No Soul? No human rights.

@click here,

Please please one example not stones one example ...

@xris,

heres what Ive come up with pertaining to this thread,

If someone is looking to decide whether Human rights exist, that has to be an individual thing. The only answers that person will get is from individual perspective and choice.

Human Nature is evident, but also does not demand rights or absolutes. Rights are merely tools in which Humans have used to establish Individual acceptance. May not be perfect or even that efficient, but it is practiced none the less. Therefore they exist. It may be transparent at times, but it very clear at others.

Also, the argument that they wouldn't exist if we weren't here is unsupported. If you apply the Reduction method, I think it makes alot of sense in the grand scheme of things. Existence and life Supports itself in different structures. Some more complicated then others.

...... Not sure where else to take this.

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

heres what Ive come up with pertaining to this thread,

If someone is looking to decide whether Human rights exist, that has to be an individual thing. The only answers that person will get is from individual perspective and choice.

Human Nature is evident, but also does not demand rights or absolutes. Rights are merely tools in which Humans have used to establish Individual acceptance. May not be perfect or even that efficient, but it is practiced none the less. Therefore they exist. It may be transparent at times, but it very clear at others.

Also, the argument that they wouldn't exist if we weren't here is unsupported. If you apply the Reduction method, I think it makes alot of sense in the grand scheme of things. Existence and life Supports itself in different structures. Some more complicated then others.

...... Not sure where else to take this.

I just want to clarify that you are stating that they exist as a man made convention?
Good stuff nonetheless.

@click here,

INNATE HUMAN RIGHTS is there anyone out there that give me one example..???

@xris,

xris wrote:

INNATE HUMAN RIGHTS is there anyone out there that give me one example..???

Wow, what a fantastic question. And since I've said I believe there are innate human rights, I suppose I should answer. I would say that, for anyone, a good place to start would be:[INDENT]Anything you can think of that's OK to do to or with a plant or animal, that's not OK to do to or with a human - because they're human. That's not to say it's OK to do anything with plants or animals (read: Other living things), I believe all "life" should be afforded some "rights". What we're concerned about are the rights we think we should have because we're human.
[/INDENT]So yea, Ok.. I'll hang my neck out there since I got sucked into this thread. Here are some I'd say were "innate human rights". These aren't absolute; there's a BIG difference between "innate" and "absolute" as we've already illustrated. As a human being, I believe I have the innate right to:[INDENT]Express myself*
Worship as I please, or not*
Determine what I will do with my life*
Procreate, or not
Terminate my life*
Not be have my life endangered without my consent
Be free from physical enslavement
Decide whether to subject to, participate in or else remove myself from the jurisdiction of any form of government
[/INDENT]I'm sure there are more, and these are - of course - tainted with what I view any human should be able to do/be free from. Again, these are examples of what I believe our "rights" are (or should be) because we're human.

Thanks
<bracing for impact>

~~~~~~~~~~~
* Insomuch as I don't cause undue/disproportionate harm to others

@Khethil,

Thanks for that.These rights where here before we arrived? does that make them innate..Im sorry im still confused about this..

@xris,

xris wrote:

Thanks for that.These rights where here before we arrived? does that make them innate..

No, that's not what makes them innate at all.

Nor do I think there were any rights before there were any people; that statement, to me, just doesn't make sense. But I digress, I've already subjected everyone to my gibbering previously in this thread

Thanks Xris

@Khethil,

Innate not made by humans they are natural rights..What the hell are they...

@Khethil,

I think my choice of using innate created a lot of confusion. Lol why didn't I just say "absolute". I am then i guess saying there are no 'absolute' human rights. Only those created by man.

@click here,

click here wrote:

I think my choice of using innate created a lot of confusion. Lol why didn't I just say "absolute". I am then i guess saying there are no 'absolute' human rights. Only those created by man.

Absolutely..If we have rights created by man how does that prove the existance of a soul , how does that make rape innately right..im sorry but the whole thread is just too much to comprehend..

@xris,

xris wrote:

Absolutely..If we have rights created by man how does that prove the existance of a soul

It doesn't I'm sorry that you've been so confused. I wasn't trying to prove that.

xris wrote:

how does that make rape innately right..

It doesn't though it doesn't make rape wrong either.
If human rights are an invention of man then rape being either 'right' or 'wrong' is an invention of man

@xris,

xris wrote:

INNATE HUMAN RIGHTS is there anyone out there that give me one example..???

The axiomatic right that founds all subsequent rights: self-ownership.

One must deny one's own fundamental nature as a rational, communicative human to deny this.

Morality is founded through intersubjective discourse, and all claims, moral, factual, and otherwise demands rational justification. So we understand that all moral claims necessitate rational argumentation that can result in agreement between the affected. The necessity of possible agreement enforces the rule that the truth of claims cannot be forced upon another, which means that one cannot validate the forced subjugation of another.

Basically we validate a categorical imperative: to uphold our own status as human, we must act in ways that recognize that same status in all others.

Yes, it is a rational function to derive this rule, but it is built into our fundamental nature.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

The axiomatic right that founds all subsequent rights: self-ownership.

One must deny one's own fundamental nature as a rational, communicative human to deny this.

I do not believe that you can say that self-ownership is an absolute. I believe that is a creation of man.

Why must I deny my fundamental nature?

@click here,

I dont want to sound too destructive but are we not chasing rainbows. I dont think we know what we are debating.Im trying to understand how if we did not have a soul it would affect our innate rights? inborn, natural ...As i believe in the possibility of a soul ide. really want to help.

@click here,

Click Here, you might be interested in this: Anatta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I'd like to hear your response to this common and traditional argument against the existence of the "soul" or "self".

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Click Here, you might be interested in this: Anatta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I'd like to hear your response to this common and traditional argument against the existence of the "soul" or "self".

Why not start a new thread? The assumption of this thread is that there is no intangible essence of a human. Anything like a soul etc...

@xris,

xris wrote:

I dont want to sound too destructive but are we not chasing rainbows. I dont think we know what we are debating.Im trying to understand how if we did not have a soul it would affect our innate rights? inborn, natural ...As i believe in the possibility of a soul ide. really want to help.

I believe Click Here is arguing that there must be some metaphysical quality or essence to humanity to justify the idea of universal absolute rights.

The argument is an RAA that states if there is no metaphysical essence, then we can extend these sort of rights to any material thing, such as a house. He does not argue for a soul, in fact, I believe he denies the existence of any metaphysical quality, saying we are like complex houses (he even denies any real existence of consciousness). This denial of the soul, through the RAA, also denies the existence of absolute rights.

The use of innate or natural as a substitute for absolute muddied the issue a little bit, as I don't really believe there is some real morality that defines how all acting creatures must act. I do believe, however, that there is an innate morality within the context of humans as a collective biological group.

So that is a framing of the topic at hand. It is the standard relativist vs. absolutist argument concerning morality with some confusing terms and alternative conceptualization tangling up the conversation.

It is not hard for this to happen for this topic, as morality supervenes upon the material world rather than existing within it.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I believe Click Here is arguing that there must be some metaphysical quality or essence to humanity to justify the idea of universal absolute rights.

Not exactly. I'm looking for someone to justify universal absolute rights without the aid of some metaphysical quality or essence.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

The argument is an RAA that states if there is no metaphysical essence, then we can extend these sort of rights to any material thing, such as a house. He does not argue for a soul, in fact, I believe he denies the existence of any metaphysical quality, saying we are like complex houses (he even denies any real existence of consciousness). This denial of the soul, through the RAA, also denies the existence of absolute rights.

What is an RAA?

I wouldn't say that you can extend such rights to a house. The rights that you would then be extending are man made. I'm starting from a house and going to a human. Basically since houses have no absolute rights neither do humans. I can accept consciousness by its definition to a certain extent. Though consciousness is completely physical (as in we view our selves as being who we are because of the way our molecules work together). So you can not justify absolute human rights by talking about consciousness. You can maybe justify why you create human rights with that but you can't justify absolutes.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

The use of innate or natural as a substitute for absolute muddied the issue a little bit, as I don't really believe there is some real morality that defines how all acting creatures must act. I do believe, however, that there is an innate morality within the context of humans as a collective biological group.

Even if you could prove that there is innate morality you couldn't prove why we should follow it and we are absolutely wrong if we don't.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

So that is a framing of the topic at hand. It is the standard relativist vs. absolutist argument concerning morality with some confusing terms and alternative conceptualization tangling up the conversation.

It is not hard for this to happen for this topic, as morality supervenes upon the material world rather than existing within it.

I have learned a lot through this thread and have cleared up some thoughts in my head so next time I can better express myself. I sorta wish I could just start a new thread so people don't have to read through 10 pages of me explaining myself before even getting to debating lol.

I wish there was more of a discussion though on the 2nd part of what I said. Though there has been plenty on the first part alone so I may start a new thread for the 2nd part and try and word it as best as I can.

I still await for someone to justify 'universal absolute human rights'.

@click here,

click here wrote:

I just want to clarify that you are stating that they exist as a man made convention?

Well I guess I'm saying that what we perceive as human rights is an over complicated representation.
of what? Not really sure.

@click here,

click here wrote:

What is an RAA?

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Quote:

I wouldn't say that you can extend such rights to a house. The rights that you would then be extending are man made. I'm starting from a house and going to a human. Basically since houses have no absolute rights neither do humans. I can accept consciousness by its definition to a certain extent. Though consciousness is completely physical (as in we view our selves as being who we are because of the way our molecules work together). So you can not justify absolute human rights by talking about consciousness. You can maybe justify why you create human rights with that but you can't justify absolutes.

Basically I interpreted your basic argument as such:

1. Absolute rights must extend from some innate essence of their possessor.

2. Without a soul or something analogous, there is no innate essence that differentiates a person from a very complex house.

3. There is no soul, therefore there is no differentiation.

4. Therefore, there either houses have natural rights or people do not.

5. Houses having rights is an absurdity, therefore humans do not have natural rights.

Quote:

Even if you could prove that there is innate morality you couldn't prove why we should follow it and we are absolutely wrong if we don't.

I can't prove anything outside the realm of collective human consciousness and understanding. Considering all those affected, this is not really an issue.

Philosophy Forum

No Soul? No human rights.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know