Forum Post: Refute The Following Reasoning, Find a Flaw in this Logic
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 10, 2011, 4:41 a.m. EST by infonomics
(393)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Refute The Following Reasoning, Find a Flaw in this Logic
You are born into this world without your consent, your will, your desire or your participation.
To live, to sustain yourself, you must satisfy certain basic needs: shelter, food, medical attention (Maslow's list), even some entertainment (your brain cannot develop without some interaction). Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
These natural rights cannot be contingent since they are necessary for existence.
Natural rights are contingent if they are beyond your control.
To have control of natural rights, you must have control of the industries providing these natural rights.
One way of having control is participation on a board of directors and even the federal government since they regulate some of these industries. I'm talking about direct participation, not via some puppet.
Another way of having control is to own these industries through stock ownership, which can be achieved through OWS, Inc., a holding company owned by Americans (one share per taxpayer).
Another way of having control is via a method I wish not to be associated...if you discern my drift.
=====================================================================
Update
Preface: FYI, the motivation behind this metaphysical pondering is two-fold: one, I am currently engaged in a blog-a-thon marketing gig; two, I am using Descartes' approach to answer the question 'why shouldn't the masses have control of the industries, such as the utilities, that provide their basic needs.' As you probably know, Descartes was attempting to answer some philosophical questions by first proving something very fundamental, his own existence (I think, therefore I am). In other words, I am beginning at the very beginning, what are our rights, with the hope of answering 'why can't we have control over our basic needs.'
The above argument has been seriously challenged with the counter-argument that "man has no natural rights, unless he has the ability to defend them or he lives within the domain of an established social contract." For example, when the caveman had a child, that defenseless child was not protected by the state implemented through a social contract; rather, the child was protected by the might of his parents. If the parents died, the child is essentially without rights since the defenseless child cannot enforce them. Another example. America declared its independence from Great Britain with a document but that document was a mere notification without American might on the battlefield.
Remember, this exercise is somewhat of a casual musing, not a raison d'être. In hood language, it don't pay the rent. (Cue for ha, ha, ha).
Thank you for your responses. After further consideration, I will return with a better argument.
Yours isn't the only system for surviving. It could be argued that new life is the responsibility of its parents, not society. Only the parents had a say in its conception. They provide these basic needs until the individual is able to go out on its own. Society doesn't owe you anything by your own argument, it had no say in your birth.
There is also a well established method that turns every life form out on its own to struggle for survival. It doesn't fault your logic so much as your premiss, we are perhaps not entitled to life at all, in fact all life has the ability to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to sustain it. That would seem to say nothing has a natural right to life, just the right to join the struggle. As a society we've gone somewhere in between all these ideas.
the Occupy Movement cannot advocate violence.
never the less, an investment has been made in social instability - the greater that investment becomes, the greater the damage to our society as a whole
a lack of judicial response to proven acts of fraud will lead inevitably to the perception that the only recourse to justice is through vigilantism. This perception will inevitably result in violence.
There is no justice in this world.
Quote from a movie called Broken Trail; "We are born and die between two eternities."
Quote from William Blake; "Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to the endless night."
The only thing we have the right to do is to decide the difference between right and wrong. I think that is the only reason we exist if there is a Great Spirit type being out there somewhere.
How does your first quote support your argument?
I was never asked to live in the middle of two eternities. I am one born to the endless night. Where is there that I might be able to see justice in life when my only sin was being born?
If there were true justice then we wold all begin this existence with the same circumstances.
Although, who am I to judge? There are rich folk who hate their lives and decide to terminate their existence. Maybe we are all suffering in our own deeply secret way as we wander between two eternities.
Being born between eternities does not necessarily imply being born without the same circumstances as others. These are two different things. Your argument makes sense, but the first quote does nothing to support it. It's just frivolous fluff and confuses the issue. Removing it and your argument has more punch.
You are ignorant of the fact that there has been a major scientific advancement in natural law theory. The real problem is that fascists’ conservatives reject the discovery, while liberals accept but refuse to embrace the discovery due to political corruption. Why do our representatives reject the discovery? That is because our entire legal system would need to be changed to protect the public from the uncivilized behavior of the 1%.
The flaw in your argument is that you assume human knowledge of natural law theory is static and not dynamic. The “TRUTH” is that while natural law is static, our knowledge of natural law is dynamic. That means we can develop new insights.
So, you get somebody like me that has discovered the scientific physical properties of truth, the ability to prove the advance using both predicate logic and calculus, a refusal to publish for the last 27 years and keep the details secret, and you end up with a collapsing civilization because a discovery necessary to the survival of a nation is kept secret.
America will create a legal framework that will address the demands of the 99%, or they will be destroyed for the simple fact that a government without justice must fall. It is impossible for it to continue standing.
And yes it is my way or the highway. No compromises. There will be justice or the destruction of America. No negotiation.
None of us had a say on whether we wanted to be born into this world or not. Many I am sure wish they were never born but since we can't do anything about it, the responsibility falls back on the parents. There are no natural rights given to anyone that is born and if we still lived in nature most of us would not live pass a year old due to predation.
"It takes a village to raise a child".
A newborn left on it's own, wouldn't last much more than a day.
A child raised in semi-isolation, (Only his parents to raise him.), if he survived through puberty, would have trouble fitting in to society.
"Natural rights are contingent if they are beyond your control." I assume this is one statement that got you in trouble. If they are rights, they exist independent of control, or whether they are respected by others.
Also logic is one thing, premises are another. If your premises are wrong logic, correct or not, won't fix your outcome.
Nice try. Keep at it.
Let me guess, an out of work college graduate? Of course you have the "natural" right to sustain/defend yourself (duh). There is no industry that "provides" that natural right. Simply because you have the right to exist, it does not follow that you have the right to "control" everyone else.
title does not specify subject
flaw
use of "this" is the title
Natural rights are based on your pursuit of happiness. The key word is pursuit, meaning you must do something, happiness is not an entitlement. One must work and be productive to be fullfilled. Nationalizing business as you suggest is a failed system as shown by the fall of the USSR and the evolution of China to capitalistic controlled economy
To have control of natural rights, you must have control of the industries providing these natural rights. -- Industries do not control natural rights. There is no natural right to entertainment.
The rest of your post is not logical based upon these false premises.
I am not sure I understand the argument. Going back further than your second sentence, I would say you are merely dust that condensed from the big bang. Going further, you are a biological organism, a peculiar result of billions of years of biochemistry. Your "mission" (teleologically speaking; obviously there is no inherent "mission" other than those we make for ourselves) is to produce the next generation.
So I don't understand this: "Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. These natural rights cannot be contingent since they are necessary for existence."
A rabbit may have a "natural right" to exist, but the fox, who has a right to eat, may disagree. Aren't "Rights" simply things we construct in order to create a reasonably orderly society?
Yes. Nowhere in heaven or on earth are your rights written with any authority. Rights don't exist. Everything you do, you do by force. Take a step, kill an ant. Take a breath thanks to a plant.
What we call "natural" is simply the equilibrium struck when you and the plant exhale. The ant is outta luck.
Very good argument. You've forced me to reconsider but I will return.
Indeed, this concept of "natural rights" is questionable. I assume it comes from a religious perspective wherein the human is considered above the animals and created in the image of God. From that perspective, which I incidentally find highly dubious, it could be argued that humans have inalienable natural rights. Still, this argument seems tentative at best.
I agree. The concept of "rights" is probably a result of evolution, given the fact that we are social animals, to a degree anyway. We aren't as socially driven as ants or bees, but on the other hand most humans don't do well alone. Natural selection favored mutations (physical and intellectual, if you need to differentiate. I don't see the need, since intellectual characteristics are merely a function of a physical organ, the brain) that allowed humans to work together and survive in groups, at least long enough to pass on genes.
We have the natural right to choose.
Born without your consent? Kill yourself.
There are actually people who do that. And i think it's a horrible shame that we allow for a society that make people so unhappy that they would even be willing to end their lives.
"Allow for a society that make people so unhappy that they would even be willing to end their lives". Govt is not in charge of making you happy, that's your responsibility.
I was talking about society. By saying Govt. you make it sound like there is some outside source. There is not. It is you, me, your family, friends, neighbors... everyone. Our lives depend on each-other. Without each-other we will all perish. So yes, like it or not but your happiness depends on others.
If you think that the govt does not intrude on your life , you're naive.
I didn't say that. Maybe you should try understanding my message instead of portraying your own onto my words.
Your own happiness depends on yourself. "People are about as happy as they make up their minds to be" Abraham Lincoln
Choices you make are very depended on the experiences you had. So, what is choice anyways.
When you were brought up in a christian family, it is very unlikely that you choose to become muslim. Unless something life-changing happened that suddenly made that choice seem obvious to you.
Same, when you suffered a abusive childhood it's a lot less likely that you choose to be a happy balanced person.
We are shaped by our experiences. To assume that everyone can simply choose to be happy is not realistic.
Wrong. attitude is everything. Lincoln knew what he was talking about.
He's been death for a while. So i rather check with more recent studies. And studies do show that we are profoundly influenced by your environment. So don't simply say 'wrong' without something more to back it up with then an old quote.
Human nature hasn't changed. What Lincoln said wasn't based on a "study" it was from life experience. read about his life. It wasn't an easy one.his mother died when he was young. he grew up in poverty . 3 of his four children died before they reached adulthood which led to his wife being mentally unstable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA
You're assuming that you actually have any rights.
This line of argumentation has two major problems:
Before providing counter-arguments, a good debater would ask you to properly define the concept of control. For example, the right to protest against companies could be considered a form of control. The right to buy or not to buy products from a company is a form of control. One does not necessarily have to be on the board of directors or hold shares in a company to have control over it.
Unfortunately, you don't qualify as a good debater, Thrastrawman. And your intentions are clearly proven malignant on other posts. Ignore.
You are certainly free to ignore. Although, I'm wondering why you didn't?
Good morning to you too. No you don't. Liar
Hey, there you are again?! Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?