Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:51:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2486 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
For the record, I would state expressly that rights are social constructs
|
No No No. Not to our FF. Rights are given by God, or Nature’s God, or
however you want to characterize our Creator. This is key, because if
rights are granted by anything else, they are easily taken away.
|
Um, these rights are already very easy to take away.
|
Sure, IRL, but I was speaking theoretically, as I believe were the FF. Merely
because someone is able to oppress me and take away my rights doesn’t justify
it.
| |
George W. Bush has, for
example, taken them away from a whole bunch of people, both as Governor and
as President, both here and abroad. Is Dubya so powerful that he can
supplant the Will of God? I’m quite sure that that’s not your meaning, but
how do you otherwise explain the ease with which divinely-endowed rights are
usurped?
|
That is precisely why I claim they are divinely-endowed, so that no one has
the authority, by might or law, to take them away.
| |
In any case, a socially-constructed right that can be taken away is not
readily distinguishable from a divinely-granted right that can be taken away
|
Socially constructed rights are only as moral as the society that constructs
them, which may or may not be just.
| |
(at least, not without appealing to the hereafter, about which no one is
qualified to comment definitively (except to say “we don’t have objective
access to that information”)). If anyone disagrees, I would greatly enjoy
reading an explanation of how socially-constructed and divinely-endowed
rights are materially different.
|
You could say that divinely-endowed rights are merely subject to human
interpretation, but divine-endowed rights are outcome based. The proof is in
the pudding, the fruit tells you what kind of tree you have.
Without the anchor of the Divine, a society can easily lose its moral compass,
because reason and intellect are amoral (mixed metaphors notwithstanding:-)
| |
This part of our debate sounds dangerously close to CS Lewis’ wacky notion of
“natural law” as it pertains to human morality (in “Mere Christianity,” for
example). Lewis was completely incorrect on this count, and similar claims
that rights are handed down by (insert divine source here) are similarly
flawed.
|
I disagree. I don’t think it wacky at all. In fact, one could even equate CS
Lewis’ notion of “natural law” with such secular ideas as the conscience, or the
Superego. Do you find these ideas “wacky” as well?
| |
| |
| |
and
should take into account the opinions and values of as many subsets of
society as possible, while granting absolute authority to none.
|
This sounds good, but how to implement? Seems to me to be a recipe of
stalemate and division.
|
But that’s the price of a disciplined democracy. And what is the
alternative? The current blueblood oligarchy that gets to act as it chooses
without any accountability?
|
I don’t care if my representative is rich or poor; I seek people who are honest,
decent, trustworthy, conscientious-- good people. People who truly seek to
serve their country, not suck it dry.
| |
| |
| |
| |
The will of the people must be honored.
|
|
|
| |
| |
Lynch mobs were organized according to the will of the people. Do you
assert that their will must therefore be honored?
|
I don’t condone cold-blooded murder, no matter how many call for it.
|
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere! You’re identifying that there must be
limits on the will of the people, and I agree. The difference, in this case,
is where we choose to apply those limits.
|
If people were decent and honest, I believe we wouldn’t disagree so much. And I
believe that for the most part, we want the same things for our families, our
country, and our world.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) When you are oppressed you retain your rights. There are only two ways to be rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to have them taken from you through due process as established by the US Constitution. I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) But it does demonstrate irrefutably that those rights are not inalienable, contrary to the assertion of the founding fathers. Inalienable rights that can be taken away aren't very inalienable. And in all practical ways, rights that are utterly (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Um, these rights are already very easy to take away. George W. Bush has, for example, taken them away from a whole bunch of people, both as Governor and as President, both here and abroad. Is Dubya so powerful that he can supplant the Will of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
