Covenant VS Contract

[LordMagnusKain]

I honestly believe that God grants us all inalienable human rights, rights that can only be taken from us by a majority consensus.

The right to love, the right to believe in and practice our faith as long as it doesn?t harm someone, the right to gain personal property and the right to live.

Some have argued to me recently that we?re entities of our countries, or in some cases a world community. Our rights come from being sentient life forms, from having self-awareness over time and from having the ability to reason.

Under this the only rights that we as people actually have are those granted to us by the state, so we?ve got a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth because that?s what the founding documents of our country say.

If you don't like God then who grants us these rights? what greater power gives us rights above that of the state and majority rule?

 

[Kadarin]

Interesting poll, and I'm interested to see how it turns out. To qualify my opinions, I am an athiest, in that I do not believe there is a god. And if there does turns out to be one, I see no point in "worshipping" it.

For the first question, for me "Covenant with God" has no meaning whatsoever. We do, however, have rights as granted to us by the societies in which we live, and in return, we have obligations to abide by the cultural "rules" that govern the behaviors of that society. Different societies have different rules, and people have had different rights in different societies throughout history. Call it a conract if you wish.

Does human life have inherent value simply because it's "human"? Another good question. What do you mean by "value"? The right to exist? I certainly value the life of my dog over the lives of some people (Islamic fundamentalists in al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, for example). No, I'd have to say the "value" comes from what the individual makes of his or her life. From their thoughts and actions and attitudes toward their fellow humans and other creatures that inhabit the universe.

 

[daveshel]

You'll have to define 'cretin criteria.'

 

[PatboyX]

we are animals.
human life has inherint value because it is all we know, probably all there is. it is survival instict. if we do not, as rational creatures, condone the wanton destruction of others, we reduce the chances of ourselves being destroyed.

 

[Gravity]

There are a number of covenants that God made with his people. Accordingly, those are the Jews. If you are not Jewish, these covenants don't apply. If you believe in Jesus Christ, there is a new covenant. This covenant restores the broken relationship gentiles have with God due to our sin and sin nature.

Also, there's a school of thought that the covenant God had with the Jews has been broken due to their rejection of His son and will only be restored once Christ has come again.

Somewhat interesting poll but I think your questions are too deep for the casual frequenter of this forum and might benefit from simplification.

 

[Dissipate]

God grants us all inalienable human rights, rights that can only be taken from us by a majority consensus.

Uh, that is a direct contradiction of the definition of the word inalienable.

Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: in-'Al-y&-n&-b&l, -'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights> ?in·alien·abil·i·ty /-"Al-y&amp;-n&amp;-'bi-l&amp;-tE, -"A-lE-&amp;-/ noun ?in·alien·ably adverb

Text

In any event, majority consensus is a piss poor way of determining someone's rights, and how they will live their life. From where I am standing the majority of the population isn't even in a very good position to determine how their own lives should be lived, let alone other people's. What's that you say? We need not worry, because we have "professional" politicians to make up for this fact? Too bad those politicians play on the ignorance of the majority that elects them to office, time and time again. Everything from currency to the Department of "defense" to the public school systems indicates that this "majority" rule system produces crappy results at every turn. Majority is in quotes because no politician even wins on a majority of the population, they win on a quarter of the population if they are lucky i.e. half the adult population votes in the election and they get half of those votes.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
I honestly believe that God grants us all inalienable human rights, rights that can only be taken from us by a majority consensus.

The right to love, the right to believe in and practice our faith as long as it doesn?t harm someone, the right to gain personal property and the right to live.

Some have argued to me recently that we?re entities of our countries, or in some cases a world community. Our rights come from being sentient life forms, from having self-awareness over time and from having the ability to reason.

Under this the only rights that we as people actually have are those granted to us by the state, so we?ve got a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth because that?s what the founding documents of our country say.

If you don't like God then who grants us these rights? what greater power gives us rights above that of the state and majority rule?

I believe that we have the rights because we set up a government that gave us these rights. I also believe that society works the best when these rights are granted so in a way we were created to prosper under these conditions. So perhaps we were created by God to live this way. The right to private property, allthough I agree with it and think its important, doesn't sound like something preached in the bible. Is there a passage that adresses this?

 

[PatboyX]

"rights" is simply a portion of the imaginary system that keeps human society from falling into chaos.

 

[CycloWizard]

Amazing that no one here has voted that human life has inherent values, but only after certain criteria are met, since this is the argument repeatedly parroted by every pro-choice person on this forum.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: daveshel
You'll have to define 'cretin criteria.'

actually that would be left up to the individual poster to define.

Astaroth33, tss: you've eloquently stated the basic fundamental disagreement that people like myself have with people like yourself.

I honestly think that we shouldn't play out this same disagreement over political issue after political issue, but honestly put forth what we thing about the rights of humanity and the value of the individual. If we do this then we can have more informed and honest disagreements, the kind that can lead to true and pure competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Amazing that no one here has voted that human life has inherent values, but only after certain criteria are met, since this is the argument repeatedly parroted by every pro-choice person on this forum.

don?t forget that it?s also the point that every pro-death penalty person makes as well, except with the idea that you can lose the right after criteria.

You?ll find that on both sides actual respect for human life as inherently valuable is lacking and saying ?what you do makes you human or not? is just something said because they can?t face an argument saying that human life isn?t inherently valuable.

Somewhat interesting poll but I think your questions are too deep for the casual frequenter of this forum and might benefit from simplification.

quote:

God grants us all inalienable human rights, rights that can only be taken from us by a majority consensus.

Uh, that is a direct contradiction of the definition of the word inalienable.

No, just a poor use of the word ?taken?, "suspended by social consensus as a means of protecting others inalienable rights", is a better way to put it.

In any event, majority consensus is a piss poor way of determining someone's rights, and how they will live their life.

in rejecting the idea of a creator who endows us with these rights because we are human what greater power than majority rule do you fall back on to support individual rights?

The right to private property, although I agree with it and think its important, doesn't sound like something preached in the bible.

I believe it?s a matter of rights given to us by God through nature, not through the bible.

But: God calls us to be giving and you?re raping someone of there human right to love and share by free will whenever you force them to ?give?, though necessary it may be.


liberal or conservative doesn't matter, just words to disguise the fact that neither party lays total claim to one side or the other of the 50/50 split between the "covenant" vs "contract" believers. this split is the real question laid before us in each political issue.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

In any event, majority consensus is a piss poor way of determining someone's rights, and how they will live their life.

in rejecting the idea of a creator who endows us with these rights because we are human what greater power than majority rule do you fall back on to support individual rights?

Individual rule.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Amazing that no one here has voted that human life has inherent values, but only after certain criteria are met, since this is the argument repeatedly parroted by every pro-choice person on this forum.

thats probably because human life like all other things has negotiable value, has a less than symbol next to it when compared with ideals of freedom, choice, wealth

don't believe me? look at war today

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

In any event, majority consensus is a piss poor way of determining someone's rights, and how they will live their life.

in rejecting the idea of a creator who endows us with these rights because we are human what greater power than majority rule do you fall back on to support individual rights?

Individual rule.

Society X invents a religion that says it has Creator Y that endows humans with set of "inalienable rights" Z. Some other culture invents a totally different religion, with other Creator(s), which endow humans with "inalienable rights" that are different.

It is very easy to shove the issue of human rights off on a mythical Creator. It is much harder to come to terms with the real idea that the concept of human rights is a cultural invention, and different cultures interpret this in different ways. The Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, the Aztecs, the Islamic world.. all of these societies interpret "human rights" in different ways.

To say that you are right because your religion tells you that you are right is just plain stupid.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

In any event, majority consensus is a piss poor way of determining someone's rights, and how they will live their life.

in rejecting the idea of a creator who endows us with these rights because we are human what greater power than majority rule do you fall back on to support individual rights?

Individual rule.

Society X invents a religion that says it has Creator Y that endows humans with set of "inalienable rights" Z. Some other culture invents a totally different religion, with other Creator(s), which endow humans with "inalienable rights" that are different.

It is very easy to shove the issue of human rights off on a mythical Creator. It is much harder to come to terms with the real idea that the concept of human rights is a cultural invention, and different cultures interpret this in different ways. The Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, the Aztecs, the Islamic world.. all of these societies interpret "human rights" in different ways.

To say that you are right because your religion tells you that you are right is just plain stupid.

I agree. However, non-religious justifications for the state such as social contract theory are just as mythical as religious ones.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

In any event, majority consensus is a piss poor way of determining someone's rights, and how they will live their life.

in rejecting the idea of a creator who endows us with these rights because we are human what greater power than majority rule do you fall back on to support individual rights?

Individual rule.

Society X invents a religion that says it has Creator Y that endows humans with set of "inalienable rights" Z. Some other culture invents a totally different religion, with other Creator(s), which endow humans with "inalienable rights" that are different.

It is very easy to shove the issue of human rights off on a mythical Creator. It is much harder to come to terms with the real idea that the concept of human rights is a cultural invention, and different cultures interpret this in different ways. The Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, the Aztecs, the Islamic world.. all of these societies interpret "human rights" in different ways.

To say that you are right because your religion tells you that you are right is just plain stupid.

I agree. However, non-religious justifications for the state such as social contract theory are just as mythical as religious ones.

Please explain?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

In any event, majority consensus is a piss poor way of determining someone's rights, and how they will live their life.

in rejecting the idea of a creator who endows us with these rights because we are human what greater power than majority rule do you fall back on to support individual rights?

Individual rule.

Society X invents a religion that says it has Creator Y that endows humans with set of "inalienable rights" Z. Some other culture invents a totally different religion, with other Creator(s), which endow humans with "inalienable rights" that are different.

It is very easy to shove the issue of human rights off on a mythical Creator. It is much harder to come to terms with the real idea that the concept of human rights is a cultural invention, and different cultures interpret this in different ways. The Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, the Aztecs, the Islamic world.. all of these societies interpret "human rights" in different ways.

To say that you are right because your religion tells you that you are right is just plain stupid.

I agree. However, non-religious justifications for the state such as social contract theory are just as mythical as religious ones.

Please explain?

Social contract theory is based on Hobbesian myths relating to man wanting to get out of a state of nature which is "nasty, brutish and short." This theory has been elaborated on by more modern political thinkers such as James Buchanan in his book called The Limits of Liberty, Between Anarchy and Leviathan. The theory goes like this. In absence of a social contract and a government man will remain in a prisoner's dilemma. Buchanan concedes that people are able to make agreements with a small number of other individuals, but when society gets too large and people encounter large numbers of anonymous people the agreement process breaks down. Buchanan gives this scenario. Let's say in the stateless society two strangers meet. If both strangers respect each other's property then overall utility is maximized. However, if one stranger decides to steal or defraud the other stranger out of property his own utility will be maximized at the expense of the other stranger. Hence, people will go around violating other people's property in order to maximize their own utility. In order to get out of this mess man must create a social contract with an independent third party which we call government. In this social contract man defers ultimate decision making to this government in order to insure that private property violations between these strangers are investigated and punished, thus relinquishing man from his prisoner's dilemma and allowing civil society to come about.

This theory, while it seems to make sense, and appears to be plausible has numerous fatal flaws. First of all, right off the bat, Buchanan (and numerous others political thinkers) assume that man automatically maximizes his utility by stealing or defrauding another man from his property. The problem with this assumption is that what maximizes someone's utility is unique to that individual. Material wealth is not the only consideration people have when making their decisions, countless other factors may come into play, namely that of beliefs in morals. Even assuming that man could maximize his material wealth by stealing from a stranger in a stateless society, this does not necessarily mean that his utility will be maximized. Perhaps the man would not steal from a stranger because he feels that it is wrong, and not stealing actually maximizes his utility. There are numerous other fatal problems with this theory that are elaborated on here: Do we ever get out of anarchy? and in this book: Against Politics.

The truth of the matter is that so called "social contracts" are complete fictions. A contract is a tangible item in which some document must exist where those who it binds have signed it, or at the very least an oral agreement or implicit action. For instance, if I sit down at a restaurant and I order a meal, that is a deliberate action which creates an implicit contract with the restaurant that I will pay for such a meal. So called social contracts have no such tangible evidence of explicit agreement between the government and those who it rules nor do they have an implicit contract based on deliberate actions. Saying that you agree to this social contract implicitly because you take advantage of the government's services is begging the question, because those services were provided through expropriation of private property based on the so called social contract that is in question. Social contracts may be pieces of paper that exist somewhere i.e. the Constitution, but that is all that they are: pieces of paper. The laws that these pieces of paper legislate are completely meaningless. The only real way in which authority can be transferred from an autonomous individual to someone else is through tangible explicit consent (a written contract), or deliberate actions which bring about an implicit contract (i.e. sitting down at a restaurant and ordering a meal).

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Amazing that no one here has voted that human life has inherent values, but only after certain criteria are met, since this is the argument repeatedly parroted by every pro-choice person on this forum.

If one defines human life as needing a certain amount of independence as a part of it's very definition, then that vote is not necessary.

This entire poll was an attempt to engage in a sophistic debate of semantics. Can be fun, sometimes, but not often illuminating. Oh, and I'm not in the mood today. If the thread's still alive when I get back into the city, I'll take a whack at it.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
I honestly believe that God grants us all inalienable human rights, rights that can only be taken from us by a majority consensus.

The right to love, the right to believe in and practice our faith as long as it doesn?t harm someone, the right to gain personal property and the right to live.

Some have argued to me recently that we?re entities of our countries, or in some cases a world community. Our rights come from being sentient life forms, from having self-awareness over time and from having the ability to reason.

Under this the only rights that we as people actually have are those granted to us by the state, so we?ve got a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth because that?s what the founding documents of our country say.

If you don't like God then who grants us these rights? what greater power gives us rights above that of the state and majority rule?

The only Creator given inalienable human right we have is the right to exist for that period of time that the creator deems that we should exist. (Unless this right is taken away with an abortion).

Everything else is "value added".

We grant our own rights as a function of our (USA) society. Within the broader civilization, however, rights are given and taken with force, if that force prevails. Force that takes on many faces. Military, Political, Monetary, etc, etc...

 

[glenn1]

The only Creator given inalienable human right we have is the right to exist for that period of time that the creator deems that we should exist. (Unless this right is taken away with an abortion).

The "unless" portion undermines the logic of the rest of your statement. Are you stating that an abortion can "overrule" God's choice on how long the X period of time which I will exist will ultimately be? God is by definition omnipotent and omniscient, but your statement about abortion seems to directly contradict this.

And to answer the question in the OP, to me it's obvious. Since the very concept of possessing rights involves having the ability to assert them, it by definition has to be God given. Even in the theoretical absence of state to assert them against I could still exercise those rights, so they obviously exist independently of a state or social construct.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: glenn1

The only Creator given inalienable human right we have is the right to exist for that period of time that the creator deems that we should exist. (Unless this right is taken away with an abortion).

The "unless" portion undermines the logic of the rest of your statement. Are you stating that an abortion can "overrule" God's choice on how long the X period of time which I will exist will ultimately be? God is by definition omnipotent and omniscient, but your statement about abortion seems to directly contradict this.

And to answer the question in the OP, to me it's obvious. Since the very concept of possessing rights involves having the ability to assert them, it by definition has to be God given. Even in the theoretical absence of state to assert them against I could still exercise those rights, so they obviously exist independently of a state or social construct.

The "unless" portion is built upon the logic of the word "should".

Force takes on many faces, like, "having the ability to assert them", Abortion, etc, etc...