Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:30:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2436 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 barred from expression have effectively been taken away.
You may quibble that no one has the “authority” to take away someone else’s
rights, but it happens all the time regardless of “authority.” Convicted
prisoners are denied liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and are sometimes
denied life, too) by secular law. Is secular law more powerful than divine
endowment?
| |
| |
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.
|
Then by your assertion, Dubya is acting blasphemously outside of his authority.
How do you propose that he should be punished? Or, if he should not be
punished, why not?
Also, how do you explain the judicial system that routinely strips convicted
criminals of these rights?
| |
| |
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.
|
We’d need an objective, verifiable standard by which “justice” and “moral” can
be measured in this context, but I’ll set that aside for the moment.
I’m not sure that social constructs are limited by the morality of the society
that constructs them, either. I think a society could easily conceive of a
moral ideal that exceeds the ambient morality manifested by the society, even as
measured by the actual moral code of that society.
| |
| |
(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.
|
But that’s hardly a resolution to the issue--it merely puts off the resolution
to a point when it can no longer be discussed, which is the same as abandoning
the argument.
Of course, if you wish to prove to me that the resolution will be available
for discussion when it comes to fruition, we can start that debate again! 8^)
| |
Without the anchor of the Divine, a society can easily lose its moral
compass, because reason and intellect are amoral (mixed metaphors
notwithstanding:-)
|
Consider this, though: what if it turns out that “the Divine” is as much a
social construct as rights or fashion sense. What happens then? In that case,
the so-called absolute foundation is revealed to be just as tenuous as anything
else.
In essence, you (ie., people who subscribe to the notion of rights granted by a
Divine grantor) are requiring us to assume the existence of an absolute with no
proof or hope of proof. This is, of course, the perennial problem of “faith.”
| |
| |
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?
|
First of all, I don’t accept that conscience or superego are anything more than
useful shorthand ways of referring to complex biochemical processes, and I
certainly don’t equate them with Lewis’ “natural law” postulation. The reason
that Lewis is wacky in this regard is because he expressly equates the physical
law of gravity with the human tendency toward “right” behavior. This is an
unsupportable rhetorical leap. It works as an apologetic work because
apologetics are only really useful in justifying faith once you have it; if you
don’t have faith, then apologetics are hopelessly unconvincing.
But to your point: could you elaborate on how the secular notions of conscience
and superego are equated to Lewis’ ideas of “natural law?”
| |
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.
|
Then you’ll be voting against Bush in November? Glad to have you on the
winning team at last!
| |
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.
|
But the devil (or other metaphorical metaphysical signifier for “evil”) is in
the details, as I’m sure you’d agree.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) 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. (...) That is precisely why I claim they are divinely-endowed, so that no one has (...) (20 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
