Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: "Are There Natural Human Rights?"

Interesting relation. I was bored by the article because its steering principle is the same old either/or-past-the-reflection logic that never gets you anywhere but the author.

The second case, it seem, is much more interesting.  If it is true that there is a logical, objective, concrete basis for human rights that is not tied to time or place, then such an argument would be sufficient to show that there are natural human rights. 

Omitting the present tense third person singular suffix <-s>  in "it seem" is more revealing than any of his other arguments. In my view, of course.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM, leerevdouglas@googlemail.com <lee@rdfmedia.com> 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, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
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 <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> 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 <rigs...@gmail.com> 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 -