Interesting relation. I was bored by the article because its steering principle is the same old either/or-past-the-reflection logic that never gets you anywhere but the author.
The second case, it seem, is much more interesting. If it is true that > there is a logical, objective, concrete basis for human rights that is not > tied to time or place, then such an argument would be sufficient to show > that there are natural human rights. Omitting the present tense third person singular suffix <-s> in "it seem" is more revealing than any of his other arguments. In my view, of course. On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > Nope I have to disagree OM. Now I have read the piece I find nowt to > make me change my mind. > > From what source do such rights stem? > > My stance is grounded in our history. All the rights we have now have > bee faught for, that is they have been taken. Once taken progresive > goveremtns have enshrined them in law and now they are granted. > > > These laws, as all laws, can be changed. In which case the granted > rights will have been resincinded and well not have them back again > without 'taking' them back. > > There is no objective source from which such rights stem except for > God. If in reality God has grnated such rights then they would be > impossible for us to live without them, it is clear that we do though. > > On Jun 2, 12:11 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just reading through it now. > > > > I find I can't agree with this bit at all: > > > > 'In contrast to these objections, I would contend that if all > > communities or nations on earth enjoy the same sort of autonomy that > > legitimates any action that they deem acceptable and can be sustained > > for a period of time, then the moral relativists win. There are no > > natural human rights, and the whole enterprise should be thrown into > > the gutter.' > > > > I would ask why if it is shown that these natural human rights do not > > exist (which is indeed my stance) why the whole concept of them need > > to be thrown in the gutter? > > > > On Jun 1, 7:19 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks rigsy! This is one of the best (read: accurate) articles on the > > > subject I've read in a long time. I feel this philosopher has it > > > 'right' as far as I can tell. > > > > > On Jun 1, 6:37 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/are-there-natural-hum... > > > > > > I started to read the comments which are lively but I need > breakfast...- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
