that we have; it is in virtue of our common human nature that the good for us is what it is.”


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> What specific rights would Athiests believe are granted by Nature in the way that Christians believe them to be granted by God?
> 
> And in a similar vein, what do Athiests believe that Nature have to say about right and wrong in the same sense that Christians believe that they were outlined by God  in the Commandments?
> 
> Like Ruger, I am curious as to the differences, not looking to argue the merits


How did people manage to live with the same sense of right and wrong/ morals outlined by God in the Ten Commandments for thousands and thousands of years prior?
Christianity isnt even 2000 years old. Humans have been around a lot longer. Those ancients all had a hand in shaping what progressed after them. Those 10 Commandments didn't arrive for a long time after modern civilized societies were already flourishing.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 4, 2022)

“Aquinas says that the fundamental principle of the natural law is that good is to be done and evil avoided. This is, one might say, a principle of intelligibility of action: only action that can be understood as conforming with this principle, as carried out under the idea that good is to be sought and bad avoided, can be understood as an intelligible action. But no one can in acting simply pursue good — one has to pursue some particular good. And Aquinas holds that we know immediately, by inclination, that there are a variety of things that count as good and thus to be pursued — life, procreation, knowledge, society, and reasonable conduct are all mentioned by Aquinas.”


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2022)

bullethead said:


> How did people manage to live with the same sense of right and wrong/ morals outlined by God in the Ten Commandments for thousands and thousands of years prior?
> Christianity isnt even 2000 years old. Humans have been around a lot longer. Those ancients all had a hand in shaping what progressed after them. Those 10 Commandments didn't arrive for a long time after modern civilized societies were already flourishing.


Thats what I was alluding to in my post about "lessons learned".
It was never a good thing to steal your neighbors supper and his best girl. Caused some serious problems.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> What specific rights would Athiests believe are granted by Nature in the way that Christians believe them to be granted by God?
> 
> And in a similar vein, what do Athiests believe that Nature have to say about right and wrong in the same sense that Christians believe that they were outlined by God  in the Commandments?
> 
> Like Ruger, I am curious as to the differences, not looking to argue the merits



I checked my atheists guide to political philosophy but it was of no use.


----------



## JustUs4All (Apr 4, 2022)

bullethead said:


> How did people manage to live with the same sense of right and wrong/ morals outlined by God in the Ten Commandments for thousands and thousands of years prior?
> Christianity isnt even 2000 years old. Humans have been around a lot longer. Those ancients all had a hand in shaping what progressed after them. Those 10 Commandments didn't arrive for a long time after modern civilized societies were already flourishing.



I don't know that people did live with the same sense of right and wrong for all that time.  I suspect that people began living by the "law of the jungle" like most animals. What is best for me is right.  At some point people developed a sense of right and wrong that encompassed the family, then larger societal groups, and eventually mankind as a whole.  My question centers upon the Christian belief that the ideas of right and wrong and human rights seems to be that they are endowed by God and the curiosity as to what source folks who don't have a belief in a God would name.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2022)

You want to see a case of religion evolving look no further than the idea of natural rights. For nearly 2,000 years the church sanctioned the idea of divine right with scripture to back it up. Political philosophers of the Enlightenment came up with the idea of natural rights as a rebuttal to divine right and now christians act like it was their idea all along. They either don't know their own history or they must hope that you don't know.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 4, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> I don't know that people did live with the same sense of right and wrong for all that time.  I suspect that people began living by the "law of the jungle" like most animals. What is best for me is right.  At some point people developed a sense of right and wrong that encompassed the family, then larger societal groups, and eventually mankind as a whole.  My question centers upon the Christian belief that the ideas of right and wrong and human rights seems to be that they are endowed by God and the curiosity as to what source folks who don't have a belief in a God would name.


There is right and wrong. Which is usually based on where you are and what group you are in and there is rights. Rights shouldn't be based on anything except that you are a living being. What is immoral to us is likely accepted as norm for some group, some where.

How did groups determine right and wrongs? Usually from what is best for the group. Can't go around killing everybody and then be successful at hunting when it took a bunch of ya to herd the giant beast into a big hole. Didn't think that one through.  I think there are still tribes that, during times of little resources, will take a newborn off into the bush and leave it if they cannot take care of it. Or, call Angelina Jolie.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> I don't know that people did live with the same sense of right and wrong for all that time.  I suspect that people began living by the "law of the jungle" like most animals. What is best for me is right.  At some point people developed a sense of right and wrong that encompassed the family, then larger societal groups, and eventually mankind as a whole.  My question centers upon the Christian belief that the ideas of right and wrong and human rights seems to be that they are endowed by God and the curiosity as to what source folks who don't have a belief in a God would name.


Cant speak for all A/As but in my opinion you probably just described it above.


> I don't know that people did live with the same sense of right and wrong for all that time.


It would see to me that if right and wrong were endowed by God, then what is considered right and wrong would be unchanging and universal among all cultures, time frames and geographic locations. And that certainly isnt the case.
So the source is the when and where of the society you live in.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> I don't know that people did live with the same sense of right and wrong for all that time.  I suspect that people began living by the "law of the jungle" like most animals. What is best for me is right.  At some point people developed a sense of right and wrong that encompassed the family, then larger societal groups, and eventually mankind as a whole.  My question centers upon the Christian belief that the ideas of right and wrong and human rights seems to be that they are endowed by God and the curiosity as to what source folks who don't have a belief in a God would name.


I think you answerd your own questions
People did initially live by the law of the land/jungle. That was an ever changing flow that worked best for the individual and small group as means to survive. As those groups became larger and more civilized meaning that it was easier for many to survive together rather than individually there were rules placed within those groups that had to benefit all. Enter "modern" civilization about 10 to 12 thousand years ago and these societies and cultures had as you say DEVELOPED a set of rules which was expected to be followed. It took thousands and thousands of years to get to that point in time which the advanced cultures were thriving in Mesopotamia , Sumeria,China, India and all that was Pre-Knowledge of any Christian beliefs. Those societies also and certainly at those points introduced higher powers into their standards. But it was a progression from figuring it out at the earliest of mans beginnings. It is not something given to every human by a divine moral power. If it was, nothing would have had to develop. It would have been ingrained into our souls from day 1, not told to Hebrews and accepted a couple more thousand years later by Christians. And now almost 2000 years after that it is and has been in constant change dependent upon numerous factors even within like minded people.

The source is Human.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 4, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> What specific rights would Athiests believe are granted by Nature in the way that Christians believe them to be granted by God?
> 
> And in a similar vein, what do Athiests believe that Nature have to say about right and wrong in the same sense that Christians believe that they were outlined by God  in the Commandments?
> 
> Like Ruger, I am curious as to the differences, not looking to argue the merits



Rights granted by nature?  We humans have the right (and pretty much the obligation) to give a 100 percent effort toward staying alive long enough to successfully reproduce, and to take care of our families. The only natural rights we have that other species do not have is the right to ponder these rights in depth, as humans have been doing for many thousands of years.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 4, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Rights granted by nature?  We humans have the right (and pretty much the obligation) to give a 100 percent effort toward staying alive long enough to successfully reproduce, and to take care of our families. The only natural rights we have that other species do not have is the right to ponder these rights in depth, as humans have been doing for many thousands of years.


I have to have a license to hunt and fish. 
I have to get permission to take a crap on other folks property.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 4, 2022)

660griz said:


> I have to have a license to hunt and fish.
> I have to get permission to take a crap on other folks property.



PERMISSION DENIED!   However you are welcome to come inside and use my toilet, but run the fan please.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 5, 2022)

I believe people are inherently good by nature. They gravitate to actions that will improve their relationships, permit procreation, these relationships provide security and liberty. Being happy in one’s existence has long been known to extend your life, your fundamental property. People of all walks can be taught the premise of good and bad through socialization. Where we likely differ is what is the root of these moral principles. The morality that drives us towards right.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I believe people are inherently good by nature. They gravitate to actions that will improve their relationships, permit procreation, these relationships provide security and liberty. Being happy in one’s existence has long been known to extend your life, your fundamental property. People of all walks can be taught the premise of good and bad through socialization. Where we likely differ is what is the root of these moral principles. The morality that drives us towards right.


In all honesty the part where we differ is exactly the sticking point. The Bible isn't the oldest collection of stories ever to be wrtten and the Hebrews aren't the oldest culture.
I mention that because humans existed long before both who knew of and had all the traits and moral principals long before the Hebrew God was creating some for his people. The rest of the world was flourishing while the instances in the Bible were just getting started. 
Why wouldn't one true God give this information to his earliest creation?
Hebrew culture and history is certain that The God of Abraham did not create anyone else but them. God is THEIR God. There were many Gods but Yaweh chose them. God chose them to be his people and then created THEIR beginning. The Garden was THEIR start. The OT is THEIR story.
Everything and everyone else who thinks it is the story of man is jumping on THEIR bandwagon.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 5, 2022)

bullethead said:


> In all honesty the part where we differ is exactly the sticking point. The Bible isn't the oldest collection of stories ever to be wrtten and the Hebrews aren't the oldest culture.
> I mention that because humans existed long before both who knew of and had all the traits and moral principals long before the Hebrew God was creating some for his people. The rest of the world was flourishing while the instances in the Bible were just getting started.
> Why wouldn't one true God give this information to his earliest creation?
> Hebrew culture and history is certain that The God of Abraham did not create anyone else but them. God is THEIR God. There were many Gods but Yaweh chose them. God chose them to be his people and then created THEIR beginning. The Garden was THEIR start. The OT is THEIR story.
> Everything and everyone else who thinks it is the story of man is jumping on THEIR bandwagon.



I digress, but I think we spend far too much time worrying about our differences when we share these natural motivations whatever the root cause. I read here more than I post and know I differ on religious topics. I‘m also certain I could enjoy fishing and a day of discourse with some of the regulars here.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 5, 2022)

bullethead said:


> In all honesty the part where we differ is exactly the sticking point. The Bible isn't the oldest collection of stories ever to be wrtten and the Hebrews aren't the oldest culture.
> I mention that because humans existed long before both who knew of and had all the traits and moral principals long before the Hebrew God was creating some for his people. The rest of the world was flourishing while the instances in the Bible were just getting started.
> Why wouldn't one true God give this information to his earliest creation?
> Hebrew culture and history is certain that The God of Abraham did not create anyone else but them. God is THEIR God. There were many Gods but Yaweh chose them. God chose them to be his people and then created THEIR beginning. The Garden was THEIR start. The OT is THEIR story.
> Everything and everyone else who thinks it is the story of man is jumping on THEIR bandwagon.



Your last few sentences are interesting: almost every indigenous culture (various Native American cultures, African Cultures, etc) call themselves "the people" meaning of course the first people or sometimes the most important people or the chosen people or maybe the only people or whatever. In other words the world revolves around them and their beliefs/gods.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 5, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I digress, but I think we spend far too much time worrying about our differences when we share these natural motivations whatever the root cause. I read here more than I post and know I differ on religious topics. I‘m also certain I could enjoy fishing and a day of discourse with some of the regulars here.



IMHO many/most people who spend time doing outdoor activities that connect them to nature have a shared belief in the awesomeness and grandeur of the vast wonders of the natural world and all the critters & fish and whatnot regardless of the perceived origins of the great things we see on a regular basis. It humbles (or should) everyone experiencing the incredible workings of nature.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 5, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> It humbles (or should) everyone experiencing the incredible workings of nature.


And the inherently violent nature of 'nature', and how weak we are compared to even the smallest animals that have to survive outside. It is kill or be killed. Not sure how we ever did it. Not sure how I grew up in south Georgia without A/C.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2022)

I'll pivot, if I may, and wonder, what would be the result if we removed the notion of God Given Rights from our founding documents?  Would the result be more or less suffering?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2022)

I think we can draw a direct line from the observation of reality to how we came up with morals and the idea of natural rights.  Any social organisms will develop them.  We don't have a "right" to self defense, we have an instinct for it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I'll pivot, if I may, and wonder, what would be the result if we removed the notion of God Given Rights from our founding documents?  Would the result be more or less suffering?


Plus those God given rights seem to only be for White men. Not even women.


----------



## GTMODawg (Apr 21, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Curious as to how atheists view natural rights as we know them in our political system.
> 
> Are all rights dependent upon man to provide them?
> 
> ...





Ruger#3 said:


> Point taken, speaking strictly about our system.




Our rights aren't  natural they are collective.  We all more or less agree that we have some basic rights and many of those apply in some manner in most of the developed world.  They can be taken away at any moment.  They are indeed taken regularly from individuals either by the actions of other individuals are the state.  

From a definition POV natural rights are those rights all humans have due to their humanity and can't be stripped by government.  If this is indeed the definition then there is not now nor have their ever been any natural rights because mankind has been subjected to some sort of governance since the very beginning.....a family clan was lead by someone and that someone could take away any thing they were physically capable of taking away.


----------



## GTMODawg (Apr 21, 2022)

bullethead said:


> What specific Natural Rights do you mean?
> Life, Liberty, Happiness, Self Defense?
> Natural Rights existed before any Politician.
> Natural Rights are not granted or given by anyone. They are born with a person upon birth. *Take your first breath and you have a right to life*.
> If politicians are involved the rights are granted by people who have decided your rights for you based off of the morals of whatever society you belong to.



Do you though? If everyone agrees you do then you do but if someone with the ability to do anything about it disagrees then they can take action to end your life and if there is no one to stop them did you really have a right?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2022)

GTMODawg said:


> Do you though? If everyone agrees you do then you do but if someone with the ability to do anything about it disagrees then they can take action to end your life and if there is no one to stop them did you really have a right?


I have the right to try to stop them.
The rest is all about giving yourself a chance to survive. No guarantees.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2022)

GTMODawg said:


> Do you though? If everyone agrees you do then you do but if someone with the ability to do anything about it disagrees then they can take action to end your life and if there is no one to stop them did you really have a right?



Rights are constructs.  They're not like mathematical principles. They require intellects to exist.


----------



## Israel (Apr 23, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Rights are constructs. They're not like mathematical principles. They require intellects to exist.




How do mathematical principles not?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 23, 2022)

Israel said:


> How do mathematical principles not?



That is a pretty good question when you think about it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2022)

Israel said:


> How do mathematical principles not?





oldfella1962 said:


> That is a pretty good question when you think about it.



One object and one object is two objects, regardless of what you call them or if anyone is there to notice.  If chlorine bumps into sodium, something happens; it always happens just like that.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> We don't have a "right" to self defense, we have an instinct for it.


That is interesting, “we don’t have a right to self defense”.   We have an instinct to pro-create but I don’t believe we can force ourselves in someone else for that purpose.  

A lot of what is being said vilifies the hunter, or the herdsman, it gives the semblance of providing the same moral protections for animals as humans.

Part of this boils down to the questions of “what is man”? If he is nothing more than the most intelligent ape then it is the law of the jungle, the strongest survives.

Kill a fish, a goat, a cow, a horse, a fetus, a baby, a youth, a man, no difference, however, Christianity teaches that we are are made in the image of God and therefore different.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> Plus those God given rights seem to only be for White men. Not even women.


Really?
Please explain.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> What specific Natural Rights do you mean?
> Life, Liberty, Happiness, Self Defense?
> Natural Rights existed before any Politician.
> Natural Rights are not granted or given by anyone. They are born with a person upon birth. Take your first breath and you have a right to life.
> If politicians are involved the rights are granted by people who have decided your rights for you based off of the morals of whatever society you belong to.


Good points.

Are these “rights” only granted to humans?

Why does birth play a part in it?  Of what matter is age or residency?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2022)

Madman said:


> Good points.
> 
> Are these “rights” only granted to humans?
> 
> Why does birth play a part in it?  Of what matter is age or residency?


I do not think they are granted. A creature, man or beast is born with such rights.

There are no guarantees that someone or something cannot violate those rights so until a living thing can protect itself it relies on many things that range from parents to surroundings to self defense mechanisms to survive.
As far as humans are concerned anyone that violates the inherent rights of another gets punished.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I do not think they are granted. A creature, man or beast is born with such rights.
> 
> There are no guarantees that someone or something cannot violate those rights so until a living thing can protect itself it relies on many things that range from parents to surroundings to self defense mechanisms to survive.
> As far as humans are concerned anyone that violates the inherent rights of another gets punished.



Yes “granted” was a poor word, why is it guaranteed under the founding docs?

The founders saw it as the governments responsibility to enforce certain rights.

So we are just the more intelligent ape.   Why does one get punished for harming a human but not a rabbit?

Maybe Jeffery Daumier had it right.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 24, 2022)

Madman said:


> Really?
> Please explain.


Just as it relates to the the Declaration 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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Even though they believed this to be true, they did not hold women or Blacks as equal when it came to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> Just as it relates to the the Declaration 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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> Even though they believed this to be true, they did not hold women or Blacks as equal when it came to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I can see you case, however, it was deeper, and they were bent on improving it.


----------



## Israel (Apr 25, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> Just as it relates to the the Declaration 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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> Even though they believed this to be true, they did not hold women or Blacks as equal when it came to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


It's far easier to say noble things than to live them. And the applause often seems more abundant.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Yes “granted” was a poor word, why is it guaranteed under the founding docs?
> 
> The founders saw it as the governments responsibility to enforce certain rights.
> 
> ...


The founding Father's didn't give or grant rights to the people from the Gov't.  They made sure to limit the Gov'ts intrusion on the People's inherent rights.

At least for a short blip in the history of the World humans have risen to a self appointed domination over the rest of the non human inhabitants. We as humans do what benefits us individually and as a species. When a situation arises where 2 Humans and a Rabbit are sitting around trying to decide what is for dinner, somebody is gonna lose. We make the rules.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> That is interesting, “we don’t have a right to self defense”.   We have an instinct to pro-create but I don’t believe we can force ourselves in someone else for that purpose.



Humans have come up with kinds of rules around what we in the West call rape.  The only universal principle is against incest.  You don't have a "right" to procreate either.  You can hardscrabble your way into the most or best breeding strategy that you can manage.  



Madman said:


> A lot of what is being said vilifies the hunter, or the herdsman, it gives the semblance of providing the same moral protections for animals as humans.



Allot of "what is being said" where?  Here?  In this discussion?  I don't see that at all.  If you mean in the West, maybe.  There are like 300,000 people in the world who value animals more than people, a few more if you count the Jains, who value animals and people equally.  



Madman said:


> Part of this boils down to the questions of “what is man”? If he is nothing more than the most intelligent ape then it is the law of the jungle, the strongest survives.



I think ultimately it is law of the jungle; in an extreme life or death situation. But the smartest ape is capable of a notion like altruism.  Maybe other animals do it too.  I remember hearing about dolphins who sacrificed themselves to save people from shark attacks.  But those might be deeply developed evolutionary instincts as well.



Madman said:


> Kill a fish, a goat, a cow, a horse, a fetus, a baby, a youth, a man, no difference, however, Christianity teaches that we are are made in the image of God and therefore different.



We are by nature speciest.  We feel more empathy to animals with faces and eyelids.   The closer looking to us the more we care. It is hard to make the case that any particular organism matters more than another, which is a way of saying that they all matter the same.  That thinking could be that basis for treating all lives as precious.


----------



## Madman (Apr 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The founding Father's didn't give or grant rights to the people from the Gov't.  They made sure to limit the Gov'ts intrusion on the People's inherent rights.


Where does this come from?  "inherent rights"


----------



## Madman (Apr 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> These rights that can removed are usually after a person violates another persons rights that were granted by man/politicians.


Only because society has given government the authority to do so.


----------



## Madman (Apr 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Humans have come up with kinds of rules around what we in the West call rape.  The only universal principle is against incest.


I believe Ruger #3 was primarily speaking of the west, I'll leave that for him to clarify.


ambush80 said:


> You don't have a "right" to procreate either.


No, I do not see one.




ambush80 said:


> Allot of "what is being said" where?  Here?  In this discussion?  I don't see that at all.  If you mean in the West, maybe.  There are like 300,000 people in the world who value animals more than people, a few more if you count the Jains, who value animals and people equally.



_Post 7 
"Natural Rights are not granted or given by anyone. They are born with a person upon birth. Take your first breath and you have a right to life."_

Does the virtue of birth give a creature the natural right of life?  If it can be bestowed on a human then why not a rabbit?

Also read #8 , any creature could be substituted for person here.

Also see post #9 why not substitute rabbits for I?

"Sorry, guess I need to clarify. When I say, natural rights, it is the rights I rabbits get from being born"



ambush80 said:


> I think ultimately it is law of the jungle; in an extreme life or death situation. But the smartest ape is capable of a notion like altruism.  Maybe other animals do it too.  I remember hearing about dolphins who sacrificed themselves to save people from shark attacks.  But those might be deeply developed evolutionary instincts as well.



I am still trying to figure out why atheists believe humans have any more or any different rights than animals?  In my examples rabbit could be substituted for I/person/human.

It appears to many Jeffery Dahmer was right, there is no difference in eating a human than in eating a cow, except that a human may be able to defend themselves better.





ambush80 said:


> It is hard to make the case that any particular organism matters more than another, which is a way of saying that they all matter the same.


Vegetarian?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Where does this come from?  "inherent rights"


Nature


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Only because society has given government the authority to do so.


Correct. As humans advanced their society advanced with them. As we all know the rules vary widely throughout the world.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I believe Ruger #3 was primarily speaking of the west, I'll leave that for him to clarify.
> 
> No, I do not see one.
> 
> ...


Being born grants a person or a creature or a "thing" the right to try to live and survive. In doing so living things have the right to defend themselves as best as possible in order to survive another day. Whether or not that works out or for how long that works out varies. There are no guarantees just opportunities.

Since humans are animals and at the top of the food chain we make the rules to the pecking order of importance according to our standards. I don't think a lion cares one way or another about how morally superior humans think themselves to be. Same for us considering rabbits our equal. Let all other food sources dr up and there will be a lot of Dahmer types around. A million years ago when our ancestors were sleeping in trees we thought more of the lions than we do now and I'd bet that the humans who live in lion territory have a different perspective of them than people who live in the USA.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2022)

I liked this explanation:

*What is the Definition of “Inherent Rights”?*

A right is an entitlement to a need. Inherent rights are the extension of intuitive self-knowing, of knowing that we are entitled to have our basic needs met. They are the verbalization of an instinctual feeling that we are worthy of love, peace and abundance, and that we deserve certain things because we are alive.

These rights “come with” us, and we carry them around, like a tortoise carries its shell. Technically, inherent rights have no material existence outside the human mind, so from one perspective you could say we have invented them. However, I believe they are pointing to something profound and ineffable, like a mapping device for how we are supposed to make our way in this world and socially interact with others.


----------



## Madman (Apr 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Being born grants a person or a creature or a "thing" the right to try to live and survive. In doing so living things have the right to defend themselves as best as possible in order to survive another day. Whether or not that works out or for how long that works out varies. There are no guarantees just opportunities.
> 
> Since humans are animals and at the top of the food chain we make the rules to the pecking order of importance according to our standards. I don't think a lion cares one way or another about how morally superior humans think themselves to be. Same for us considering rabbits our equal. Let all other food sources dr up and there will be a lot of Dahmer types around. A million years ago when our ancestors were sleeping in trees we thought more of the lions than we do now and I'd bet that the humans who live in lion territory have a different perspective of them than people who live in the USA.


So based on this it appears government sets the moral standard.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> So based on this it appears government sets the moral standard.


No not at all.
Individuals and Society do. It varies according to time, location, culture and many other factors.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 25, 2022)

Even the Biblical moral standard changes according to time, location, culture, etc.
Look at the changes even in our lifetime. My mother could not wear pants or play card games. I could not use the words swear, lie, or fool. Yet I could use the N word all I wanted to. Now folks can't use the N world but girls can wear pants and are nothing like what the apostle Paul preached about. Scripture doesn't change according to morals and our given rights but society sure has.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 25, 2022)

Over the course of the 50's, 60's, and 70's as women gained more rights, it became more aligned with their rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness more than their rights afforded to them previously by scripture(Apostle Paul). 
Society forced their rights over those of religion. You'd think that would be really hard to do.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 25, 2022)

I was thinking of western culture, specifically as it relates to the thoughts of the founders of our country.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> So based on this it appears government sets the moral standard.


Just curious how did you arrive at "Gov't sets the moral standard" out of that post? Where did it appear to you?


----------



## Madman (Apr 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Just curious how did you arrive at "Gov't sets the moral standard" out of that post? Where did it appear to you?


#61


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> #61


You quoted post #64 and replied "based on this" so I took you to mean post #64.
Even in #61 that does not specify Governments. Religions, Cultures, Locations, Customs etc etc all factor in.
Values differ in parts of the Congo, parts of Africa, the Middle East and many 3rd world areas compared to Modern Western Societies. Governments have little influence in many 3rd world areas.


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I liked this explanation:
> 
> *What is the Definition of “Inherent Rights”?*
> 
> ...






> However, I believe they are pointing to something profound and ineffable, like a mapping device


----------



## Ruger#3 (Apr 26, 2022)

This may give clarity to the root of my question. Jefferson authored the documents that are foundational to the freedom to have this very discussion. Jefferson was a child of the Age of Enlightenment. Hence, a student of John Locke. The following gives some insight to Jefferson’s motivations-

Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his _Second Treatise of Government_ in 1689 at the time of England's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.

The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.

My question is if not from God, from nature or the natural tendencies of man? Some force beyond ourselves drives use to these principles. We’ve all seen it and centuries of experience show Locke to be no fool.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2022)

Israel said:


> Post #72


Difficult to Fathom or Understand, Indescribable and Inexpressable.
Yes! except for the humans who think that all of their Fathoming not only points to a specific thing with a name which they can describe and express but something they Understand. All of which equates to No Material Existence Outside of the Human Mind.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> This may give clarity to the root of my question. Jefferson authored the documents that are foundational to the freedom to have this very discussion. Jefferson was a child of the Age of Enlightenment. Hence, a student of John Locke. The following gives some insight to Jefferson’s motivations-
> 
> Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his _Second Treatise of Government_ in 1689 at the time of England's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.
> 
> ...


Do we as humans know with certainty that our species is the only one with a sense of such principles?


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Difficult to Fathom or Understand, Indescribable and Inexpressable.
> Yes! except for the humans who think that all of their Fathoming not only points to a specific thing with a name which they can describe and express but something they Understand. All of which equates to No Material Existence Outside of the Human Mind.


We simply take the ineffable and profound as real beyond our own understanding and imaginations...to that point where our own words fail, but we are bidden to speak. We accept the seeming contradiction, and live in it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2022)

Israel said:


> We simply take the ineffable and profound as real beyond our own understanding and imaginations...to that point where our own words fail, but we are bidden to speak. We accept the seeming contradiction, and live in it.


Yyyyyyyyep


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Difficult to Fathom or Understand, Indescribable and Inexpressable.
> Yes! except for the humans who think that all of their Fathoming not only points to a specific thing with a name which they can describe and express but something they Understand. All of which equates to No Material Existence Outside of the Human Mind.


Another consideration - doesn`t exist in the manner that the human mind thinks that it should.


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Another consideration - doesn`t exist in the manner that the human mind thinks that it should.


I like that...because nothing does.

Not.

One.

Thing.


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2022)

All we have ever done to comfort our selves as to knowing anything is putting a name to processes we believe we observe.

We name things and then say "Oh, now I understand, that's cellular meiosis" or "This temperature is where paper ignites"

But like Heisenberg discovered, there's an issue. Nothing observable is static. That degree at which at which paper ignites can itself be infinitely divided...till all we see is continuity of change. Imposed. Even as we look...we are not the same person who began to look.



> However, I believe they are pointing to something profound and ineffable, like a mapping device



leading to the unchanging One.

It's interesting as to how many things He will suffer being called, Prime Mover, Supreme Being, when all His secrets are made known through the One who knows Him as Abba, Daddy.

Such a divide would _seem..._ineffable.

The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant. 

Tabula Rasa.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Another consideration - doesn`t exist in the manner that the human mind thinks that it should.


I think that is a given.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Another consideration - doesn`t exist in the manner that the human mind thinks that it should.



Yes, see  below starting at " the unchanging one.



Israel said:


> All we have ever done to comfort our selves as to knowing anything is putting a name to processes we believe we observe.
> 
> We name things and then say "Oh, now I understand, that's cellular meiosis" or "This temperature is where paper ignites"
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (May 2, 2022)

Madman said:


> I believe Ruger #3 was primarily speaking of the west, I'll leave that for him to clarify.
> 
> No, I do not see one.
> 
> ...




People are speceisist.  They empathize more with some species over others.  A mother cares more for her child than that of a strangers.

I don't think humans have more rights to life than other animals or other humans.  I think the notion of rights evolved from the notion of reciprocity.


----------



## Madman (May 2, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think humans have more rights to life than other animals .....



If taken to its logical conclusion, where could this belief lead?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Madman said:


> If taken to its logical conclusion, where could this belief lead?


It sounds like more of a personal logical conclusion you are talking about rather than a universally agreed upon logical conclusion.

What logical conclusion are you asserting?


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> People are speceisist.  They empathize more with some species over others.  A mother cares more for her child than that of a strangers.
> 
> I don't think humans have more rights to life than other animals or other humans.  I think the notion of rights evolved from the notion of reciprocity.


In most cases the penalty for taking the life of or injuring certain animals is greater than the penalty of taking the life or injuring some humans.

I can agree some what in the other, I don’t think life should be taken of no value. Where humans abs animals differ is the difference between emotion and instinct. I’ve heard the argument about the dog and how happy he is to see it’s owner, but that’s still just instinct and he’ll look to whatever the leader of his pack is the same way - out of instinct.

And it’s us humans that have the responsibility to care for and also decide when an animal needs to be put down.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> In most cases the penalty for taking the life of or injuring certain animals is greater than the penalty of taking the life or injuring some humans.
> 
> I can agree some what in the other, I don’t think life should be taken of no value. Where humans abs animals differ is the difference between emotion and instinct. I’ve heard the argument about the dog and how happy he is to see it’s owner, but that’s still just instinct and he’ll look to whatever the leader of his pack is the same way - out of instinct.



Where does the dog get it's instinct? Don't children humans follow the leader of the pack (parents) also?

Animals express many emotions. How does that work?


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Where does the dog get it's instinct? Don't children humans follow the leader of the pack (parents) also?
> 
> Animals express many emotions. How does that work?



I’m not convinced they’re emotional. Trained, repetitive, instinctively submissive yes, emotional no.

I say the Creator. The Creator also created what man knows as natural rights.

You and I both believe in natural rights, we just disagree on where they come from.


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Where does the dog get it's instinct? Don't children humans follow the leader of the pack (parents) also?
> 
> Animals express many emotions. How does that work?



Anyone whose raised an infant has heard the wet giggle and seen the big toothless smile. Babies enhance their security by soliciting that caring feedback from adults around them.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not convinced they’re emotional. Trained, repetitive, instinctively submissive yes, emotional no.
> 
> I say the Creator. The Creator also created what man knows as natural rights.
> 
> You and I both believe in natural rights, we just disagree on where they come from.


So when a Soldier comes home from months of deployment and the dog loses its mind it learned that in the 1st 10 weeks of life before it was separated from it's litter mates?
Or an owner dies and the dog Grieves??
Elephants gather around their dead, many animals exhibit ranges of emotions.


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> So when a Soldier comes home from months of deployment and the dog loses its mind it learned that in the 1st 10 weeks of life before it was separated from it's litter mates?
> Or an owner dies and the dog Grieves??
> Elephants gather around their dead, many animals exhibit ranges of emotions.


The soldier became the dog’s “liter mate” and ultimately the leader of the pack. I have livestock guardian dogs, they’ll protect my animals and me but they don’t love either one of us. I just took the role of their leader.

I take calves away from cows all the time. There’s a short span where both cut up looking for the other but it’s instinct. That cow knows it’s supposed to be feeding and that calf knows it’s supposed to be eating. In less than a month apart they don’t know one another - difference in emotion and instinct.

We might recognize it as emotional but I’m not convinced that it’s emotion. I got no problem with folks thinking that animals are emotional, I just don’t buy into it.

The ole saying put your wife and dog in the truck for 2 days and open it up and you’ll find out which one loves you? My wife says it isn’t love, the dog is just stupid enough to fall for a good petting and a biscuit.


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2022)

If animals are emotional and not instinctively submissive - why do we have to continue giving treats for the tricks? What happens when they’re not rewarded?


----------



## 660griz (May 2, 2022)

Emotions are well, emotions. Animals getting happy, excited, scared are backed up by research. Those are emotions. A dog wagging his tail, no matter if it thinks you are the pack leader or not, is an emotion. Instinct would be to put tail between legs, head down, expose belly, etc, so as to not get the poo beat out of you. Scared would be the emotion. Elephants, dolphins and chimps have the most emotions...other than us...that we know of.


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2022)

660griz said:


> Emotions are well, emotions. Animals getting happy, excited, scared are backed up by research. Those are emotions. A dog wagging his tail, no matter if it thinks you are the pack leader or not, is an emotion. Instinct would be to put tail between legs, head down, expose belly, etc, so as to not get the poo beat out of you. Scared would be the emotion. Elephants, dolphins and chimps have the most emotions...other than us...that we know of.





> that we know of.



Whatever the animal is doing ^^^ that is all we have. They can’t really tell us what they’re feeling or if they’re feeling anything at all. We can assume. Dog trainers say a wagging tail is a sign of submission. I don’t know, I’ve never communicated with one. I watch for a wagging tail to determine if it’ll bite or not and that’s not always accurate. I figure it’s got teeth, it’ll bite.

If someone wants to believe that dog loves them then ok - stop feeding him and start throwing rocks at him, let’s how emotional distraught he is when you whistle with a biscuit in your hand.

It’s just my personal opinion that humans are  not on the same playing field as animals when it comes to rights / emotions. I suppose a wagging tail being submissive can either be submissive out of fear or relaxation which can be tied to emotions. 

I’m an animal lover, but if animals have emotions and should have the same rights equivalent to humans - why do we decide their fate based on what it cost to fix them back up?


----------



## ambush80 (May 2, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Whatever the animal is doing ^^^ that is all we have. They can’t really tell us what they’re feeling or if they’re feeling anything at all. We can assume. Dog trainers say a wagging tail is a sign of submission. I don’t know, I’ve never communicated with one. I watch for a wagging tail to determine if it’ll bite or not and that’s not always accurate. I figure it’s got teeth, it’ll bite.
> 
> If someone wants to believe that dog loves them then ok - stop feeding him and start throwing rocks at him, let’s how emotional distraught he is when you whistle with a biscuit in your hand.
> 
> ...



As far as we can tell, animals don't have the same brain capabilities as humans.  Some people have diminished brain capabilities which makes them appear to behave more like animals, in that their ability to communicate feelings and intentions is limited.  Perhaps they don't love as deeply as someone who can read a sonnet.


----------



## ambush80 (May 2, 2022)

Madman said:


> If taken to its logical conclusion, where could this belief lead?



Lots of different places.  




bullethead said:


> It sounds like more of a personal logical conclusion you are talking about rather than a universally agreed upon logical conclusion.
> 
> What logical conclusion are you asserting?



Exactly.


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> As far as we can tell, animals don't have the same brain capabilities as humans.  Some people have diminished brain capabilities which makes them appear to behave more like animals, in that their ability to communicate feelings and intentions is limited.  Perhaps they don't love as deeply as someone who can read a sonnet.





> Perhaps they don't love as deeply as someone who can read a sonnet.


I can agree here. Makes sense.

I have been wrong many times and until I watched this with my Grandson and his little dog that ran to us while we were riding the side by side a few minutes ago, I’d swear animals can’t love. 

But, I’m going to call this love. Both were ecstatic to see one another.


----------



## Madman (May 2, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Lots of different places.



Yes it could.  I can see where a vegan might logically argue that “I don't think humans have more rights to life than other animals .....”. or Jeffery Dahmer, but, even from a dietary standpoint, it would be difficult for a carnivore to make the case.

What’s on the menu tonight gents?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> If animals are emotional and not instinctively submissive - why do we have to continue giving treats for the tricks? What happens when they’re not rewarded?


Treats are one method.
I have a buddy who has incredible patience and his dogs are incredibly well mannered and listen. He has never raised a hand to them either.
At 12 weeks old a "go lay on your blanket" is all that is needed. No treats.


----------



## Madman (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It sounds like more of a personal logical conclusion you are talking about rather than a universally agreed upon logical conclusion.



There are no universal logical conclusions, the LGBTQ advocates have proven that.

It sounds to me that you believe it is right to eat a child as to eat a rabbit.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Whatever the animal is doing ^^^ that is all we have. They can’t really tell us what they’re feeling or if they’re feeling anything at all. We can assume. Dog trainers say a wagging tail is a sign of submission. I don’t know, I’ve never communicated with one. I watch for a wagging tail to determine if it’ll bite or not and that’s not always accurate. I figure it’s got teeth, it’ll bite.
> 
> If someone wants to believe that dog loves them then ok - stop feeding him and start throwing rocks at him, let’s how emotional distraught he is when you whistle with a biscuit in your hand.
> 
> ...


Animals across the spectrum are wired differently from each other, that includes us animals also. Brains are wired different due to evolutionary needs. But in observation some animals and mammals definitely exhibit more emotional actions than others.

Stop feeding a person, leave them kenneled up in the basement for years and throw rocks at them daily. See if they react any differently than a dog when you show up with food. Wanna bet they sit for you also?  There are many examples of captives that have had their stories told. Many have opportunities to leave and do not because of training. Why are do they act like a "lower" animal instead of a human?

In the safety of civilization we make the rules. Out in the wild with your claws and fangs vs theirs you will quickly notice who makes the rules. 
Equivalence depends on who's turf you are on.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Madman said:


> There are no universal logical conclusions, the LGBTQ advocates have proven that.
> 
> It sounds to me that you believe it is right to eat a child as to eat a rabbit.


Those are some far spaced dots you are connecting. 

Donner Party and some Soccer Players in the Andes didn't eat anyone until they HAD to. Until I am in that situation I'll have the rabbit.


----------



## Madman (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Those are some far spaced dots you are connecting.
> 
> Donner Party and some Soccer Players in the Andes didn't eat anyone until they HAD to. Until I am in that situation I'll have the rabbit.


No my dots are extremely close.  The Donner party and soccer team make my point quite well.  The did not HAVE to eat each other.

There are some things that are not done, and I have that on my list.

Now we would revisit


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Madman said:


> No my dots are extremely close.  The Donner party and soccer team make my point quite well.  The did not HAVE to eat each other.
> 
> There are some things that are not done, and I have that on my list.
> 
> Now we would revisit


They didnt have to eat each other?
Domino's was available but they chose not to order?


----------



## Madman (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> These rights that can removed are usually after a person violates another persons rights that were granted by man/politicians.


These rights Ruger #3 is talking about cannot be removed, they are either protected or not protected but they are still there.


----------



## Madman (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> They didnt have to eat each other?
> Domino's was available but they chose not to order?


Who forced them?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Madman said:


> Who forced them?


Death


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 2, 2022)

Madman said:


> These rights Ruger #3 is talking about cannot be removed, they are either protected or not protected but they are still there.



Some of the greatest infringements in human history has been disregard of the rights, the holocaust, the killing fields, etc.


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Death



Still a choice, takes resolve, regardless if starvation if certain death in combat. One still has a choice.

The Alamo


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Still a choice, takes resolve, regardless if starvation if certain death in combat. One still has a choice.
> 
> The Alamo


Everything is a choice. Individuals all have their lines in the sand.

Combat and Starvation are two different things. If eating a Crockett burger would have turned Santa Anna's army in retreat I am thinking the question would have been Med Rare or Well done?


----------



## Madman (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Death


No force there, only a choice.
Use wisely your power of choice.


----------



## Madman (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> If eating a Crockett burger would have turned Santa Anna's army in retreat I am thinking the question would have been Med Rare or Well done?


I am thinking you are mistaken.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Madman said:


> No force there, only a choice.
> Use wisely your power of choice.


I am not as worldly as you men who have been in situations where it was starvation or death and you've chosen death through incredible intestinal fortitude.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2022)

Madman said:


> I am thinking you are mistaken.


Had the Alamo not been able to be breached but had been under siege where starvation had set in those men would have used any means necessary to fight another day.
Neither of us will ever know.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> In the safety of civilization we make the rules. Out in the wild with your claws and fangs vs theirs you will quickly notice who makes the rules.
> Equivalence depends on who's turf you are on.



Correct.

You can choose all the natural rights you want but if you can't defend them, someone's going to take it away from you if you aren't the strongest person/city/country in the area.

We here in the US owe our freedom to those who came before us and fought and died to establish and defend it and those who do so now.  

What's the quote?

*We sleep safe in our beds because* *rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.* 

Look at Ukraine right now. Russia "Messed around and found out". Ukraine is showing that they WILL fight for their rights. (To "party" and live a life unmolested by next door bully state)


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I am not as worldly as you men who have been in situations where it was starvation or death and you've chosen death through incredible intestinal fortitude.


Yep, talk is cheap until you find yourself in a life or death situation. Many revert right back to the animals we are.


----------



## 660griz (May 3, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Whatever the animal is doing ^^^ that is all we have. They can’t really tell us what they’re feeling or if they’re feeling anything at all.


 I think it is a little deeper than that. I am by no means an expert but, I believe they have mapped parts of the brain responsible for feelings and can tell when they 'light up'. I hope it is more scientific than a tail wagging.



> If someone wants to believe that dog loves them then ok - stop feeding him and start throwing rocks at him, let’s how emotional distraught he is when you whistle with a biscuit in your hand.


 Not sure how that relates. If I did that to a human that loved me it may be a little apprehensive about coming near me.



> It’s just my personal opinion that humans are  not on the same playing field as animals when it comes to rights / emotions.


 I agree 100%



> I’m an animal lover, but if animals have emotions and should have the same rights equivalent to humans - why do we decide their fate based on what it cost to fix them back up?


 I think they/some have emotions and the higher intelligence ones shouldn't be abused but, I will kill a mosquito without a thought. As a matter of fact, if I could wipe mosquitos and ticks from the planet, I would. Don't care about their feelings. If ya gonna kill, I believe everything deserves a quick death. The very worst part of hunting to me is the kill. Not gonna become a vegetarian though.
Do humans have a tendency to put human emotions on everything? Yes. I agree that is not always accurate. Two fawns playing probably doesn't really mean they are happy. More like training. 



> why do we decide their fate based on what it cost to fix them back up?


 I don't. I decide based on quality of life and lifespan. Something I hope can be used to judge my fate. If I am 98 and a million dollars would get me another year in bed...put me down. I have a goat that had $2500 surgery when he was a 'kid'. He is still going strong 5 years later. I was told to put him down, eat him, etc. Doctor said there was a 50/50 chance the surgery would even work. So there is a chance? ---Dumb and Dumber.


----------



## Spotlite (May 3, 2022)

660griz said:


> I think it is a little deeper than that. I am by no means an expert but, I believe they have mapped parts of the brain responsible for feelings and can tell when they 'light up'. I hope it is more scientific than a tail wagging.
> 
> Not sure how that relates. If I did that to a human that loved me it may be a little apprehensive about coming near me.
> 
> ...


I can agree!


----------



## ambush80 (May 3, 2022)

Madman said:


> Yes it could.  I can see where a vegan might logically argue that “I don't think humans have more rights to life than other animals .....”. or Jeffery Dahmer, but, even from a dietary standpoint, it would be difficult for a carnivore to make the case.
> 
> What’s on the menu tonight gents?




Cannibalism has a long history of practice.  The utilitarian argument against it is pretty simple, don't eat people and they won't try to eat you. 

I already explained why we care about animals less than we do our own species, but how do we figure out which humans to care about more?  We're driven by kin selection and tribalism, both of which arose from evolutionary processes.


----------



## ambush80 (May 3, 2022)

660griz said:


> I think it is a little deeper than that. I am by no means an expert but, I believe they have mapped parts of the brain responsible for feelings and can tell when they 'light up'. I hope it is more scientific than a tail wagging.
> 
> Not sure how that relates. If I did that to a human that loved me it may be a little apprehensive about coming near me.
> 
> ...



They may be "deer happy".  You can't understand it anymore than you can understand "deer smelling" or "deer tasting".  They have their own unique way that they experience the world.


----------



## Madman (May 3, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Cannibalism has a long history of practice.  The utilitarian argument against it is pretty simple, don't eat people and they won't try to eat you.
> 
> I already explained why we care about animals less than we do our own species, but how do we figure out which humans to care about more?  We're driven by kin selection and tribalism, both of which arose from evolutionary processes.



Cannibalism was/is not usually dietary, the purpose was to get the strength of the enemy one had killed, or other mystical properties they believe the flesh has.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2022)

Madman said:


> Cannibalism was/is not usually dietary, the purpose was to get the strength of the enemy one had killed, or other mystical properties they believe the flesh has.


Mystical properties like Protein when in a life or death starvation situation?


----------



## 660griz (May 4, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> They may be "deer happy".  You can't understand it anymore than you can understand "deer smelling" or "deer tasting".  They have their own unique way that they experience the world.


Oh, I understand 'deer tasting', trust me.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2022)

I might 


Madman said:


> Cannibalism was/is not usually dietary, the purpose was to get the strength of the enemy one had killed, or other mystical properties they believe the flesh has.



I might have read somewhere that Caribbeans enjoyed eating wayward sailors and called the meat "long pig".


----------



## ky55 (May 4, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I might
> 
> 
> I might have read somewhere that Caribbeans enjoyed eating wayward sailors and called the meat "long pig".



The other white meat?


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 4, 2022)

This took an unexpected turn. Lets see if we can leave cannibalism and get back to the  topic of fundamental rights and their source.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> This took an unexpected turn. Lets see if we can leave cannibalism and get back to the  topic of fundamental rights and their source.


With this crowd nothing should be unexpected


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 4, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> With this crowd nothing should be unexpected



True Walt


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> This took an unexpected turn. Lets see if we can leave cannibalism and get back to the  topic of fundamental rights and their source.



I think the topic is a branch off the same tree.  Can I eat you?  Can you eat me?  If "God" says so, is it OK?


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 4, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I think the topic is a branch off the same tree.  Can I eat you?  Can you eat me?  If "God" says so, is it OK?



 The topic is not the subject of the thread. As I’m the OP I’m fairly clear on my intent.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 5, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> The topic is not the subject of the thread. As I’m the OP I’m fairly clear on my intent.


I dont normally post in here, but i will try to get you back on topic?. 
Im no atheist but your religious views need not matter to have a clear view of natural rights. If fact they are by definition the rights of man that cannot be changed by someones personal belief system. They just are. Or as Ayn Rand put it in her objectivist system, A is A no matter what you believe. Some things just are. Now that doesnt mean you cant very easily be stripped of these rights, and that we dont even agree on what they are as a society, but they are there no matter. The closer a society gets to upholding these rights the more just and free it becomes. Natural rights are there in spite of belief systems, not because of them.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> I dont normally post in here, but i will try to get you back on topic?.
> Im no atheist but your religious views need not matter to have a clear view of natural rights. If fact they are by definition the rights of man that cannot be changed by someones personal belief system. They just are. Or as Ayn Rand put it in her objectivist system, A is A no matter what you believe. Some things just are. Now that doesnt mean you cant very easily be stripped of these rights, and that we dont even agree on what they are as a society, but they are there no matter. The closer a society gets to upholding these rights the more just and free it becomes. Natural rights are there in spite of belief systems, not because of them.


Here's where I get stuck on this "natural rights" thing ' -
MAN decided that natural rights are a "thing", that they existed. Man even decided what they are, gave the words a definition.
That doesnt strike me as natural 
It strikes me as a "human/man belief system" or concept..


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 5, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Here's where I get stuck on this "natural rights" thing ' -
> MAN decided that natural rights are a "thing", that they existed. Man even decided what they are, gave the words a definition.
> That doesnt strike me as natural
> It strikes me as a "human/man belief system" or concept..


We didnt decide anything. We are simply trying to describe something that we know is a truth.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> We didnt decide anything. We are simply trying to describe something that we know is a truth.


And how do we "know" that?
Not trying to be difficult. Trying to go a little deeper than "it just is".
Were these natural rights hiding somewhere and were discovered? Somebody observed them? Got caught on someones trail cam?


----------



## JB0704 (May 5, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I‘m also certain I could enjoy fishing and a day of discourse with some of the regulars here.



I've fished, hunted, and shared a beer with a few of 'em.  Good folks and I ahve always enjoyed the time.

Great thread, btw.  I don't post in here much at all anymore because I felt like I was repeating myself too much.


----------



## JB0704 (May 5, 2022)

Relevant to the question at hand (and forgive me if I skimmed over somebody answering this), wouldn't the AA view be that there are no rights as we view them?  Assuming a person is no different construct than a deer, why does the human have the right to life but not the deer?  It seems a natural right is limited to what one has the ability to defend, and if you have to defend it, you aren't naturally entitled to it.  The opposite is true.  Nature tries to deprive you of life constantly, and eventually will.  In the example with the deer......the human only has the right to life because the deer isn't smart enough to kill and eat him.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 5, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> And how do we "know" that?
> Not trying to be difficult. Trying to go a little deeper than "it just is".
> Were these natural rights hiding somewhere and were discovered? Somebody observed them? Got caught on someones trail cam?


I already went deeper and you choose not to agree with that line of though. There are many things we know to be true even if we cant measure them with a ruler, or solve them with a calculation. Thats not a replacement of logic and reason for faith. Its just a statement that some things are just because they are. They dont depend on your understanding of them to exist.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 5, 2022)

JB0704 said:


> Relevant to the question at hand (and forgive me if I skimmed over somebody answering this), wouldn't the AA view be that there are no rights as we view them?  Assuming a person is no different construct than a deer, why does the human have the right to life but not the deer?  It seems a natural right is limited to what one has the ability to defend, and if you have to defend it, you aren't naturally entitled to it.  The opposite is true.  Nature tries to deprive you of life constantly, and eventually will.  In the example with the deer......the human only has the right to life because the deer isn't smart enough to kill and eat him.


A human has no right to life when dealing with animals as they trade with a different currency as it were. We are not the same.


----------



## JB0704 (May 5, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> A human has no right to life when dealing with animals as they trade with a different currency as it were. We are not the same.



Then consider the two humans one rabbit scenario.  The stronger of the two only shares what they are compelled to share via morality or compassion.  The weaker has no claim to the meal beyond what the stronger allows.  Survival of the fittest, n such.

I personally believe rights are only really for humans, and humans were created differently than critters, and rocks.  Just pointing out that there are no “rights” in the natural world.


----------



## JB0704 (May 5, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> A human has no right to life when dealing with animals as they trade with a different currency as it were. We are not the same.



Also, minus a creator, a human is the same as animals.  Stardust arranged a little differently.  Rights at that point are based on the current morality of the population and not by nature.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2022)

JB0704 said:


> Relevant to the question at hand (and forgive me if I skimmed over somebody answering this), wouldn't the AA view be that there are no rights as we view them?  Assuming a person is no different construct than a deer, why does the human have the right to life but not the deer?  It seems a natural right is limited to what one has the ability to defend, and if you have to defend it, you aren't naturally entitled to it.  The opposite is true.  Nature tries to deprive you of life constantly, and eventually will.  In the example with the deer......the human only has the right to life because the deer isn't smart enough to kill and eat him.


People are better than deer/animals because we think and say we are. I am ok with that whether true or not.


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> I already went deeper and you choose not to agree with that line of though. There are many things we know to be true even if we cant measure them with a ruler, or solve them with a calculation. Thats not a replacement of logic and reason for faith. Its just a statement that some things are just because they are. They dont depend on your understanding of them to exist.



Like 1+1=2 or mix sodium and chlorine and something happens?  I don't think natural rights are like that.  Without smart apes, natural rights don't exist.  There is only natural law.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2022)

JB0704 said:


> Also, minus a creator, a human is the same as animals.  Stardust arranged a little differently.  Rights at that point are based on the current morality of the population and not by nature.


Modern humans are a different animal than early humans.


----------



## JB0704 (May 5, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Modern humans are a different animal than early humans.



Only through a natural process though, correct?  The value we assign ourselves, or our rights, are only to the extent we have been born the right critter at the right time.  I am not saying that morality doesn't exist, just not natural rights.

The "rights" we have as Americans only exist because they are codified and protected (somewhat kinda).


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Modern humans are a different animal than early humans.




Might could argue that Postmodern humans are different than modern humans......


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2022)

JB0704 said:


> Only through a natural process though, correct?  The value we assign ourselves, or our rights, are only to the extent we have been born the right critter at the right time.  I am not saying that morality doesn't exist, just not natural rights.
> 
> The "rights" we have as Americans only exist because they are codified and protected (somewhat kinda).



Are you saying there is a morality that exists outside of minds in the same way that 1+1=2?  Good to see you again Brent.  I still have that case of clays needs flinging and shooting.


----------



## JB0704 (May 5, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Are you saying there is a morality that exists outside of minds in the same way that 1+1=2?



I think what I am saying is that a right only exists to the extent we can defend it.  Or, in nature, rights only belong to "the fittest."



ambush80 said:


> Good to see you again Brent.  I still have that case of clays needs flinging and shooting.



Come on down.......and keep the second Saturday of dove season marked off on your calendar


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> I already went deeper and you choose not to agree with that line of though. There are many things we know to be true even if we cant measure them with a ruler, or solve them with a calculation. Thats not a replacement of logic and reason for faith. Its just a statement that some things are just because they are. They dont depend on your understanding of them to exist.


We arent talking about some things or many things. We are talking specifically about the existence of natural rights.
You keep saying "we know to be true" and "some things are just because they are".
I'm asking how you arrived at that conclusion. In my mind "natural" means just that. No man/humans involved. They would exist even if we (humans) didnt.
We (man) seem to know =
Who and what these natural rights apply to (just us).
We seem to know the difference between natural rights and other rights;
For us to know them to be true, they must have been proven to be true.
History dictates man has decided at times who can enjoy these natural rights and who cant.
How do we know these things?
Im contending its because they are a construct of man.
Looking for something more than "just because" to view it differently.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Like 1+1=2 or mix sodium and chlorine and something happens?  I don't think natural rights are like that.  Without smart apes, natural rights don't exist.  There is only natural law.


Thats my thinking put in a much simpler form 
But Im open to viewing it differently.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 5, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> We arent talking about some things or many things. We are talking specifically about the existence of natural rights.
> You keep saying "we know to be true" and "some things are just because they are".
> I'm asking how you arrived at that conclusion. In my mind "natural" means just that. No man/humans involved. They would exist even if we (humans) didnt.
> We (man) seem to know =
> ...


So we humans arent natural? So for something to be true in the natural world it has to exist seperate of humans? In our quest for a civil society we have searched for certain guidline that would make this possible. A rulebook or maybe an operators manual of sorts. We have tried many ways to live together over the centuries. Some have resulted in horror and death and poverty and slavery, and some have allowed men to live happy, prosperous, relatively secure lives. As we ponder the reasons behind the differences we seek to create an understanding why people and societies are happy and free one way, and in chains and misery in another method. There is a set of guidlines that allow our species to live together and thrive.They will not work for all species but they work for us, and they are based in the natural rights of man. They are our natural way of being, and when we ignore them we fail to thrive.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 5, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Like 1+1=2 or mix sodium and chlorine and something happens?  I don't think natural rights are like that.  Without smart apes, natural rights don't exist.  There is only natural law.


And yet they still exist. 
Smart apes? You can do better than that....


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 5, 2022)

JB0704 said:


> Also, minus a creator, a human is the same as animals.  Stardust arranged a little differently.  Rights at that point are based on the current morality of the population and not by nature.


Creator or not, do you really really really feel we are just another animal? Just a bit different or a little smarter? As we sit here and chat about the questions of the universe  over long distances through the internet? We are very much different that the other species on the planet, so we live by different rules.


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 5, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> So we humans arent natural? So for something to be true in the natural world it has to exist seperate of humans? In our quest for a civil society we have searched for certain guidline that would make this possible. A rulebook or maybe an operators manual of sorts. We have tried many ways to live together over the centuries. Some have resulted in horror and death and poverty and slavery, and some have allowed men to live happy, prosperous, relatively secure lives. As we ponder the reasons behind the differences we seek to create an understanding why people and societies are happy and free one way, and in chains and misery in another method. There is a set of guidlines that allow our species to live together and thrive.They will not work for all species but they work for us, and they are based in the natural rights of man. They are our natural way of being, and when we ignore them we fail to thrive.



If you’ll indulge me building on your thought. The most inhumane acts by man have been when man failed to recognize his fellow man’s basic right to life, freedom and happiness. Auschwitz comes to mind. In survival school we are taught to recognize dehumanization during POW captivity. Not recognizing a group as human or as subhuman is a consistent tactic of those who intend to violate one’s right to life. It’s an alarm bell that systemic disrespect for life is being implemented.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 5, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> If you’ll indulge me building on your thought. The most inhumane acts by man have been when man failed to recognize his fellow man’s basic right to life, freedom and happiness. Auschwitz comes to mind. In survival school we are taught to recognize dehumanization during POW captivity. Not recognizing a group as human or as subhuman is a consistent tactic of those who intend to violate one’s right to life. It’s an alarm bell that systemic disrespect for life is being implemented.


Yessir exactly. The further we stray from them the worse it gets. Good points.


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 5, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> And yet they still exist.
> Smart apes? You can do better than that....



technically humans are in the sub-group of primates called "great apes".
As for humans being smart? The verdict is still out on some humans.


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 5, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> technically humans are in the sub-group of primates called "great apes".
> As for humans being smart? The verdict is still out on some humans.



Homo Sapien is the only living example of the genus Homo, the rest are fossils we have to interpret. Hence, open to error and preconceived notions. We are distinctly different than apes, what that difference is brings this discussion. Art, burial rights, a sense of spirituality, these are human traits that are impossible to measure. But we are different and paleontologist acknowledge that.


----------



## JB0704 (May 5, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Creator or not, do you really really really feel we are just another animal? Just a bit different or a little smarter? As we sit here and chat about the questions of the universe  over long distances through the internet? We are very much different that the other species on the planet, so we live by different rules.



I mentioned in a previous post that I’m a believer.  Just debating “rights.”  My position is they are endowed by the creator.  But, aside from that, and minus that, they only exist to the extent u can defend them.  Which, to my thinking, means there are no natural rights.  Only those which are created by man and defended by strength.  

Again, I am not discussing morality.  Whole nuther topic.  Just rights.


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 5, 2022)

Call it Nature, Creator, God, that’s perspective, but the founders recognized the existence of these rights and the seriousness of an infringement on them.

*The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,* When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> So we humans arent natural? So for something to be true in the natural world it has to exist seperate of humans? In our quest for a civil society we have searched for certain guidline that would make this possible. A rulebook or maybe an operators manual of sorts. We have tried many ways to live together over the centuries. Some have resulted in horror and death and poverty and slavery, and some have allowed men to live happy, prosperous, relatively secure lives. As we ponder the reasons behind the differences we seek to create an understanding why people and societies are happy and free one way, and in chains and misery in another method. There is a set of guidlines that allow our species to live together and thrive.They will not work for all species but they work for us, and they are based in the natural rights of man. They are our natural way of being, and when we ignore them we fail to thrive.


I dont disagree with much of that,
Just let me point out -


> In our quest for a civil society we have searched for certain guidline that would make this possible.


Thats a construct of man. Therefore not "natural". 
I think our differing viewpoints is our seemingly different view of what natural means.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Homo Sapien is the only living example of the genus Homo, the rest are fossils we have to interpret. Hence, open to error and preconceived notions. We are distinctly different than apes, what that difference is brings this discussion. Art, burial rights, a sense of spirituality, these are human traits that are impossible to measure. But we are different and paleontologist acknowledge that.


I dont think anybody would argue that we arent "different" than apes.
In the same way that a VW Beetle is "different" from a Ferrari.
But both fall under the classification of automobiles.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2022)

JB0704 said:


> I mentioned in a previous post that I’m a believer.  Just debating “rights.”  My position is they are endowed by the creator.  But, aside from that, and minus that, they only exist to the extent u can defend them.  Which, to my thinking, means there are no natural rights.  Only those which are created by man and defended by strength.
> 
> Again, I am not discussing morality.  Whole nuther topic.  Just rights.


Howdy Brent.
I think our thinking is basically headed in the same direction.
I woud even go further and say if these rights were endowed (given) by a Creator then they arent "natural".
I know that can be a little sticky though as your viewpoint would be... God created "natural".


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Homo Sapien is the only living example of the genus Homo, the rest are fossils we have to interpret. Hence, open to error and preconceived notions. We are distinctly different than apes, what that difference is brings this discussion. Art, burial rights, a sense of spirituality, these are human traits that are impossible to measure. But we are different and paleontologist acknowledge that.



https://www.ranker.com/list/touching-animal-rituals/nida-sea

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/chimpanzee-spirituality/475731/






https://www.today.com/pets/robin-williams-mourned-koko-gorilla-1D80056867


----------



## JB0704 (May 6, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Howdy Brent.
> I think our thinking is basically headed in the same direction.
> I woud even go further and say if these rights were endowed (given) by a Creator then they arent "natural".
> I know that can be a little sticky though as your viewpoint would be... God created "natural".



Hey Walt!

And, my position is that a creator cannot be super natural as he is the reason for nature.  If rights are granted to humans by the creator, then they are part of his natural creation.  Like you said, it's tricky.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 6, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I dont disagree with much of that,
> Just let me point out -
> 
> Thats a construct of man. Therefore not "natural".
> I think our differing viewpoints is our seemingly different view of what natural means.


I think that just because we search for a truth and then give it a name doesnt make it man made.
As to your other viewpoint i kinda find it odd that folks in the atheist forum keep tryin to seperate man from nature. Like everything we do or believe is artificial and "man made" vs everything else on the planet being natural.


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 6, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I dont disagree with much of that,
> Just let me point out -
> 
> Thats a construct of man. Therefore not "natural".
> I think our differing viewpoints is our seemingly different view of what natural means.



Walt I agree with you in the sense that the system to maintain the rights is man made and therefore fallible. The founders clearly state it is man’s responsibility to build a system that protects these rights and abandon a system that does not.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 6, 2022)

JB0704 said:


> I mentioned in a previous post that I’m a believer.  Just debating “rights.”  My position is they are endowed by the creator.  But, aside from that, and minus that, they only exist to the extent u can defend them.  Which, to my thinking, means there are no natural rights.  Only those which are created by man and defended by strength.
> 
> Again, I am not discussing morality.  Whole nuther topic.  Just rights.


You can believe in natural rights and also understant that it takes effort to achieve them being part of a society. Life is struggle for certain. That doesnt take away from the fact that humans live the best under certain guidelines.?


----------



## JB0704 (May 6, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> You can believe in natural rights and also understant that it takes effort to achieve them being part of a society. Life is struggle for certain. That doesnt take away from the fact that humans live the best under certain guidelines.?



I'm trying to understand where you are with this.......if we remove governments and a creator, are you saying a human has a natural right to life?  Or is life an achievement through struggle or generosity of the strong (two people one rabbit example).


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 6, 2022)

JB0704 said:


> I'm trying to understand where you are with this.......if we remove governments and a creator, are you saying a human has a natural right to life?  Or is life an achievement through struggle or generosity of the strong (two people one rabbit example).


Let me say it like this. Men are meant to be free, and live best under conditions that value life and promote liberty, but it does take effort to make that happen.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> I think that just because we search for a truth and then give it a name doesnt make it man made.
> As to your other viewpoint i kinda find it odd that folks in the atheist forum keep tryin to seperate man from nature. Like everything we do or believe is artificial and "man made" vs everything else on the planet being natural.





> folks in the atheist forum keep tryin to seperate man from nature.


Not ^ my intention at all. In fact I would think an A/A believes man actually came from nature.... as opposed to being created by a god.
What I am seperating is rights coming from nature. They are a concept of man. Therefore not natural. In my opinion. Havent heard anything yet to the contrary.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 6, 2022)

In other words @JB0704  our natural state of being takes "man made" effort to achieve.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 6, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Not ^ my intention at all. In fact I would think an A/A believes man actually came from nature.... as opposed to being created by a god.
> What I am seperating is rights coming from nature. They are a concept of man. Therefore not natural. In my opinion. Havent heard anything yet to the contrary.


Ok well then if man and nature are one and the same and then man creates rights doesnt that make them "natural" rights? ??


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Walt I agree with you in the sense that the system to maintain the rights is man made and therefore fallible. The founders clearly state it is man’s responsibility to build a system that protects these rights and abandon a system that does not.


No argument there.
But thats man deciding the system will work best if we grant these things we call rights and then protect them.
Again, for me, the speed bump is calling them "natural". They werent out there somwehere, we discovered them, and decided it would be best to protect them.
All we did was figure out what would make the system work best and then went from there.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Ok well then if man and nature are one and the same and then man creates rights doesnt that make them "natural" rights? ??


Nope but I see your point.
Man comes from nature. Man created a Studebaker. Doesnt make a Studebaker "natural". Thats my whole point when it comes to natural rights.


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> I think that just because we search for a truth and then give it a name doesnt make it man made.
> As to your other viewpoint i kinda find it odd that folks in the atheist forum keep tryin to seperate man from nature. Like everything we do or believe is artificial and "man made" vs everything else on the planet being natural.


I don't think it is all man made, man just sets the terms and descriptions on how such things are defined and understandable to our own standards.
As many awful things happen as the good. Man decides which are acceptable personally, within society and culture. Those views vary widely across the planet.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2022)

bullethead said:


> https://www.ranker.com/list/touching-animal-rituals/nida-sea
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/chimpanzee-spirituality/475731/
> 
> ...


The video with Koko and Robin Williams kind of touched me. Koko seemed to really bring Robin joy to his obviously tortured psyche.


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 6, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I don't think it is all man made, man just sets the terms and descriptions on how such things are defined and understandable to our own standards.
> As many awful things happen as the good. Man decides which are acceptable personally, within society and culture. Those views vary widely across the planet.


Thats true. We try to descibe what a thing is and sometimes that causes a debate to happen on the interwebs...??


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Walt I agree with you in the sense that the system to maintain the rights is man made and therefore fallible. The founders clearly state it is man’s responsibility to build a system that protects these rights and abandon a system that does not.


Do you think the Founders of the USA stated those things in order to improve upon the system that they lived under which was ruled by a different form of Government and different rules?
Meaning...."If I was King, I'd do things this way"


----------



## livinoutdoors (May 6, 2022)

If there is a creator, then they set in place things for us to discover, and make of them what we will. If its all just random particles coming together, then it doesnt matter anyway so enjoy the ride.


----------



## Ruger#3 (May 6, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Do you think the Founders of the USA stated those things in order to improve upon the system that they lived under which was ruled by a different form of Government and different rules?
> Meaning...."If I was King, I'd do things this way"



They were explaining why the British system was insufferable and violate their basic rights and that this conduct led them to form a new government to protect their rights.

“Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> The video with Koko and Robin Williams kind of touched me. Koko seemed to really bring Robin joy to his obviously tortured psyche.


It shows that Koco isn't trained to do tricks. Koco was capable of being taught a human way to communicate in order to express herself so that she could communicate with us. It shows that she has thoughts, emotions and an understanding of what is going on.
To watch her videos truly gives humans an insight to the similarities of humans and apes. These are not trained responses. These are proof that a Gorilla can learn, understand, communicate, think, laugh, cry, feel, mourn, add, subtract and do many things we think only are capable by humans. These are not circus tricks. This "animal" was able to learn "our" language and communicate to "our" standards. Many animals seem to have the capability to learn our ways better than we can learn theirs.


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> They were explaining why the British system was insufferable and violate their basic rights and that this conduct led them to form a new government to protect their rights.
> 
> “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”


I absolutely understand that. It is part of my point. Our Founders hoped to establish a better system than what they came from. It is not far fetched for a human (starting at some point in time) to give credit to a force greater than ourselves as to granting us things.
Who really sticks to that assertion though?
History shows, as far as you want to go back using whatever civilized or non civilized country/ruler you'd like, has violated the rights of the people that they rule.
Where is there a point in time where that has not happened?
Without question it has happened and still happens today in every form of "modern" human culture. That covers at least 10,000 years.
At what point in the history of man was there a time when everything was peace, love and respect where all these natural rights were not only acknowledged and universally understood but adhered to?
Was it when we had to sleep in trees so the predators wouldn't get us? Did we have a better appreciation for each other when the person on the next branch was literally all you had?
It certainly was not in the caves as we know even then it was clan against clan and literally anything goes.

While I have the mindset that our Forefathers are among the most brilliant and in my opinion The Greatest group of men to ever gather and work on forming a country, I also realize that they are human and tried to do their best to word things how they understood them.
I think that we all have the desire to pursue happiness. But I am also aware that life does not guarantee happiness. I am not sure "rights" are the correct word.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It shows that Koco isn't trained to do tricks. Koco was capable of being taught a human way to communicate in order to express herself so that she could communicate with us. It shows that she has thoughts, emotions and an understanding of what is going on.
> To watch her videos truly gives humans an insight to the similarities of humans and apes. These are not trained responses. These are proof that a Gorilla can learn, understand, communicate, think, laugh, cry, feel, mourn, add, subtract and do many things we think only are capable by humans. These are not circus tricks. This "animal" was able to learn "our" language and communicate to "our" standards. Many animals seem to have the capability to learn our ways better than we can learn theirs.


I find it most interesting that she is self aware enough to understand what her own emotions are but using our words. She understands what she is feeling is called "sad".
Just like us. Imagine that.....


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I find it most interesting that she is self aware enough to understand what her own emotions are but using our words. She understands what she is feeling is called "sad".
> Just like us. Imagine that.....


Yeah, not too many of us brilliant humans are fluent in Silverback!
I alway think about a dog (even if it is because of training) can recognize certain words, understand them, and do what is asked yet in the time spent with that same dog I have no idea what a bark of any form is actually saying.


----------



## ambush80 (May 6, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, not too many of us brilliant humans are fluent in Silverback!
> I alway think about a dog (even if it is because of training) can recognize certain words, understand them, and do what is asked yet in the time spent with that same dog I have no idea what a bark of any form is actually saying.



Yeah.  I can only interpret a general "pain" vocalization from a dog as opposed to any other sound.  Can't even tell the difference between aggression and play growling sometimes.  It's cool to think about how the development of speech advanced our ability to flourish.  Without the words, the idea of a right is meaningless except to the holder of the idea.

I think a byproduct of this discussion can be the consideration of what is the difference between a right supposedly given by God and one made up by men. It frames the way that the right can be defended.  Take for example the way that some people believe that it's their God given right to beat their wives.  Look to what lengths they will go to defend that right.  My point being, it's hard to discuss and debate an idea that someone thinks is bestowed upon them by God.  It's a full stop.  It's my main issue with Divine Revelation.


----------



## ambush80 (May 6, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, not too many of us brilliant humans are fluent in Silverback!
> I alway think about a dog (even if it is because of training) can recognize certain words, understand them, and do what is asked yet in the time spent with that same dog I have no idea what a bark of any form is actually saying.



My dog seems to know frisbee, ball and rope, but sometimes I will ask for "ball" and she brings me the frisbee, as if to express her own preference.


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  I can only interpret a general "pain" vocalization from a dog as opposed to any other sound.  Can't even tell the difference between aggression and play growling sometimes.  It's cool to think about how the development of speech advanced our ability to flourish.  Without the words, the idea of a right is meaningless except to the holder of the idea.
> 
> I think a byproduct of this discussion can be the consideration of what is the difference between a right supposedly given by God and one made up by men. It frames the way that the right can be defended.  Take for example the way that some people believe that it's their God given right to beat their wives.  Look to what lengths they will go to defend that right.  My point being, it's hard to discuss and debate an idea that someone thinks is bestowed upon them by God.  It's a full stop.  It's my main issue with Divine Revelation.


I can understand a frantic bark meaning a dog seemingly doesn't like something or someone but no specifics like is it warning someone to stay off the property or telling the mailman that his pants are not official uniform spec, lolol


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> My dog seems to know frisbee, ball and rope, but sometimes I will ask for "ball" and she brings me the frisbee, as if to express her own preference.


I can appreciate that.
Our Son's dog would often go get his leash when asked if he wanted to go for a walk. Every now and then he'd go get a toy instead. It took us a while to realize that he was trying to tell us that he wasn't into the walk and that he'd rather play.


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 6, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Homo Sapien is the only living example of the genus Homo, the rest are fossils we have to interpret. Hence, open to error and preconceived notions. We are distinctly different than apes, what that difference is brings this discussion. Art, burial rights, a sense of spirituality, these are human traits that are impossible to measure. But we are different and paleontologist acknowledge that.



Oh we are different no doubt. As for only fossils left, some humans have up to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. While not a "fossil" that DNA is a living reminder of how close we are to other Homos. 

Speaking of evolution, I recently heard what is probably one of the stupidest remarks about evolution from Herschel Walker, former athlete and current Senate candidate.
Walker may be a very nice guy, but nonetheless he stated this:
"If evolution is real, then why are monkeys still around?" 

Wow-where to start? If you don't want to believe in evolution, that's your opinion, I respect that. But it's his thought process that blows me away! Species don't just become extinct once a more improved (or different) species develops! It's like sending all the 2022 cars to the scrap heap once the 2023 cars are made. There's a lot of overlap involved, Herschel!   His evolution comment is almost as stupid as the one I heard from another NCO when I was an instructor: "That gorilla Ozzie has been at the Atlanta Zoo for about seven years, and he still hasn't evolved yet!" 

I almost had to pick my jaw up off the floor when I heard that!


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2022)

I would start off by saying that the people's of the Americas were doing pretty well before other people of organized religions "found" them.

Anyway, it stands to reason that the earliest invaders err settlers who came from Christian countries would bring their religion with them. Naturally their religion would grow and expand as the followers did. By the time our country separated from England our Forefathers were still religious but had enough non biased insight to want to keep religion and Government separate no matter what the most popular religion was at the time. Sure then like now religion influenced actions and thoughts but unlike other countries a particular religion was not mandated as being official.
Guided by Christian principles makes sense since that was the majority religion of the non native population for at least 150 years since the Pilgrims landed. Not sure about being a Christian nation other than having a majority of people who pick Christian when asked to identify "their" religion.

Kind of like saying the Dallas Cowboys are Americas Team. Maybe they have the largest fan base and it is more of a boast than a reality if you are a Cowboy's fan but there are many fans who like other teams.


----------

