Ender_Sai posted:That, however, is not my standard Kimball and it makes me wonder why you're pulling a DM and responding to what you wish I'd said (in order to make your point uber awesome) rather than what I actually said. The only valid point you made was that you have natural rights because you said so; ie that someone decreed it, it was not just naturally "so". That's actually more robust an argument than Jefferson put forward for why those "truths" were "self-evident", in any event. Bentham just keeps getting proved right. Nonsense upon stilts, indeed.
Ender_Sai posted: Oh noez, DM has hijacked KK and he's responding to arguments that were never made, tell teh mods!!1!.
Ender_Sai posted: Kimball, jus cogens was concluded as expedient after the horrors of Nazi Germany; not at their behest. What a patently dishonest, or otherwise spectacularly ignorant, claim you continue to make.
Ender_Sai posted: Similarly, this claim of self-evident is, for want of better words, a mile high pile of bull ****. That's a cop out position, "Oh, they are because they just are, ok!" You have failed to demostrate how they're "self-evident" or even "natural", and just saying "they are" doesn't cut it. Again, to Wallace, "If you and I are arguing about something and I reply, "It is obvious that I am right," I have added nothing to our dialog. I may as well have said, "I declare victory." If Jefferson--so often a golden-tongued hypocrite--was not consciously engaging in a debater's trick, he was taking an intellectual short-cut, using a tautology: "It is true because....it is true.""
Declaration of Independence posted:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Bentham posted:We know what it is for men to live without government -- and living without government, to live without rights: we know what it is for men to live without government, for we see instances of such a way of life -- we see it in many savage nations, or rather races of mankind; for instance, among the savages of New South Wales, whose way of living is so well known to us: no habit of obedience, and thence no government -- no government, and thence no laws -- no laws, and thence no such things as rights -- no security -- no property: --liberty, as against regular controul, the controul of laws and government --perfect; but as against all irregular controul, the mandates of stronger individuals, none. In this state, at a time earlier than the commencement of historv -- in this same state, judging from analogy, we the inhabitants of the part of the globe we call Europe, were; -- no government, consequently no rights: no rights, consequently no property -- no legal security -- no legal liberty: security not more than belongs to beasts -- forecast and sense of insecurity keener -- consequently in point of happiness below the level of the brutal race
Fluke_Groundrunner posted:Does "self-evident" as written in the DoL mean 'naturally endowed upon' or does it mean 'deductable through reason'?
Philosopher1701 posted:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Are all people really created equal? Are they created at all? If there is no such "Creator", do humans really have the "rights" to life, freedom, etc.?
Jabbadabbado posted:"Might makes right," is a subtle, liberating truth. Rights must be enforceable to have any meaning.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Jabbadabbado posted:Kimball wrote: They declared boldly that they had certain unalienable rights and that they would defend those rights with whatever means that they had at their disposal. In other words, they stated a dedication to those rights and a willingness to do what was necessary to enforce them. The means they had at their disposal included a populist movement based around a shared belief in the rights laid out in the declaration, the emerging economic strength of the colonies and the ability to channel that strength into military spending, etc. If the American colonists had failed in their bid for independence, then they would have been left with whatever rights guaranteed them by the British government. It seems to me that there's even less of a need to try to prove the existence of intangible, ethereal rights (are they a wave or a particle?) than to try to prove the existence of God. Either people believe in them or not, and if they do how they act on that belief is what makes all the difference.
