DeSantis claims our rights come from God not government. Is that correct?

[Amused]

My 2 cents

Rights and freedom are absolutely inherent. They are the default. They exist in the absence of oppression.
Therefore they cannot be given, only limited. The only way your freedom or rights can be given or granted to you is if they were first taken from you.
If there was no one there to limit or take your rights and freedoms, would you have them?
Absolutely.
Therefore they are inherent. The default state is the inherent state.
Anything else is an appeal to authoritarianism.

 

[Mai72]

Which God? The Muslim, Jewish or Hindu God(s)?

Oh.. His version of God! Got it. And, how would he prove this? You can't prove it. And no, the bible doesn't count. A Muslim could claim that Allah (God) is best described in the holy-Quran.

Both are circular arguments, which would make the holy-book claims fallacious.

 

[HomerJS]

My 2 cents

Rights and freedom are absolutely inherent. They are the default. They exist in the absence of oppression.
Therefore they cannot be given, only limited. The only way your freedom or rights can be given or granted to you is if they were first taken from you.
If there was no one there to limit or take your rights and freedoms,. would you have them?
Absolutely.
Therefore they are inherent. The default state is the inherent state.
Anything else is an appeal to authoritarianism.

You nailed it.

 

[Mai72]

View attachment 77311

Most New Testament scholars believe Jesus to be an Apocalyptic prophet who preached the end times. If you read the early manuscripts of Mark (the first gospel, and comes before Matthew) jesus speaks about the upcoming end times. As we get futher into the gospels, many of his sayings are either changed or ommited. That is evident in Luke. When we get to John (the final Gospel) jesus doesn't say anything about the end of the world. That is simply because John was written 30-40 decades afterr Mark. The end hadn't happened, and so the teachings of Jesus changes to reflect this fact. Its also why Paul thought the end was coming during his time as well. He wrote about Jesus 20 years after his passing, and was telling his followers to not get married. To not start businesses, and so on. Also, in the 3 gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus doesn't once claim to be god. That is only found in John, which NT scholars believe John might be a forgery. It severly departs from the other 3 gospels.

Bart Erhman who is a NT scholar goes over this. Its quite fascinating. I have a few of his books.

 

[Amused]

You nailed it.

And that is true if you believe there is a god or not. For the religious, they are god given. For the atheist they are inherent.

 

[Moonbeam]

I didn’t say anything about morality. If you think you have a right to life granted to you by something other than people if you’re being eaten by a bear or drowning in the ocean be sure to let nature know it’s violating your rights.

I can't imagine an argument given with more intent to deflect. Nothing could be more obvious than that human rights, the ones we refer to an inalienable are there to mediate social relationships between people. Animal rights are just an extension of those same instinctual leanings from us to the animal world as our ecological efforts are directed similarly to saving the planet. All of these things are outwardly directed from a source within, the proximity to which is determined by the degree to witch we have realized our true selves. What you owe the world is the expression of that human nature it has given you, what you were given as a means of species survival. Life is a push back on entropy and, the will to live, the force that drives it. Were we not at risk there would be no human nature to resist it. You are your evolutionary history as much as what you remember consciously. You are a living program with rules of behavior.

What are your objections to such a view? I see the ego as being similar to the sun and the true self like the light of a candle. You will see the candle when the sun is extinguished. All over the world in all times in every so called mystical teaching you will find this notion that life happens after ego death. In a cup full of ego no truth can be poured. Perhaps such thoughts are upsetting, but to whom?

 

[pmv]

I don't know that much of the world seriously argues that rights come from God. The third argument, I suppose, is that they can somehow be grounded philosophically.

Personally I suspect they just emerge out of the balance-of-power in a given society. Things are declared to be 'rights' if they are in the interests of, or at least don't conflict with the interests of, those who happen to have power in any given society.

 

[pmv]

My 2 cents

Rights and freedom are absolutely inherent. They are the default. They exist in the absence of oppression.

I don't really agree. As soon as you have more than one person alone in the wilderness, you have politics and society, and thus you have a distribution of power. One person alone in the wilderness has no 'rights', because they would soon die. Nobody is born entirely alone, at the very least we depend on our parents for early survival.

When you have more than a lone individual you have imbalances of power, and that's what tends to determine 'rights'.

Can't say I've derived this from any serious study of philosophy, though, it's just the sense I have looking at how the world seems to work in practice. So I could be wrong.

But look at the way (non-human) animals are treated, or how groups of humans who lacked power were treated in the past (or even still). Rights grow out of power.

Or to take a more trivial example - do I have the right to breath clean air or to be able to travel safely wherever I want? How come wherever I go by whatever means, there are masses of cars in the way, pumping out crap? Where did motorists acquire the 'right' to do that?
Where did the 'right' to own land come from?

The historical reality seems to be that all 'rights' came out of a group's willingness to fight and even kill for them.

Out of a weighted combination of power and desperation. Even less powerful groups can attain 'rights' if they feel so determined about it that they can make life unpleasant for the more powerful to the point where it's easier for the latter group to just concede those 'rights', though the less power a group has the more they have to be prepared to suffer to win those 'rights'. Rights are purely a product of social struggle and conflict.

All this intellectual sophistry about 'a state of nature' and 'natural rights' is just an attempt to cover up the fact it's all about power.

 

[pmv]

View attachment 77311

It's more than just "had half siblings". Jesus was actively anti-family (like cult-leaders throughout history).

“If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

 

[pmv]

Our rights come from rough men with guns.

Is that a paraphrase of George Orwell?

It's probably more-or-less true. Though guns are not the sole source of power.

 

[Greenman]

"You sleep easy in your bed at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf".
The quote has several variations, and near as I can tell, none are direct Orwell quotes.
I would argue that weapons are the ultimate power. The cold war was the defining expression of that.

 

[Amused]

I don't really agree. As soon as you have more than one person alone in the wilderness, you have politics and society, and thus you have a distribution of power. One person alone in the wilderness has no 'rights', because they would soon die. Nobody is born entirely alone, at the very least we depend on our parents for early survival.

When you have more than a lone individual you have imbalances of power, and that's what tends to determine 'rights'.

Can't say I've derived this from any serious study of philosophy, though, it's just the sense I have looking at how the world seems to work in practice. So I could be wrong.

But look at the way (non-human) animals are treated, or how groups of humans who lacked power were treated in the past (or even still). Rights grow out of power.

Or to take a more trivial example - do I have the right to breath clean air or to be able to travel safely wherever I want? How come wherever I go by whatever means, there are masses of cars in the way, pumping out crap? Where did motorists acquire the 'right' to do that?
Where did the 'right' to own land come from?

The historical reality seems to be that all 'rights' came out of a group's willingness to fight and even kill for them.

Out of a weighted combination of power and desperation. Even less powerful groups can attain 'rights' if they feel so determined about it that they can make life unpleasant for the more powerful to the point where it's easier for the latter group to just concede those 'rights', though the less power a group has the more they have to be prepared to suffer to win those 'rights'. Rights are purely a product of social struggle and conflict.

All this intellectual sophistry about 'a state of nature' and 'natural rights' is just an attempt to cover up the fact it's all about power.

Yes, and again, in the absence of oppression one has freedom and rights. Limit the power of others, freedom returns by default.

You can't give freedom. You can just stop taking it away.

Thinking that freedom and rights can be granted is what the powerful and authoritarian minded WANT you to believe.

 

[HomerJS]

And that is true if you believe there is a god or not. For the religious, they are god given. For the atheist they are inherent.

After reviewing the 10 amendments bill of rights here is the conundrum IMO...

If rights are God given with blacks excluded, then I only see one of two possibilities.

Their thesis is incorrect.
God's idea of rights is flawed.

I'm in no way going to debate the latter.

 

[pmv]

Yes, and again, in the absence of oppression one has freedom and rights. Limit the power of others, freedom returns by default.

You can't give freedom. You can just stop taking it away.

Thinking that freedom and rights can be granted is what the powerful and authoritarian minded WANT you to believe.

Still don't think we are quite on the same page. You say "in the absence of oppression..." but that seems quite circular, as how do you define "oppression" other than "the absence of freedom"? And who gets to define "freedom"? Those with power.

In any arrangement of society somebody almost always has 'power' to at least some degree, so the definition of 'rights' and 'freedom' is going to vary by society and culture, depending on who has the most power in that society or culture.

I mean, I'm open to argument, but I just see again-and-again "rights" being defined to suit those who have the power to do the defining.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, and again, in the absence of oppression one has freedom and rights. Limit the power of others, freedom returns by default.

You can't give freedom. You can just stop taking it away.

Thinking that freedom and rights can be granted is what the powerful and authoritarian minded WANT you to believe.

Just as you say that freedom is the inherent state and appears in the absence of oppression, I say that freedom appears in the absence of ego. A person who is free is a person not bound by the past, a person who has seen into the prison of ego identification. All the rules that bind are authoritarian, dualisticly derived bull shit driven deep into the unconscious by the unbarable pain by which they were enforced before we had a protective ego shell to hide inside, when any pain we felt we felt maximally in a state of utter vulnerability.

The search for rights, the will for freedom are something we seek because they are something we once knew and lost. To search for truth is to open old wounds.

 

[feralkid]

Biblical Historian Claims Jesus Never Built Hotrod

CAMBRIDGE, UK—After a thorough investigation, a Professor at Cambridge University is refuting claims made by renowned industrial rock band, Ministry.

www.rivetingnews.org

-my faith is gone.

 

[Moonbeam]

Still don't think we are quite on the same page. You say "in the absence of oppression..." but that seems quite circular, as how do you define "oppression" other than "the absence of freedom"? And who gets to define "freedom"? Those with power.

In any arrangement of society somebody almost always has 'power' to at least some degree, so the definition of 'rights' and 'freedom' is going to vary by society and culture, depending on who has the most power in that society or culture.

I mean, I'm open to argument, but I just see again-and-again "rights" being defined to suit those who have the power to do the defining.

You can't define oppression as the absence of freedom. Isn't oppression defined as the attempt to absent freedom, to take it away by imposition. Only the free can know what freedom is. You fail to see because you are a Stockholm victim. You have been conditioned to surrender your freedom by becoming what you feared. You have internalized to use of force to limit yourself in an ego prison. The force you see in the world exists because of prisoner projection. As above so below.

And are you really open to argument. Don't you have me on ignore? Perhaps you aren't really as free to debate as you may imagine.

 

[Amused]

Still don't think we are quite on the same page. You say "in the absence of oppression..." but that seems quite circular, as how do you define "oppression" other than "the absence of freedom"? And who gets to define "freedom"? Those with power.

In any arrangement of society somebody almost always has 'power' to at least some degree, so the definition of 'rights' and 'freedom' is going to vary by society and culture, depending on who has the most power in that society or culture.

I mean, I'm open to argument, but I just see again-and-again "rights" being defined to suit those who have the power to do the defining.

To be oppressed requires action of another. To be free requires inaction.

It is the default. Hardly circular. It us linear. The more inaction, the more free you are.

Oppression requires action. Freedom requires being left the fuck alone. A lack of action.

 

[pmv]

To be oppressed requires action of another. To be free requires inaction.

It is the default. Hardly circular. It us linear. The more inaction, the more free you are.

Oppression requires action. Freedom requires being left the fuck alone. A lack of action.

But there's _always_ action. Humans constantly interact, it's the only way they can survive. It certainly isn't "the default". By 'default', without action from others, "left the fuck alone" a new born human will rapidly die. Even an adult human is unlikely to survive long if entirely "left the fuck alone".

You just seem to be positing some hypothetical alternative situation to being in a society, that never happens, and probably never has happened in the history of the human species. It just doesn't make sense as an argument, as far as I can see.

 

[Amused]

But there's _always_ action. Humans constantly interact, it's the only way they can survive. It certainly isn't "the default". By 'default', without action from others, "left the fuck alone" a new born human will rapidly die. Even an adult human is unlikely to survive long if entirely "left the fuck alone".

You just seem to be positing some hypothetical alternative situation to being in a society, that never happens, and probably never has happened in the history of the human species. It just doesn't make sense as an argument, as far as I can see.

Which requires the action of another? Freedom, or oppression?

 

[BoomerD]

If these rights come from "God," why aren't they universal to ALL humans on the planet?

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, and again, in the absence of oppression one has freedom and rights. Limit the power of others, freedom returns by default.

You can't give freedom. You can just stop taking it away.

Thinking that freedom and rights can be granted is what the powerful and authoritarian minded WANT you to believe.

How are you ever "free" in the absolute sense? If you're alone in nature, you aren't free to go wherever you desire, because some places are dangerous or not plentiful enough to sustain you. Animal predation, weather, terrain, all those things constrict your choices. The fact it is man against nature instead of man against man is irrelevant. Absolute freedom would be what, your consciousness escaping your body and becoming one with the universe?

In reality, freedom is something that exists by degrees.

These concepts like freedom and rights, they sound good but ultimately they only have whatever meanings we ascribe to them, and they are not the same meanings from one person to the next. Discussing what are "rights" or where they come from is more semantics than anything else.

 

[woolfe9998]

Instead of trying to define rights, it may be more instructive to consider the actual, real story of rights.

It all started about 500,000 years ago when two homo sapiens were hanging out, then one suddenly punched the other in the jaw. The wounded homo sapien then says (or actually, thinks), "damn, what an asshole. He can't just punch me when I didn't do anything to him."

Then 100,000 years later, man is using tools, and one has this large bone he uses as a weapon to kill prey. So another just takes it when he's asleep. When he awakes he thinks, "damn, what a douche. I found that bone first. He can't just take what's mine."

Those feelings they had, not wanting to be harmed and not wanting things they need for survival to be taken from them, including the sense of ownership of things that inevitably goes with it, we call those instincts.

Then a few hundred thousand years later, when humans have developed agriculture causing them to congregate into towns and cities and have language and government, but still possess the same instincts, they pass laws to make it so you can't just punch someone for no reason or steal their stuff. And lots of other things. Whatever they thought were the most important ones at that time and place, they called "rights."

This story has an arc that goes something like this: "Need bone. My bone. Give back." 500,000 years----->"no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

We're animals who learned to talk.

The end.

 

[pmv]

Which requires the action of another? Freedom, or oppression?

When it comes to humans _everything_ requires the action of another, including 'freedom' (you can't be free if you are dead, and an entirely isolated human is a dead human). Humans are a social species, we only survive at all in groups. We are also dependent on our parents for an unusually long time, compared to most animals.
The attempt to 'ground' rights via invoking some hypothetical 'state of nature' just doesn't work, as far as I can see, because such a state has never existed, and can't even be realistically imagined.

 

[pmv]

Instead of trying to define rights, it may be more instructive to consider the actual, real story of rights.

It all started about 500,000 years ago when two homo sapiens were hanging out, then one suddenly punched the other in the jaw. The wounded homo sapien then says (or actually, thinks), "damn, what an asshole. He can't just punch me when I didn't do anything to him."

Then 100,000 years later, man is using tools, and one has this large bone he uses as a weapon to kill prey. So another just takes it when he's asleep. When he awakes he thinks, "damn, what a douche. I found that bone first. He can't just take what's mine."

Those feelings they had, not wanting to be harmed and not wanting things they need for survival to be taken from them, including the sense of ownership of things that inevitably goes with it, we call those instincts.

Then a few hundred thousand years later, when humans have developed agriculture causing them to congregate into towns and cities and have language and government, but still possess the same instincts, they pass laws to make it so you can't just punch someone for no reason or steal their stuff. And lots of other things. Whatever they thought were the most important ones at that time and place, they called "rights."

This story has an arc that goes something like this: "Need bone. My bone. Give back." 500,000 years----->"no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

We're animals who learned to talk.

The end.

Put that way it's harder to dismiss (as I understand it they've observed things like trading of possessions occurring within groups of other primates). But I'm still not convinced our 'instincts' are sufficiently limited or definable so as to base an explicit list of 'rights' on them.

We have 'instincts' to do all sorts of things, including establish hierarchies and attempt to dominate or exploit others (most primates seem to have hierarchical social structures). Which is presumably why our ideas about 'rights' have varied depending on the historical era and specific culture. Those ideas of "rights" are probably driven by those 'bad' instincts as much as supposed 'good' ones, and the specific idea of 'rights' they give rise to is probably dependent on culture.

I don't know. I'm not denying that talk of "rights" can be useful, or saying that it should be thrown out entirely, I just don't think they are as simple or obvious as some claim and certainly don't accept that one can derive them from this 'state of nature' idea.

In practice people who go on about 'human rights' seem to often be rather self-serving in how they interpret them and what they choose to include or omit from them (e.g. our own "equality and human rights commission" seems an obviously partisan political body, and the European Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up by people with a specific ideology - ironically it was heavily influenced by British Conservatives, who later turned against the whole thing when it became inconvenient for them)