Natural Rights

[Shild]

From viewing the Christianity in America debate, I decided to start this thread.

Question to Debate: How, from an atheistic perspective, can all humans be entitled to certain inalienable, natural rights?

[aprilannies]

Life without God, i.e. atheism, is simply 'polished animalism', and rights are given accordingly.

Huh? The distinguishing feature of humanity is the proprensity for religion, the cultivation of love of God. Animals eat, we eat; animals mate, we marry or just do it..; animals sleep, we sleep; animals defend themselves, we do too. Religion is a higher order activity that defines and nourishes humanity.

Not all humans receive their morals and ethics from a religious source. See comment above about other attributes that differentiate man from animal.

Without aknowledgement of the important of the Origin of Everything in our lives, even the most fantastic moral and ethical system is sure to crumble and fial due to being foundationless. It is simply an attempt at ethics & morality, like a pre-schooler attempts making a house (out of plastic blocks).

Wrong. Many people do not need an all powerful God looking over their shoulders, threatening them with hell in order to do the right thing. Some people are able to do the right thing, merely because it is the right thing to do.

In an animalistic (atheistic) society, the 'Law of the Jungle' prevails, - "Might makes right." Quarrel, hypocracy, exploitation and degradation follow naturally. Without an Absloute, unchanging reference point, some 'mighty' anmimal is sure to come along and assert him or her self over the existing construct. People even try to do that over God-given systems!

While this may stand true in stringently communist, strictly atheistic states, more commonly found in our world today is the 'might makes right' mentality in religious states. (i.e. Iran, Taliban Afganistan, do I need to go on?)

If society's leaders are genuinely Godly, then the whole society can be uplifted. In such a civilization, the ungodly naturally would have fewer rights, but because the majority are Godly, they're not treated too badly.

Godliness and God-lessness are seen in practical action.....

This may be the worst of your conjectures. I have questions regarding the above statement.

1. Who determines if said leader is 'genuinely Godly'?
2. Who determines what exactly is 'unGodly'?
3. What rights are these so-called unGodly people denied?

but because the majority are Godly, they're not treated too badly

But you admit that because they are supposedly 'unGodly' they are treated as second class citizens. Which God exactly are you referring to? I know that the Judeo-Christian God reserves the right of judgement for himself ONLY, so how are these so-called 'Godly' followers going to judge 'unGodly-ness'?

I don't have the answers to where Natural Rights came from, perhaps is is a cultural thing, I think it all can be traced back to the question; is there absolute good and evil?

What I CAN say, is that in today's society, there are many people who do what is right, because it is the right thing to do. Not because of something written in scripture. That, I've always thought, is much more admirable than people doing the right thing because they are afraid of burning in hell, or pleasing the man in the sky. That's just me though...

I find this whole entry to be a broad generalization and offensive. I guess I'll evolve to grow thicker skin.

[littlesoul]

Hi Dilettante,
Thanks for your considerations on points I made... hope you don't mind the lengthy reply - ... - its a welcome opportunity to express my thoughts and understandings in an otherwise very hectic world - thanks!

Dilettanta said:
Maybe there is no such thing as natural rights. The notion of a "right" is a cultural one, not natural. Where would these "natural" rights be written? In the hearts of humans? In the starry sky? On some golden tablets?

The enactment of 'rights' is to me is obviously cultural, rights are a hallmark of civilisation. The simple proof to this assertion is that without social enforcement & active protection (involving sanctions for example), they disappear quickly. The idea of rights is developed in any culture, but the specifics vary greatly. Religion generally serves in a major way to maintain both culture and rights, until the institutions of religion become "religious". <- ;p see more later

We should be intelligent enough to take more than a superficial look at the history of Theocracy. *All* systems of government have repeatedly collapsed in the course of time, and there have certainly been great Theocratic governments sustained for considerable periods throughout the world, (remembering of course that Christianity is not the only purely monotheistic tradition in the world -Thank God:).
Given that all governments have a limited life span (as we ourselves do), perhaps a more meaningful focus (if it were possible) would be on the quality of life under any given government for the people under it. Its a wonderful thing that over the course of history, various human qualities are nurtured under difference systems of governance, even in the midst of the harsh realities of life that governments are meant to mitigate at the same time.

I lived in India for 6 yrs and have studied the culture 'from the inside' during and since that time. I can tell you that in my subsequent BA in Asian Studies, the coverage of the Indian caste system was utter nonsense. As an example, the Chinese Confucian system of governemnt was examined in length on the basis of its ideals, with just a quick look at the practical side. The "Hindu caste system" however received no coverage at all of its written (scriptural) origins, ideals and methods, just a constant focus on the current-day depredations of it. India has 1000,000,000 people. The old systems are collapsing as we speak, and have been doing so since before Moghul rule! Of course there will be depredations. But why and how did it survive for so long?? Why did the Moghuls, for example, pay so much attention to massacring the Brahmanas? And why didn't the so-called oppressed other castes revolt against them then? Why did the British (via the East India Company) pay Max Muller 10,000 pounds stirling (in 1854!) to subvert the Brahminical culture with a dodgy translation of the Vedas? ?
I found that Indian monotheism is awesome! and ontologically implacably opposed to materialism and religious compromises with materialism. but i digress back to the point! Modern "opinion" on other (far, far older) cultures is bunk in my opinion. Pure bunk. How long will our culture sustain? With what eyes are we viewing others' expressions of humanity?? What are the global results of our "progress" ? All old cultures relate a glorious past, not an ape-like one. Something is clearly amiss.

...don't forget language...don't forget reason...don't forget morality/ethics.

Reason is one aspect of human intellect (among many others mind you), not a defining feature of humanity itself. Language is common amongst animal species, though a high degree of verbal articulation is rarer.... If Ethics is seen as a means of facilitating ongoing social harmony, then is is certainly common in the animal kingdom. In any case, since ethics involves contemplation on the right, then it is a preliminary precursor to genuine religion anyway ( a kind of ameobic stage in the evolution of consciousness) ... such contemplation and practice is 100% absent in animals, as far as we can perceive anyway. .

littlesoul, don't forget that all theocracies have failed. A "government of the Godly" is the most horrible form of tyranny I could imagine. No other government could do evil with a cleaner conscience! Sad

Penultimately, (this has been great fun, btw, thanks:) When you express your totally valid doubts about "Government of the Godly", i think you really mean Government of the "Godly" - there's an enormous, actually all the world, of difference. I can fully appreciate your point in this.. how else can we think as Anglo-saxons raised in a post-industrial revolution world, thinking ourselves the pinnacle of evolution, but seeing some very barbaric traits in our cultural history think well of religion, what to speak of religion in high places?

I think only a person who comprehends 'Godliness' can understand what (so-called) "Godly" means. This is a huge area of educational poverty in our culture. After all, its a matter of *consciousness*

[littlesoul]

Many people do not need an all powerful God looking over their shoulders, threatening them with hell in order to do the right thing. Some people are able to do the right thing, merely because it is the right thing to do.

Ah! That'd be the anglo-saxon churchian God you're referring to there That's one view of God. .. True, many people seek to understand right from wrong, etc, without necessarily accepting a priori the existence of an absolute reference point or personality. In terms of polished animalism quote you were replying to, such attempts at morality are very polished indeed.

While this may stand true in stringently communist, strictly atheistic states, more commonly found in our world today is the 'might makes right' mentality in religious states. (i.e. Iran, Taliban Afganistan, do I need to go on?)

If here you mean blatant sexual discrimination, well, thats an arab/persian/afghan thing, not exactly Islamic. Its a good point though, and here we have to split hairs a little in the understanding of 'religion' . Religion has nothing to do with material management or profit. Religion is to link with God. Sadly, that point, although in fact the highest commandment of the Bible - has been all but lost in modern 'Christian' discourse. Thus the mess.
If by the above references you mean terrorism, then the same point applies.
Religion attracts manipulators as much as any organisation, please remember that, and take it into account when making your assertions
[shrug]




If society's leaders are genuinely Godly, then the whole society can be uplifted. In such a civilization, the ungodly naturally would have fewer rights, but because the majority are Godly, they're not treated too badly.
Godliness and God-lessness are seen in practical action.....

This may be the worst of your conjectures. I have questions regarding the above statement.

1. Who determines if said leader is 'genuinely Godly'?
2. Who determines what exactly is 'unGodly'?
3. What rights are these so-called unGodly people denied?

Generally elders and/or fully dedicated religious people. Certainly not legislation.
Additionally, in a real free society, *people* in different roles, especially leading roles in any field, act as mutual checkers-and-balancers, making sure that the running of society goes on under sane and competent managers. They do this by weeding out the fakers. The big catch, though, is that commercial interests are kept within certain limits. The Chinese and Indian cultures did it. No place for lust/greed at the top. They were very very durable cultures...

Our modern democracy facilitates fakers.

Rights are assertions of freedom. Basic freedom is earned. By this I mean freedom from hunger, freedom from the elements, freedom from loneliness, freedom from threat of attack. All these have to be worked for. - earned. Over and above these 'basic' or bodily rights, there is the right to enact ethics and morals. The ability to excercize these rights depends very much on the moral and ethical standing of the leaders of society. Obviously a criminal or a barbarian leader will be unable to grant and protect the citizens' 'higher' rights to a socially satisfying and honest existence.
As citizens, we cannot begin to guarantee the moral health of our society unless and until we ourselves are fully cognizant and fluent in a common moral understanding. Religion, when not abused by selfish, greedy and weak people, provides that. When exploited, unintelligent people blame religion itself. By this logic all diseased people are bad, very bad.

but because the majority are Godly, they're not treated too badly

But you admit that because they are supposedly 'unGodly' they are treated as second class citizens. Which God exactly are you referring to? I know that the Judeo-Christian God reserves the right of judgement for himself ONLY, so how are these so-called 'Godly' followers going to judge 'unGodly-ness'?

Actually Godly people are generally quite charitable to all. (Just look at the USA!) That's what I meant here.

I don't have the answers to where Natural Rights came from, perhaps is is a cultural thing, I think it all can be traced back to the question; is there absolute good and evil?

The search for a permanent basis for the contingent good & bad we witness around us daily is the work of philosophers. If they would 'think within the box' and be afraid to probe uncomfortable regions, where would we be today?

What I CAN say, is that in today's society, there are many people who do what is right, because it is the right thing to do. Not because of something written in scripture. That, I've always thought, is much more admirable than people doing the right thing because they are afraid of burning in hell, or pleasing the man in the sky. That's just me though...

You've touched on a great point here. It's like the old "unconsciously incompetent ->consciously incompetent ->consciously competent -> ->unconsciously competent" progression, but in morality. All I can say to your next point is that the world-view in each of these phases must change and progress....... perhaps the whole world itself looks different to the individual as the consciousness of ethics and morality grows.....


I find this whole entry to be a broad generalization and offensive. I guess I'll evolve to grow thicker skin. [/quote]

[Dilettante]

Thank you for your response, littlesoul! But let me comment on some of your ideas now (more comments in my next post).

there have certainly been great Theocratic governments sustained for considerable periods throughout the world

Very true. But I wasn't referring to duration in time. My point was that theocracies--at least monotheistic ones--become oppressive and intolerant really fast.

But why and how did it survive for so long?

Again, longevity, by itself, is no indication of merit.

I found that Indian monotheism is awesome! and ontologically implacably opposed to materialism

What do you mean by "materialism" here? Are we talking Democritus? Epicurus? Hobbes?Marx? Physicalism? Anyway, what is so wrong about it?

Modern "opinion" on other (far, far older) cultures is bunk in my opinion. Pure bunk. How long will our culture sustain? With what eyes are we viewing others' expressions of humanity?? What are the global results of our "progress" ? All old cultures relate a glorious past, not an ape-like one.

Well, I agree that we tend to underestimate ancient cultures. But much can be said for modern Western culture. I am a staunch defender of it. Of course "opinion" (modern or otherwise) is almost always bunk, unless it is supported by sound arguments. Again, time duration is irrelevant when it comes to judging the value of any civilization: the Ottoman Empire was not exactly a model of efficiency or organization or general welfare, but it lasted for a long, long time...

Language is common amongst animal species, though a high degree of verbal articulation is rarer.... If Ethics is seen as a means of facilitating ongoing social harmony, then is is certainly common in the animal kingdom.

Hmm...while some form of communication does exist among animals, I wouldn't call that language precisely because what you refer to as "a high degree of verbal articulation" is lacking. I suppose a case could be made that some species of apes have developed a very primitive version of somthing vaguely resembling morality, but not ethics. Animals show no sense of what is universally right or universally wrong.

When you express your totally valid doubts about "Government of the Godly", i think you really mean Government of the "Godly" - there's an enormous, actually all the world, of difference.

You may be totally correct here. But how are we to tell the difference?

how else can we think as Anglo-saxons raised in a post-industrial revolution world, thinking ourselves the pinnacle of evolution

I don't think we are the pinnacle of evolution. Actually, there is no such thing (and, BTW, I'm not Anglo-Saxon...my native language is a "corrupted" version of Latin called... Spanish).
Finally, this has been great fun for me too ...thanks!