On Jul 19, 3:29Â am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jul 17, 11:05Â pm, Michael Price
yahoo.com> wrote:>> On Jul 17, 2:27Â am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>> On Jul 16, 11:30Â am, CanopyCo
aol.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Jul 15, 10:14 pm, Michael Price
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>> On Jul 13, 2:15 am, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> The individual - nation analogue is used by the top political
>>>>>> scientists including Alexis DeTocqueville, whose brilliance is
>>>>>> unquestioned.
>
>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>
>>>>> Â The individual is not a nation and the nation is not
>>>>> an individual. Â The second amendment refers to individuals
>>>>> not nations. Â Why would a government bother to give itself
>>>>> the right to be armed? Â Of course you'll never admit that you
>>>>> might be wrong on this or anything else.
>
>>>> Nations are made up of individuals, therefore a group of individuals
>>>> is a nation.
>
>>>> Exactly how are you going to disarm a nation without first disarming
>>>> all individuals?
>
>>>> As to the second amendment, it was entered into our constitution
>>>> because it was considered a "God given" right. One that is the right
>>>> of everyone. Like the pursuit of happiness. Everyone has the right to
>>>> try and have a tolerable life instead of hating life every day.
>
>>>> Therefore, regardless of if it was an American or any other nation,
>>>> the individuals in each of them also have the same "God given" rights
>>>> as we do. Not because they are given to us by law, but because they
>>>> are inherited by us as civilized humans.
>
>>>> The right to defend ourselves.
>>>> The right to be left alone.
>>>> The right to think what we want.
>>>> The right to warship what ever we want.
>>>> The right to leave a place we don't like being in.
>
>>>> Stuff like that.
>
>>>> Otherwise, it is not a right, it is a privilege granted you by your
>>>> government.
>
>>> Just like a soul. See, everyone has an immortal soul, given to them by
>>> God. And you know that because of the voices in your head, right?
>
>>> Idiots.
>
>>> -tg-
>
>> Â Souls have nothing to do with rights. Â We know we have rights
>> because it is impossible to make a consistent moral code
>> without the concept of rights
>
> It is impossible to have the idea of sin without an immortal soul. By
> your reasoning, that is proof of the existence of souls.
>
False on two counts, firstly the idea of sin is offense against
God,
which implies the existance of God but not of an immortal soul other
than his.
Secondly I said nothing about sin, I refered to a consistent moral
code, which need have no concept of offending God (i.e. sin) because
it need have no concept of God.
>> Â and it's impossible to live well without a moral code that
>> works.
>
> Nonsense. I live perfectly well without a moral code.
>
I doubt that very much. How do you know who's a bad person
without a moral code? If you don't know who's a bad person how
do you avoid being victim to their evil?
>> We also know that inconsistent theories don't work as well as
>> consistent ones. Â So if you need a concept to make a theory
>> fit reality well (as a good moral theory will guide you in reality)
>> then the concept describes something real. Â Just like the solar
>> wind,
>
> Solar wind can be measured without observing the behavior of comets.
>
Irrevelent.
>> which we need to explain the
>> behaviour of
>> comets, so rights are needed to explain how human morality works.
>
> No, there can be an arbitrary set of rules (morality) without any
> reference to 'rights'.
Indeed there can be, but would it fit reality well?
http://jim.com/moralfac.htm
Note in the example in this link you can examine the actions of
Bob and Dave by any theory you like but only theorise that are close
to moral truth will give you accurate predictions.
> Â It is not necessary to say that humans have
> the right to life to say "thou shalt not kill".
>
> Look, your argument reduces very clearly to "The *concept* of rights
> exists." Well duh, we already knew that. The question was whether
> *rights* exist outside of legal rights, where existence means that we
> can test for them **by observation of real-world phenomena**. Â The
> fact that people may act *as if* they have an immortal soul or rights
> or a guardian angel doesn't demonstrate the existence of souls or
> rights or angels.
>
> -tg
That's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that to evaluate
morality correctly and thus predict the behaviour of others you need
the concept of rights. If you can do it without this concept then
I'll gladly call you a true philosophical genius. You cannot.
