Yea I see your points and have stated them well; I just don't agree with any 'em. I think there's a good-lot of folks who see definitions of the soul similarly.

click here wrote:

Would you please state where you disagree so we can work to find something?

I'm not sure there's enough common ground; but I appreciate you asking

Whether or not you believe there is a soul, is one thing. Whether or not humans have innate, intrinsic, endemic or inalienable rights is quite another. Trying to tie them together, to me, doesn't really work.

But... this is a belief system; and I respect your beliefs. Good thread though, it seems to be prompting some nice discussion.

Thanks

Im really trying to understand the purpose of this musing.We have not got the natural right to expect justice? there is no such thing as natural justice only that, that can be given if there is a god and he gave it to us ? So now its not just a soul its gods will that we might have innate laws .Have we these innate laws you speak of or have we not..whats your opinion?

What is your justification for innate human rights? We can go from there.



See I didn't want to try and prove the existence of how innate human rights could exist i'm already chewing enough as it is.

By giving the example of god I give that as one reason why things may be the way they are. But I'm not saying that is the only way.

I just want justification for those that state innate human rights. What is their justification. If it is a soul or any other intangible thing then that is another discussion. I'm interested in the justification process for those who don't believe in anything like a soul, god, ghosts, spirits etc...

BUT you are saying that having a soul can give us these rights , what if having a soul was an innate right in its self.

What is your justification for innate human rights? We can go from there.

Well, I'd put my view this way: Humans have certain rights in recognition of the consciousness that is self-aware, sapient and is cognizant of its own thoughts, ego and mortality.[INDENT]A species with these characteristics values itself in a conscious manner [1]; therefore, those with like abilities should treat others in a manner they - on a basic level - would like to be treated [2]. These basic tenants give rise to fundamental, shared needs that such creatures, in order to survive productively, should respect.

This is a broad definition but - I think - should also take into account the physically-based potential for such characteristics (e.g., infants, the infirm), being part of the same species.
[/INDENT]Is that too convoluted? I know the sentiments I want to express and am hoping this makes sense. If one tries to define their notion of 'human rights', such definition would have to include elements that are uniquely human. For my part, I make such differentiation at the mental level. One could, in respect to their belief systems, make that same differentiation at the "soul" level, for that matter.

As to the question of whether or not they're innate or inalienable; I'd say "yea" because they have these unique conscious-based characteristics or the potential therein.

I like the question it could propose, if we had a new species say of electronic intelligence would those rights be transferred automatically to those who have new intelligence or would they have to fight for it or ask for it.

Animals don't have those rights only because they cant ask for it or cant fight for it.

We did not have rights till we became aware that we should.

The problem I see with this is that it is not until consciousness that you 'gain' these rights. So houses don't have these rights and plants nor animals have rights like these. Because as you say they are not sapient etc...

You assume that there are innate human rights to gain since you have this consciousness.

I assume then that you must agree that if we never had evolved out of primordial sludge then these human rights would still have existed.

I ask why then do they exist and how do you justify that they exist.

If evolution created these rights then they are not innate. They were created by evolution. If it was created then its not innate.

But that is what you are saying. That before evolution even occurred their was no such thing as human rights. If they are innate then they existed before evolution.

You and I are talking about different definitions of innate and which I tried to point out earlier.

All ideas are innate since they have the potentiality of being thought up.

innate: belongs to the essential nature of something.

Compassion and empathy are biologically innate in both humans and animals. There is a lot of research that shows this. See the below article.

Being human we have many competing priorities and judgements that can supervene compassion. It's interesting when you read the Nuremberg testimony of Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, who said that he often felt bad for the families and children that he was sending to their deaths, but it never occurred to him to disobey orders. I'm sure there was a good bit of sadism in him too -- but I'm also sure that he was conflicted.

Human rights is a philosophical abstraction of compassion. So while it may not be innate in an absolute way, you can argue that it's natural.

Yep, you're spot on: I don't believe houses, plants or animals have human rights. Absolutely correct

Uh... not sure I understand what this sentence means. I don't assume there are human rights, I believe there are. And yes, I believe *I* have these rights of which we speak.

I'm not sure where you've got this from. If humans didn't exist, how might there be any humans to have rights?

I think I did. They exist because of the value we give to them; if we don't give this value (respect it, act on it) then how might they otherwise have any value. But yea... what I gave above is the reasoning I use for my belief that these exist. I call them "innate" because I believe these mental elements (or the potential thereof) belong to the, "... essential nature" of what it is to be human.

Again, I think where we part ways is that I believe we have these because of unique human mental abilities while, I believe, you say we have them because we have a soul that's valuable in and of itself. Two compatible sides to the same coin - ain't it great?

Thanks

I'm not saying that they would be human. They could then be animal/plant/house rights.

Because innate human rights must exist before humans come into being and before consciousness can perceive it.

If they exist because we give value to them then they are man made. Man invented the human rights. They they are not innate.

Human mental abilities must only create the human rights thus they are not innate.

If you believe you have rights because of unique mental abilities then those rights you speak of are not innate they are again just man made and there is no 'right' to enforce them as they are only your opinions.

sure no problem.

Jenny gets raped by Mike. Jenny use to be a very quiet woman that wasn't going anywhere with her job. This act of rape gave her the fierce desire to advance in her job because she now is a more driven individual. She started her own business that in 10 years grew to be the largest company to provide clean water to thousands in Africa.

When she was raped that act was good because it influenced the positive growth of a society and benefited many more people then those that it affected negatively.

1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native , inborn <innate behavior>
2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : inherent
3 : originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience

I do believe that rights as conferred by the biological nature of human beings satisfies every given definition of innate.

And even if we were to accept your definition of "innate" and I suppose "natural",

I would say that we could essentially take them out of our vernacular since the idea of any that exists without some creation is quite foreign to our feeble minds.

Before evolution, very little of what we deal with in our lives existed. Are you saying that all reproductive life is unnatural?

Ideas are created and did not exist before evolution.

Nature has programmed an essential nature into us. This includes certain moral dispositions, certain categories of reason, the desire for justification of beliefs and actions, and rules of communicative discourse.

From these innate qualities we can derive moral rules that can be called "rights".

I think we disagree here. You can't have "innate human rights" without humans; the phrase would have no meaning.

Well, all this is opinion

But again, I think you might be mixing up terminology or equating terms that can't be. Your question asked about "Innate Human Rights". In this, there are two parts:
[INDENT]1. Innate: "Innate Human" describes what elements of humanity that are specific to the human animal. What is innate to the human we didn't invent; we take it as existing objectively from our perceptions (heh, to the extent to which *that* is possible)

2. Rights: A concept of what is good, due, just or proper. Like all concepts, it only exists when recognized. What is a concept that no one sees? It's meaningless without recognition. [/INDENT] But if you put those two parts together and say "Innate Human Rights" you get "That which is we recognize to be just or proper for those who possess the special characteristics of the human". But I'm curious: In this that you ask about, how does that relate to the "soul" (which I believe was your central theme)

This thread kinda got away from me a tad, but on the question of evolution of human rights, this would count as innate for very straightforward reasons.

If human rights are innate then in order to be human (i.e. for the human to have evolved as it did) those rights would be necessary. Without those rights, the organism could not be described as human since it lack essential characteristics (human rights). So if those rights evolved but weren't essential to the character of that organism (the human) they would not be innate. But the human without those rights, if those rights evolved, would constitute a different evolutionary path and therefore a result in a different organism.

One cannot say a particular human feature is not innate because we might not have evolved that way. Every human feature is innate because we evolved that way. No human creature exists that did not evolve that way.

Lol rather trivial dont you think...

I hope you dont expect me to accept this as an answer.

Is it just me but this thread is giving me a headache..i dont know quite what im discussing..give me one example of this innate thingy ma jig.please pretty please..

Click, if you wish to say that human rights are "man-dependent" that is, if they are dependent upon human mental functions, then we agree. Yes, there are no rights given directly by nature, rather there are faculties given to man by nature, and those faculties lead men to think in terms of rights and morals.

This, however, applies to concepts of math and numbers as well.

In my opinion, the understanding of rights between people is a priori knowledge (what I think you are driving at when you say innate), just the same as understanding of numbers, cause and effect, etc.