![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsMrsilence raised an interesting question in the comments on the Gun Control Post last week and I feel that in light of recent discussions about "Getting People To Eat Right" and "The Government Controlling Your Life" it deserves a post of it's own.
The Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, and Threepers, often say that the constitution does not "grant" rights it "secures" them. The idea being, that such our rights are inherent and thus exist independantly of the government.
So the question is... Do you believe in the existence of inherent human rights that exist independently of any political or legal construction?
Why, or why not?
I think that this is one of those issues that tends to get lost in the traditional Left/Right political divide, but is important to adress because it directly influences someone's understaning of, or assumptions regarding more specific political issues.
Personally I agree with policraticus' assesment. I believe in the existence of "inherent human rights" but lack any objective base for this belief, thus making it a matter of faith. Something that tend to get one in trouble on political forums.
Personally I find the alternative's implications frightning. If what rights we do have can be freely taken away it almost becomes preferable to have a system that subjugates individual desires to the will of society as a whole. As someone who believes in free will, such a position seems practically alien to me but I'm interested to hear where the rest of you stand.
PS: I wish a Happy Easter to all those observing it.
The Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, and Threepers, often say that the constitution does not "grant" rights it "secures" them. The idea being, that such our rights are inherent and thus exist independantly of the government.
So the question is... Do you believe in the existence of inherent human rights that exist independently of any political or legal construction?
Why, or why not?
I think that this is one of those issues that tends to get lost in the traditional Left/Right political divide, but is important to adress because it directly influences someone's understaning of, or assumptions regarding more specific political issues.
Personally I agree with policraticus' assesment. I believe in the existence of "inherent human rights" but lack any objective base for this belief, thus making it a matter of faith. Something that tend to get one in trouble on political forums.
Personally I find the alternative's implications frightning. If what rights we do have can be freely taken away it almost becomes preferable to have a system that subjugates individual desires to the will of society as a whole. As someone who believes in free will, such a position seems practically alien to me but I'm interested to hear where the rest of you stand.
PS: I wish a Happy Easter to all those observing it.
(no subject)
Date: 6/4/10 01:03 (UTC)No, I do not. Much as I'd sometimes like to.
Because I'm a moral nihilist. Morals and related concepts such as inalienable rights are variable concepts that are fluid across time and space and have no other grounding. Even within the same culture and same time, moral codes can be quite different among varying segments of the populous. Morality is just a word and like many words, it can have multiple definitions. There is literally nothing in our Western Civilization that was/is not condoned by some other society with a different moral outlook.
The universe isn't ruled by morality. It is ruled by one thing and one thing only: Power. We aren't the dominant animal species on this planet because we're inherently good. We're the dominant animal species because of the power our brains give us. Pretending that we're good won't save us from the next extinction level event anymore than it would've saved the dinosaurs. At that point, it won't make a lick of difference who was supposedly good and who was supposedly evil and whether or not the giant asteroid/bee die-off/depleted ozone layer/ice age/whatever is violating our supposed "inalienable rights".
Science > Morality.
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 00:43 (UTC)Unfortunatly most of my experiance with Nihilists has been of the colledge-age-revolutionary-wannabe variety. They have a tendency to invoke "The Lebowski Fallacy" when pressed thus exposing their intellectual dishonesty.
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 01:11 (UTC)It is. Thanks.
Oh, those kind are fools and they irritate me. Especially the so-called "anarchists" who quote Nietzche for some reason. Nietzche was not an anarchist. Also, everybody knows about ol' Friederich. Most of the cats you're referring to have probably never give J.L. Mackie a second thought.
And me? I'm certainly not a revolutionary. Since all revolutions ultimately turn 180 degrees(which is why they're called "revolutions" in the first place) what's the point of having one? It'd take an awful lot for me to grab an AK-47 and start shouting "Viva La Revolutsiya!!!"
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 07:38 (UTC)While we may never be able to agree on a set of core values we can at-least agree on this much. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 8/4/10 00:58 (UTC)Seriously, those faux nihilist types in Calvin Kleins and leather jackets who declare themselves as nihilists because they think it makes them "cool" have no idea how painful a path it really is. I didn't want to become a moral nihilist. I simply lost both my faith in God and then in humanity somewhere along the way and couldn't conjure that up again no matter how hard I tried. There's nothing "cool" about existential despair.