When Do Human Rights Begin?

Akita Suggagaki said:

I think I must agree. And yet our constitution states otherwise.

"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,"

Self evident? It is a nice thought but I am not so sure. "The maxim do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Is probably something we could all agree on because it is based on an inherent desire to avoid suffering and experience good. But aright must be given and secured. And that takes a government with enforcement.

Click to expand...

That's the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't have the force of law.

Tree of Life said:

I believe that legal rights are not identical to human rights.

Click to expand...

You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe. I do, however, take issue when you try to superimpose your premise on explanations that don´t work from that premise, and thereby distort and misrepresent them.

You are welcome to demonstrate that there are rights beyond legal rights, and you are welcome to demonstrate what these rights are. The mere frustration that without such rights there ... wouldn´t be such rights does not an argument make.

On another note: Since you assume that these rights are God-given, it seems to me that they are pretty irrelevant for the discussion at hand. After all, the "violations" of these rights that you give as examples did happen - so having these rights wouldn´t seem to make any practical difference. IOW (and in variation of a theistic bonmot): With there being God given rights everything is permissible.

Tree of Life said:

When you talk about debating the merits of certain legal rights, this implies to me that you're measuring them by something outside of the law itself.

Click to expand...

By what do you measure the merits of those "natural rights" you are assuming to be out there?

I suspect we all measure these things in the same way: We are comparing them to our values - are they likely to serve those values or not? Our values themselves have to do with what we would like the world to be(come) like. It´s not really that complicated, in principle.

Tree of Life said:

A right by nature would be a right that we possess simply because we are human beings. For example, I believe that every human being deserves respect simply because they are made in the image of God. Just like our intellectual capacities are an essential part of our humanity, so are rights. To be human is to have rights.

Man-made rights that we have only because they are given to us by law are not natural rights. And rights that we wish we had because we see them as important to our wellbeing are not natural rights. Maybe you don't think that there is such a thing as natural rights.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do not see any difference between rights we wish to have for the purpose of universal well-being, and what you’re calling natural rights. I can appreciate that you think we have a better claim to natural rights on the basis of God’s will than we do the rights we wish to have, but because I don’t buy into the existence of any rights-giving god, the two are identical to me. Apart from being created by God, is there anything else that could give us claim to natural rights?

Tree of Life said:

I don't think so. Without God there could be nothing like natural rights.

Click to expand...

So, without God would you give any weight to the rights we all feel we ought to protect as a society?

Tree of Life said:

It's difficult for me to answer this question because I don't believe that life is intelligible without God. It is not imaginable.

Click to expand...

Not intelligible? How so? This might take us off topic, but I think it’s going to speak to the crux of where we differ.

Tree of Life said:

God is an ontologically necessary being. That's the very definition of God.

Click to expand...

Yes. It's called defining God into existence. That you believe it to be necessary doesn't make it so. That you define it to be so doesn't make it so.

Tree of Life said:

I'm not arguing that just because I believe something that it is true. I'm simply stating my position in order to clarify where I'm coming from when it comes to human rights and their origins. I don't believe it's possible to imagine a world without God because he is ontologically necessary. So I cannot answer the question "without God would you recognize human rights?".

Click to expand...

Understood. But, what do you mean by not "possible to imagine"? Do you just mean you, because clearly there are those of us who do image a world without gods and thus deny (or remain unconvinced of) this necessity?

Tree of Life said:

I don't believe it's possible for anyone to imagine a world without God. Atheists are in the position of implicitly recognizing God's existence all the while trying to suppress their knowledge of God. They are internally inconsistent and self-conflicted. They may or may not be aware of this.

Click to expand...

If we are not aware of this problem, then by definition we don't suffer from it.

Why do you suppose that you might know the state of an atheist's mind better than they do?

Tree of Life said:

I don't believe it's possible for anyone to imagine a world without God. Atheists are in the position of implicitly recognizing God's existence all the while trying to suppress their knowledge of God. They are internally inconsistent and self-conflicted. They may or may not be aware of this.

Click to expand...

Thats pretty offensive.

Tree of Life said:

I don't believe it's possible for anyone to imagine a world without God. Atheists are in the position of implicitly recognizing God's existence all the while trying to suppress their knowledge of God. They are internally inconsistent and self-conflicted. They may or may not be aware of this.

Click to expand...

So you define God as "existence" itself?

Tree of Life said:

Because I believe that God is the very foundation of being, rationality, and morality, I don't believe it's possible to imagine a world without God. God is an ontologically necessary being. That's the very definition of God.

Click to expand...

Ok, well, I guess asking you why you believe all that would send us too far off topic, but it’s your thread so you can choose if you want to proceed.

Tree of Life said:

When does a human being get their rights? How you answer this will likely depend upon where you believe human rights come from. Here are some options that I can imagine:

• When they are conceived.
• When they are born.
• When they become a citizen.

Maybe your answer is something in between these points or something else altogether. When do human rights begin for an individual?

Click to expand...

Humans are granted rights once a pregnancy has been detected.