no, I never said there were not different types of rights. Of course there are rights given by mankind. Sorry, I skipped over all that because I assumed we largely agreed. We seem to diverge on whether there are non-arbitrary standards of conduct(morality). You seem to believe not. That is your right, or privilege, if you prefer. It was my contention that you argued against "natural" rights because you considered any non-arbitrary foundation could only provided by diesm, with which you disagree. However, my point was that if there are non-arbitrary (meaning non-human derived at the very least), the basis for those standards need not be supernatural.
Attitudes about incest and cannibalism were quick examples of widely held behavioral standards, which could be seen to have a natural basis. Widely held throughout history, by disparate groups with no contact. If there were no such thing as "natural" good, why would ideas like impartiality, for example, keep popping up in largely similar form? If 100 people have a generally similar abstract concept in mind, does it negate the concept that can't say exactly how that concept would work out in society? If we add on peripheral rules, which change, would that negate it? Do abstract concepts signify?
As for the second point, no, I'm sober as a judge, though with a bit of a headache. I was simply pointing out that *if* God were required for rights, and he granted them, still doesn't make them inviolable. Unless you're a Calvinist, that is ;-)
Now I need to sleep off my headache. Hope we're at least on the same page, even if we continue to disagree.
|
