Atheist Morality

[PureX]

Let's take this a little slower. You have an inalienable right not to be murdered by me but I have no inalienable right to murder you for reasons I think are right.

But of what practical value is an "inalienable right" when anyone can reject, defy, and usurp it at any time for any reason they choose? What, exactly, is "inalienable" about it given this circumstance?

 

[Idolater]

But of what practical value is an "inalienable right" when anyone can reject, defy, and usurp it at any time for any reason they choose? What, exactly, is "inalienable" about it given this circumstance?

It forms the basis for a moral political articulation. Political articulations that do not regard inalienable rights are not moral.

 

[ok doser]

But of what practical value is an "inalienable right" when anyone can reject, defy, and usurp it at any time for any reason they choose? What, exactly, is "inalienable" about it given this circumstance?

Anyone can reject, defy and usurp it at any time for any reason they choose, but they will be doing so in violation of the law, if we have just law.

Many people confuse our constitutional rights as absolute rights, especially with regards to the freedom of speech as enumerated in the first amendment. The classic rebuttal is that you do not have the LEGAL right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.
You have the ability to do so, but if you do so maliciously and people are hurt in the stampede that you have caused, you are held legally liable for the damage caused by your malicious action.

 

[Idolater]

... you do not have the LEGAL right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

As far as I'm concerned there is basically a right against someone causing and or perpetuating unjustified chaos for you.

 

[ok doser]

As far as I'm concerned there is basically a right against someone causing and or perpetuating unjustified chaos for you.

Enforcing that right would end most of the marriages in America

 

[Idolater]

Enforcing that right would end most of the marriages in America

And it does explain a lot of angst marrieds feel sometimes! Your rights are being violated!

 

[JudgeRightly]

There are divine rights, civil rights, natural rights, and voluntary rights.

Wrong.

The only rights that exist (not talking about man's conceptions) are:

The right to Life and Liberty; to Worship; to Free Speech; to Purchase and Use Property; to Purchase, Own, and Carry Individual Defensive Weapons including Firearms; to Protect the Innocent; to Corporally Punish one's Children; to Due Process of Law; and to Fail.

Everything else is a privilege or permission.

"A right" is just a linguistic term for a ceding of choice. Divine rights are given by God. Civil rights are given by social agreement.

If there's an agreement, then it's not a right.

Right's are inherent, they're not dependent on an agreement.

Natural rights are determined by the laws of physics,

What are you even talking about?

The laws of physics have nothing to do with morality.

and voluntary rights are afforded by individual choice.

If it's voluntary, it's not a right.

If that is the case, how is it that mankind has the ability to ignore, defy, and countermand that right?

Because God created man with the freedom to do so.

A "right" just means that "I can do this, and no one can prevent me from doing so justly."

How is it that nature, too, is able to ignore, defy, and counteract that right?

It doesn't, because it can't, by definition, do any of those things.

You're over-anthropomorphizing nature to make it seem like it can do things that it cannot.

Even some lowly insects can deny you your right to live.

Not intentionally. They're just insects.

A right is not a guarantee that you will be able to do something, it is the ability to do something without unjustly being interfered with.

And yet we do it all the time. So apparently we DO have that right if we deem it unto ourselves.

No. Infringing upon someone else's rights is not itself a right.

How do we know a right was given by God if men can ignore it whenever they choose?

Supra.

Why should we care that God gave us a right when men can ignore it whenever they choose?

Because if we don't, bad things happen.

I think very few men recognize the difference between a divine right and a divine gift.

Gifts have nothing to do with this discussion.

Because they much prefer to presume that their own desires and ideas of righteousness are "divinely right".

There is nothing presumed here.

God gives us each the gift of life but He does not guarantee it to us.

Which has little to nothing to do with the fact that He gave us the right to life.

Again, a "right" is not a guarantee, it's saying "I can do this, and no one can prevent me from doing so justly" it is the ability to do something without unjustly being interfered with.

Governments are created by men to serve men.

Governmental authority comes from God, not men. Haven't you ever read Romans 13?

But of what practical value is an "inalienable right" when anyone can reject, defy, and usurp it at any time for any reason they choose?

This is a stolen concept fallacy.

If there was no "inalienable right," then there would be nothing to "reject, defy, or usurp."

What, exactly, is "inalienable" about it given this circumstance?

Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away. The right to life cannot be taken away by men. It can be FORFEITED by committing a capital crime, AKA a crime worthy of the death penalty. Only the government has the right to enact punishments for crime, however, including the death penalty.

 

[PureX]

It forms the basis for a moral political articulation. Political articulations that do not regard inalienable rights are not moral.

How does it do this? Especially when so many of us can and will simply disregard it?

Here is my point.

People "X" say, "God says what's right (and what's a right)". People "Z" say, "I say what's right (and a right)". Both are deciding for this for themselves, even when one is attributing their decision to something other than themselves, and the other is not. And if God really was deciding what's right, and what's a right, I don't think WE would be able to simply decide and do otherwise. As God's decision would be absolute and inviolable. Wouldn't it?

So when I look at the world I live in, I do not see that I have a right to life come from God. I see that I have the GIFT of life come from God. A gift that I might squander, or that might even be stolen from me by others. Or that I could take away from someone else if I chose to. So that I do not have an unalienable right to life in this world. None of us do; unless we all choose to afford each other this right, and to honor it. And the same goes for the right to be free, and to pursue our own happiness, and fulfillment. If we want these rights for ourselves, we have to be willing to give them to everyone else, and to respect them.

What God has given us all is the gift of life, and the ability to choose what we will do with that gift. But we have to choose to do it together, and equally, if we want that unalienable right to live, and to be safe, and happy. Or we will forever be one faction after another trying to oppress and subjugate everyone else. Stuck in a state of eternal conflict and warfare, always tryng to make everyone else, and even the world, itself, submit to our own imagined superior and (God or self) sanctioned idea of righteousness.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How does it do this? Especially when so many of us can and will simply disregard it?

Here is my point.

People "X" say, "God says what's right (and what's a right)". People "Z" say, "I say what's right (and a right)". Both are deciding for this for themselves, even when one is attributing their decision to something other than themselves, and the other is not. And if God really was deciding what's right, and what's a right, I don't think WE would be able to simply decide and do otherwise. As God's decision would be absolute and inviolable. Wouldn't it?

The good thing is that God gave us His word, in which HE tells US what our rights are.

So when I look at the world I live in, I do not see that I have a right to life come from God.

This is an argument from ignorance.

Just because you are unaware of something doesn't mean it it doesn't exist.

I see that I have the GIFT of life come from God. A gift that I might squander, or that might even be stolen from me by others. Or that I could take away from someone else if I chose to.

None of which changes the fact that all humans have the God-given right to life.

So that I do not have an unalienable right to life in this world.

Non-sequitur.

None of us do; unless we all choose to afford each other this right, and to honor it.

Rights are not dependent on other people acknowledging them, thankfully.

And the same goes for the right to be free, and to pursue our own happiness, and fulfillment. If we want these rights for ourselves, we have to be willing to give them to everyone else, and to respect them.

Supra.

What God has given us all is the gift of life, and the ability to choose what we will do with that gift. But we have to choose to do it together, and equally, if we want that unalienable right to live, and to be safe, and happy. Or we will forever be one faction after another trying to oppress and subjugate everyone else. Stuck in a state of eternal conflict and warfare, always tryng to make everyone else, and even the world, itself, submit to our own imagined superior and (God or self) sanctioned idea of righteousness.

This sounds like new-age nonsense.

Try reading the Bible. It's very clear what our rights are from reading it.

 

[marke]

But of what practical value is an "inalienable right" when anyone can reject, defy, and usurp it at any time for any reason they choose? What, exactly, is "inalienable" about it given this circumstance?

Just because someone might rob you of your rights does not mean you don't have any.

 

[PureX]

Just because someone might rob you of your rights does not mean you don't have any.

Why doesn't it mean that when that is clearly the result? I see a lot of people here claiming to know what is absolutely right, and yet these rights aren't absolute at all. Any fool can defy them whenever they please, and many do so. Even the remotest consideration of reality shows us that these "rights" are not absolute, but are rather contingent upon our mutual agreement to honor them. They are not rights, they are gifts; given by God, but often squandered and ignored by men. (Even by religious men.)

I would like to believe that the right to life and liberty and self fulfillment were absolute, but clearly they are not. We have to choose to recognize them as rights, and to honor and share them equally. Something many of us are not at all willing to do. Which is why there is so much strife in the world.

 

[PureX]

The good thing is that God gave us His word, in which HE tells US what our rights are.

So you have chosen to believe.

Just because you are unaware of something doesn't mean it it doesn't exist.

To claim something exists just because you have chosen to believe that it does, doesn't mean it exists.

None of which changes the fact that all humans have the God-given right to life.

That we can apparently disregard anything we want to, for any reason we want to. So ... what about it?

Rights are not dependent on other people acknowledging them, thankfully.

They are also useless to us when people can just ignore them as they please.

Try reading the Bible. It's very clear what our rights are from reading it.

I have.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why doesn't it mean that when that is clearly the result?

The result of someone killing someone else is not that the person loses the right to life, it's that they lose their life.

life != the right to life

The reason you're so confused is because you keep conflating the two.

I see a lot of people here claiming to know what is absolutely right, and yet these rights aren't absolute at all.

You're equivocating.

[What is absolutely right (in terms of morality)] and [a person's rights] are two very different things that are only somewhat related.

Any fool can defy them whenever they please, and many do so.

Defying them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Even the remotest consideration of reality shows us that these "rights" are not absolute, but are rather contingent upon our mutual agreement to honor them. They are not rights, they are gifts; given by God, but often squandered and ignored by men. (Even by religious men.)

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I would like to believe that the right to life and liberty and self fulfillment were absolute, but clearly they are not.

Wrong.

We have to choose to recognize them as rights, and to honor and share them equally.

Wrong.

Something many of us are not at all willing to do. Which is why there is so much strife in the world.

Irrelevant.

So you have chosen to believe.

Yes, based on the evidence.

To claim something exists just because you have chosen to believe that it does, doesn't mean it exists.

Which is why I point to the evidence for it, such as God's word.

That we can apparently disregard anything we want to, for any reason we want to. So ... what about it?

It means that God gave man a will.

They are also useless to us when people can just ignore them as they please.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I have.

You should read it again then.

 

[marke]

Why doesn't it mean that when that is clearly the result? I see a lot of people here claiming to know what is absolutely right, and yet these rights aren't absolute at all. Any fool can defy them whenever they please, and many do so. Even the remotest consideration of reality shows us that these "rights" are not absolute, but are rather contingent upon our mutual agreement to honor them. They are not rights, they are gifts; given by God, but often squandered and ignored by men. (Even by religious men.)

I would like to believe that the right to life and liberty and self fulfillment were absolute, but clearly they are not. We have to choose to recognize them as rights, and to honor and share them equally. Something many of us are not at all willing to do. Which is why there is so much strife in the world.

You should stop bellyaching about rights and freedoms because you don't think you are getting a fair shake.

 

[PureX]

You should stop bellyaching about rights and freedoms because you don't think you are getting a fair shake.

Where did you see me "bellyaching"? I'm simply pointing out that these rights that some here proclaim to be 'absolute' are clearly NOT absolute. If they were, we would not be able to negate them. So it turns out that all this "absoluteness" is just a semantic opinion.

 

[PureX]

Defying them doesn't mean they don't exist.

It means they are not "absolute", however. Because they depend on us to respect them, for them to have any effective validity.

 

[ok doser]

Because they depend on us to respect them

And that's what the law enforces

The concept of Rights only exists within the structure of an organized government

 

[Idolater]

And that's what the law enforces

The concept of Rights only exists within the structure of an organized government

They're endowed by our Creator.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Where did you see me "bellyaching"? I'm simply pointing out that these rights that some here proclaim to be 'absolute' are clearly NOT absolute. If they were, we would not be able to negate them. So it turns out that all this "absoluteness" is just a semantic opinion.

You're conflating two completely separate topics.

Absolute right and wrong exists. But that's not what we're talking about.

Rights are absolute in the sense that no man can take away another's rights. They can be violated and infringed upon, but that doesn't change the fact that they are absolute.

 

[Hoping]

They're endowed by our Creator.

Did God say that, or did men say that?