I think you missed this bit Rigsy: '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'
Which is saying no God has not objectivly granted us rights. There is no objective source for any rights, rights are either taken or granted, that is all. Justice is decided upon by the people or the lawmakers. In both of these cases the rights by which justice is decided are rights that are taken or granted. I'll say it agian, there are no natural human rights, all rights are taken or granted. On Jun 5, 7:15 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > It might be grounded in our biology as a fetus will pull what it needs > from the mother in order to develop and be born unless interrupted by > Nature or laws. > > And in wars, each side announces God's favor for their cause. So too, > in political systems, though it is masked. > > And do you really think laws are divinely motivated in various > governments? How is justice dispensed? How are rights distributed? > > On Jun 2, 6:27 am, "[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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
