Naruki wrote:
The rights that most people talk about are the ones allegedly given by a power higher than any manmade government - which is why they are so laughable. If God really gave you the right to live, He could perfectly enforce that right - much more so than any human government - and you would never die.
So Naruki's proof that there are no rights with a basis other than human government is that these rights are violated. On the other hand, your "privileges granted to the individual by the society in which they live" better defines advantages or prerogatives, which are related to rights but are not the same. You cannot just define words the way you like. You may decide you do not believe in rights, but rights are still that which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. Just is honorable and fair, good is positive or desirable in nature. Does it really take state sanction to determine what is honorable, fair, positive, or desirable in nature?
By the way, this seems to me to come off rather haughtier than I mean. I would find the statement "I don't believe in rights because I believe there is no non-subjective standard of justice, morality, etc" to be a valid statement for which one could argue on many fronts. My only problem is with ill-defining words, and tearing down the strawmen. Meanings must be agreed upon and accepted before the word itself is rejected. |
