HeyYou Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 You’re still judging them on the moral principles of today and not standards held 230 years ago. Applying modern sensibilities to the Founding Fathers is like people 230 years in the future applying their moral values to us. It just doesn't past the litmus test of reason. So, morals and definitions change over time. Right? Certainly, that works. So, the original statement of "rights are defined by those in power at the time" is still just as accurate. At the time, those in power excluded a significant proportion of the worlds population from their definition of 'men'. That changed over time. (supposedly....) Now the term "men" in this context is perceived to be used to describe ALL inhabitants of our planet. Regardless of sex/race. Nice huh? So, who is to say that at some future point, those in power might again decide to change that definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo 2 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 So, morals and definitions change over time. Right? Certainly, that works. So, the original statement of "rights are defined by those in power at the time" is still just as accurate. At the time, those in power excluded a significant proportion of the worlds population from their definition of 'men'. That changed over time. (supposedly....) Now the term "men" in this context is perceived to be used to describe ALL inhabitants of our planet. Regardless of sex/race. Nice huh? So, who is to say that at some future point, those in power might again decide to change that definition? You're stating the obivious. The universe is entropy, and....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 So, morals and definitions change over time. Right? Certainly, that works. So, the original statement of "rights are defined by those in power at the time" is still just as accurate. At the time, those in power excluded a significant proportion of the worlds population from their definition of 'men'. That changed over time. (supposedly....) Now the term "men" in this context is perceived to be used to describe ALL inhabitants of our planet. Regardless of sex/race. Nice huh? So, who is to say that at some future point, those in power might again decide to change that definition? You're stating the obivious. The universe is entropy, and....? If its so obvious..... Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo 2 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 If its so obvious..... Nevermind. OH. Okay. I thought you were going somewhere with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 If its so obvious..... Nevermind. OH. Okay. I thought you were going somewhere with that. I was...... anyway..... How about this: You are entitled to the rights that those in power decide you are entitled to. Which changes over time....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the organic rights listed in the Declaration of Independence. The organic rights enumerated in the Declaration are comparable to the fundamental rights enumerated by the French: liberty, equality, and fraternity. These are the three unalienable rights of man, and they are more expansive than the fetishism of extreme liberals. Appeal to authority and a bandwagon argument? This is the platform upon which you will construct your arguments? And then later on you made a special pleading that these men were divinely inspired when writing these laws? Unfortunately they weren't quite divinely inspired enough to free their slaves. Rather, I think they were inspired by philisophers who were in turn inspired by the Native Americans who already held the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. Whether those Natives were divinely inspired may be up for grabs. Personally I would state that if such things as natural rights exist, they could only exist in nature, because laws and rules that come with a society interfere with whatever those rights might have granted. Rather than saying that the rights we are currently afforded are the natural and inalienable, we may be more accurate in stating that these are the rights that we have left. Edit: I do have to say however that the idea of inalienable rights is comforting, but sadly, just wishful thinking. Edited September 17, 2011 by draconix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo 2 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 You are entitled to the rights that those in power decide you are entitled to. Which changes over time....... Yes, another 'truism' and simply unfounded."Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824 Appeal to authority and a bandwagon argument? This is the platform upon which you will construct your arguments? YES. Yes it is. Founded on the FACTUAL statements of our founding fathers. It is my opinion based on solid and verifiable and well-documented facts. Personally I would state that if such things as natural rights exist, they could only exist in nature, because laws and rules that come with a society interfere with whatever those rights might have granted. Rather than saying that the rights we are currently afforded are the natural and inalienable, we may be more accurate in stating that these are the rights that we have left. Then what you would state would be patently wrong or at the very least misguided."Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." -- Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770 AND "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." -- Ayn Rand THAT is how it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 You are entitled to the rights that those in power decide you are entitled to. Which changes over time....... Yes, another 'truism' and simply unfounded."Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824 Appeal to authority and a bandwagon argument? This is the platform upon which you will construct your arguments? YES. Yes it is. Founded on the FACTUAL statements of our founding fathers. It is my opinion based on solid and verifiable and well-documented facts. Personally I would state that if such things as natural rights exist, they could only exist in nature, because laws and rules that come with a society interfere with whatever those rights might have granted. Rather than saying that the rights we are currently afforded are the natural and inalienable, we may be more accurate in stating that these are the rights that we have left. Then what you would state would be patently wrong or at the very least misguided."Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." -- Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770 AND "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." -- Ayn Rand THAT is how it's done. Ok, let me get this straight, A 'truism' that is 'unfounded', yet, the very quotes you use to justify your position were based on the same truisms, and his statement rings false on its face, as Jefferson was a slave owner, putting the lie to his statement that "all men are created free", or, did he leave out the caveat "until enslaved by other men"?? Not to mention that the children of his slaves were born into slavery, and therefore, NOT 'born free'...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo 2 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 You might want to look at the definition of truism and then you might understand why I put it in quotation, as it pertains to your post. And I've already said this once but I'll say it again. The FACT that the Founding Fathers were indeed slave owners in no way invalidates what they accomplished or what they desired for all free men. And once again you are taking what I'm posting out of context because you didn't bother checking the source. IF you had, you wouldn't have typed what you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Appeal to authority and a bandwagon argument? This is the platform upon which you will construct your arguments? YES. Yes it is. Founded on the FACTUAL statements of our founding fathers. It is my opinion based on solid and verifiable and well-documented facts.As you admit, you have a fallacious argument. You can use circular reasoning to prove your facts all day if you want, I advise against it. You keep asserting that these founding fathers are writing down inalienable rights, but have yet to demonstrate that they actually are. Can you prove any of your assertions are true without its premise being its own conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now