kurt vonnegut said:

---

Group1:
Popular sovereignty (rule by the people), individual rights (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), equality, limited government, freedom of speech and religion, due process, protections against unreasonable use of government power, right to a fair trial, separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.

Group 2:
Or are the core principles of this country as established by the founding documents, keep holy the Sabbath, worship only the Christian God, no blasphemy, don't be jealous of your neighbor, honor your parents, and don't lust?

---

Nice, thoughtful post.

I think it is interesting that the line that you drew between these two camps are largely about how to treat other people (Group 1) and how to organize your individual priorities (Group 2).

But, I would argue that many of the things in your Group 1 are second and 3rd level deductions from the 1st level principles. I would argue that the core principles you have listed above, and their 2nd level results are:

1st level-> People have inherent worth: they have a right to life, a right to liberty / freedom and to be happy as long as they don't bother people. Why is that? These are inherent rights. There is no objective reason why this is a fact, it just is.

2nd level ->Because people have inherent worth and the rights associate with that worth, you shouldn't treat them like they don't have any worth. You can't lord over them and restrict those rights, because doing this would be evil. Why? Well because the 1st level principles are true. Why? Well, they just are.

3rd level -> Because people tend to do evil things, you have to restrict people from trying to restrict people's rights. You need protections to make sure that people don't lord over others with tyranny. You have to restrict government, you have to support people's rights to voice protest against the government, you have to set up a government in a way that people's own self interest will work against the government turning on its own people (for a while, at least, until Leviathan corrupts the entire kit and kaboodle simultaneously).

I argue that you can have checks an balances of power against the government, and still neglect to recognize those first level principles that our government draws on (as an example, check out the Old South, pre-emancipation. Ewww.). The only reason the third level is important is to protect the 1st and 2nd level.

At the core is the belief in individual human value (if you were white, unfortunately, at the beginning). Everything else is built upon that foundation.

Group 2 is about how to set up good priorities for a meaningful life: work / productivity isn't everything unless you take the time to contemplate the big picture meaning (keep the Sabbath), worship God only (which I would argue for this conversation is altruistic love, but that is another discussion) because everything else is a chasing after the wind, the love of God is a serious concern, and not to be taken lightly, stuff cannot buy happiness, community is important and arrogance is unhelpful (your parents are wiser than you think, you just don't have the experience to know that until you get old, too), and lust is supposed to be a tool to keep married people together, and not abused through empty satiation. All of the restrictions of behavior you list are activities that draw on the wisdom / assumptions in this paragraph above.

Group 1 is mostly external, group 2 is mostly internal.

Quote:

---

Destroying the Gods of America, as I see it, means removing of individual rights, invasive government, limits on freedom of speech and religion, giving government excessive power, etc. Which of those am I advocating for?

---

I would submit to you that the laws of the nation as articulated by the founders are primary related to external factors, because they were creating a form of government, not a religion. Governments don't typically address internal factors. There is no law against hate, unless your hate drives you to do something that hurts people externally. But, hating people without hurting the people you hate is no way to go through a meaningful life.

And, again, there are alternative philosophies and religions around those internal factors that would likely support your external factors in group 1. Buddhists believe that attachments are the root of all suffering, and if you can just live in the moment without becoming attached to anything, you can avoid that suffering. There are a lot of second level deductions in Buddhism that you get to with that core underlying priority as the foundation, but none of those are in conflict with the first level assumption that individuals all have an inherent self worth, and the other 2nd and 3rd level deductions you get to on that assumption. But, Buddhism doesn't emphasize individual self worth as much as Christianity.

Sikhs have some similar core 1st level principles as Christianity, but I would say that their 2nd level deductions are more individualistic and less communitive in nature. I would say that Sikhs believe that the best thing for a person to do is live a simple life of service for his direct family and his God (similar to Christians), but, more than any other religion, Sikhs believe that the only thing that prevents evil in the world is the complacency of good men: cowardice and inaction of good men in the face of oppression of the less fortunate is a major sin in Sikhism. You can turn your own other cheek in the face of oppression in Sikhism, but if that person then strikes the cheek of someone who is unable to protect them selves from oppression, it is your moral duty to use the weapons that you are morally obligated to always be on your person to stop that oppression. Their society is not so much built on building a government that is restricted from oppressing people, it is more individualistic. It is the personal responsibility of every good man to directly address and stop tyranny that the individual directly observes. If all good men do the same, government will not have the ability to collectively grow evil. But, the obligation relies on the individual and what they see daily, and not on the collective will of society.

All of that to say that I don't think that you can really establish a strong government if you truly hold the idea that all individuals have self worth that will denigrate into slaughtering people like the communists always seem to get to. I also don't think that you can establish a government that is protected from eventually taking a gruesomely utilitarian point of view about individuals unless you except the inherent worth of the individual as a core principle.

Again, all that to say that even if you proclaim the Christian God as the philosophical core of your society, if you abandon the first two principles of Judeo-Christian values, your society is in jeopardy of committing great evil. Those two first principles are:

2nd most important, love your neighbor as yourself.
1st most important, love the concept and source of wisdom that loving your neighbor as yourself is the best way for you as an individual and society. (ie, love God, who is love and teaches love; so, love altruistic love most of all).

In my opinion, most objections to this are the teachings about how to live your best life. People disagree with God on these teachings, and therefore are hostile to the idea of God, and throw the rest of the relationship away. For example, people that don't want to treat sex as something that should be reserved to keep parents together are often spiteful of that teaching, and therefore view the rest of the teachings with spite. So too do the very ambitious, or very arrogant and prideful.

For me, I prefer a government that is focused on the 2nd deductions of first principles. You can't really judge what is actually in another man's heart, but you can restrict his actions if those actions are not in line with the 1st level principles.

Here is how TJ summarized it: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Everything that comes later draws upon that profound declaration as authority on how to form a government. You can hold the truths to be self evident whether you believe in a Creator or not. But you cannot really be a Christian without believing in those profound truths, either, if you know anything about what Christ, the Patriarchs, and the prophets actually taught.

Finally, when tribal identity within the nation becomes more important than individual rights, you absolutely are starting to assault and try to kill the Gods of the nation. People are people. Viewing them first through a lens of their tribe within the nation will just bring about ruin, no matter if that tribe is your race, your thoughts on sexual relationships, your economic status, etc. The rights of the individual, even if you disagree with the beliefs of the individual or the tribe he/she belongs to, have to be paramount, because the individual has inherent worth with self-evident inalienable rights.

Quote:

---

For me, I prefer a government that is focused on the 2nd deductions of first principles. You can't really judge what is actually in another man's heart, but you can restrict his actions if those actions are not in line with the 1st level principles.

---

Thank you for all of that. A more in depth response than I expected (why do you have to be so long winded? [insert winky face here])

I think many of these 2nd level deductions are natural progressions form the first principles. And I think they are fairly universal deductions among groups who hold a view about inherent human worth. And those groups are not limited to Christians.

I worry that 3rd level deductions could be where things get dicey. While we may agree that there ought to be restrictions against people and against the government, I think this is where many of us diverge. What are reasonable restrictions on people's rights or government power? And what are 'evil' things?

I like the way you've described the differences between group 1 and group 2. My motivation between the two paragraphs was maybe apparent, but it was to model the first after Constitutional language and the second after the 10 Commandments language. And what I would argue is that maintaining group 2 values may be critical and important for a Christian, but they are not necessary deductions from the group 1 values or from your first level principles. As an example, I can defend the group 1 values regardless of whether I keep holy the Sabbath. Based on the final sentence of your post, I think we probably agree.

Quote:

---

The rights of the individual, even if you disagree with the beliefs of the individual or the tribe he/she belongs to, have to be paramount, because the individual has inherent worth with self-evident inalienable rights.

---

KingofHazor said:

---

This thread reminds me of something a friend once told me. My friend was a Christian and professor of philosophy at a major university. He said that a non-Christian colleague had complained to him that Christians were taking over most philosophy departments. The reason was that non-Christians were abandoning philosophy as they eventually realized that they had no concrete basis on which to form any coherent philosophy.

---

The Greeks famously had no philosophy prior to ~33 AD

Socrates? Plato? Aristotle? Wake up man, the liberal LGBTQ Athenian media is trying to corrupt you

canadiaggie said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

This thread reminds me of something a friend once told me. My friend was a Christian and professor of philosophy at a major university. He said that a non-Christian colleague had complained to him that Christians were taking over most philosophy departments. The reason was that non-Christians were abandoning philosophy as they eventually realized that they had no concrete basis on which to form any coherent philosophy.

---

The Greeks famously had no philosophy prior to ~33 AD

Plotinus? Plato? Aristotle? Wake up man, the liberal LGBTQ Athenian media is trying to corrupt you

---

I wondered if any actual surveys on this question had been done. And apparently the answer is yes. According to a 2020 poll, about 67% of philosophers leaned towards atheism as opposed to theism.

PhilPapers Survey 2020

Probably not the greatest sample size, but does give a good reference point.

Nice Post Kurt.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And what I would argue is that maintaining group 2 values may be critical and important for a Christian, but they are not necessary deductions from the group 1 values or from your first level principles. As an example, I can defend the group 1 values regardless of whether I keep holy the Sabbath. Based on the final sentence of your post, I think we probably agree.

---

---

I do agree with you here. But, while you can hold the first principles to be important without getting to the 2nd level, if your second level principles are based on Dogma and not on 1st level foundations, you are looking for trouble as a society.

The Sabbath is an excellent example here. Jesus said " The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." That is super important.

If the reason why you keep the Sabbath is so that you can impress your religious friends, you are missing the point. God's message around the Sabbath is clear -> Rest (and think about higher level things together as a family) or Die. While that is less true person to person, if you are running a society that is utilitarian and values work over all things, neglects rest and contemplation of higher-level meaning of life stuff, society will eventually go off course.

Every time a Christian society has gone off the deep end and started being really evil, it is because they were focused on 2nd level behavior restrictions while ignoring the core principles that made those restrictions important. If the Sabbath is important because God said so, and not important because of all of the ways that practicing family rest together and contemplating bigger meaning, you are in danger of going wildly astray.

BusterAg said:

---

Nice Post Kurt.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And what I would argue is that maintaining group 2 values may be critical and important for a Christian, but they are not necessary deductions from the group 1 values or from your first level principles. As an example, I can defend the group 1 values regardless of whether I keep holy the Sabbath. Based on the final sentence of your post, I think we probably agree.

---

---

I do agree with you here. But, while you can hold the first principles to be important without getting to the 2nd level, if your second level principles are based on Dogma and not on 1st level foundations, you are looking for trouble as a society.

The Sabbath is an excellent example here. Jesus said " The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." That is super important.

If the reason why you keep the Sabbath is so that you can impress your religious friends, you are missing the point. God's message around the Sabbath is clear -> Rest (and think about higher level things together as a family) or Die. While that is less true person to person, if you are running a society that is utilitarian and values work over all things, neglects rest and contemplation of higher-level meaning of life stuff, society will eventually go off course.

Every time a Christian society has gone off the deep end and started being really evil, it is because they were focused on 2nd level behavior restrictions while ignoring the core principles that made those restrictions important. If the Sabbath is important because God said so, and not important because of all of the ways that practicing family rest together and contemplating bigger meaning, you are in danger of going wildly astray.

---

That's really insightful. Thanks for sharing this.

I'm of the opinion that this all comes down to a couple of simple but radically fundamental principles:

1. Without an objective, transcendent reference point all human society will eventually devolve into power politics over all other principles; and

2. The only way to know if the reference point being claimed as objectively transcendent is by divine revelation.

I understand that #2 is a loaded statement and begs some big questions but I don't see any way around it as even the most immaculate reasoning will eventually run into a subjective asymptote.

I welcome critique of these two things because I feel like I am right instinctively but I also recognize that I have only scratched the philosophical surface.

1. Why do the foundational principles need to be transcendent?

2. How do you know if a divine revelation is genuine?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

1. Why do the foundational principles need to be transcendent?

Because otherwise it always just devolves to the golden gun rule: whoever has the gold and the guns makes the rules, with no reference to anything else.

2. How do you know if a divine revelation is genuine?

That's a reasonable question that I hope to go get some good discussion about.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

1. Why do the foundational principles need to be transcendent?

2. How do you know if a divine revelation is genuine?

---

Foundational principles need to be transcendent because the being that created them himself is transcendent. All morality really is, is living in alignment with the design of the creator. St Thomas said it the best, and I paraphrase that picture man with an arrow drawn from his heart, towards heaven, as his intended end. What is "good" is what moves him further along the line, what is neutral is what doesn't take him further away from his end, and what is bad is what moves him away from his end. As fallen people we cannot hope to be "perfect" like the transcendant author of morality, however we can intuit what moves us further along the line through usage of reason and conscience.

This also gives me a phenomenal opportunity to plug in the best Deus Ex Machina of all; Jesus Christ, the only figure in all of history who so nearly bridges the gap between transcendent incomprehensibility and mortality.

How could mankind even hope to understand the unknowable unless the unknowable came to man in a form that was somehow both Creator and Creation at the same time? In no other religion, has the literal singular God of the universe came to earth and taken on the form of his creation so that they might come to know him and his plan for them.

This video created for a different purpose sheds some light on the topics at hand:

I was coming here to post this video. You beat me to it! Great video on the need for objective truth. Relying only on subjective truth only results in more violence. The foundation of that objective truth is we are all have "inalienable rights endowed by our Creator". Take the "Creator" out of it and it all falls apart.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

This video created for a different purpose sheds some light on the topics at hand:

---

This feels a bit like a pragmatic argument for the usefulness of cultural homogeneity in reducing violence. Seems obvious - if we all think the same, we'll fight less. But, none of this says anything about the truth of Christianity, only its potential utility. I agree with inalienable rights and I agree that they are a must as a foundational element for a free and stable society. A secular version of these rights is front and center within our country's founding documents.

The issue that I see is not disagreement on inalienable rights, it is still the subjective ways in which we apply the objective rules. Lets say that you and I agree that all people are to be equal, treated with human dignity, and free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. And now lets say that I believe that people with same sex attraction should be treated legally equal, with human dignity, and free to pursue their happiness. And now lets say you believe these people should be only permitted to pursue equality, dignity, and happiness within the definitions of your God. How do we resolve? Mob rule, violence, or we don't talk to each other?

If you inalienable rights only gives me the right to live according to your rules, then 'right's is a bit of a misnomer.

We don't avoid violence by simply building our foundations on inalienable rights. We avoid violence by putting our money where our mouth is and swallowing our arrogance and actually allowing people to use their inalienable rights to express themselves in a way we disagree with. This means we allow people to say what they believe and we don't punish them for those views. It means we allow people to practice the religion they want and don't force a religion onto people. It means we allow people to engage in marriages or relationships even if we don't think its moral.

The culture war in this country is not a problem of subjective values over objective values. The problem is arrogance. Both sides "KNOW" they are right and so we don't treat each other as they want to be treated. We treat others as how we know they ought to want to be treated.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Quote:

---

1. Why do the foundational principles need to be transcendent?

2. How do you know if a divine revelation is genuine?

---

Foundational principles need to be transcendent because the being that created them himself is transcendent. All morality really is, is living in alignment with the design of the creator. St Thomas said it the best, and I paraphrase that picture man with an arrow drawn from his heart, towards heaven, as his intended end. What is "good" is what moves him further along the line, what is neutral is what doesn't take him further away from his end, and what is bad is what moves him away from his end. As fallen people we cannot hope to be "perfect" like the transcendant author of morality, however we can intuit what moves us further along the line through usage of reason and conscience.

This also gives me a phenomenal opportunity to plug in the best Deus Ex Machina of all; Jesus Christ, the only figure in all of history who so nearly bridges the gap between transcendent incomprehensibility and mortality.

How could mankind even hope to understand the unknowable unless the unknowable came to man in a form that was somehow both Creator and Creation at the same time? In no other religion, has the literal singular God of the universe came to earth and taken on the form of his creation so that they might come to know him and his plan for them.

---

As a statement of your own personal beliefs, I don't have any issues with your post. As a basis for foundational principles for a government (which is what this line of the thread is about), it doesn't answer the question above. All it does is just assert that all peoples should be subject to the laws and rules of the unverifiable God that you happen to believe in.

---

Ah, I misunderstood the question, so I'll reframe.

I'm not certain I agree that all people "should be" subject to the laws and rules of an unverifiable God; I certainly believe they *are* subject to the laws and rules of an unverifiable God, but I don't think it appropriate nor beneficial to conversion to force them to worship the Christian God.

My issue is more with the fact that our Western Civilization has been set up in a melding of Greco-Roman law and philosophy married to the Church. That is our foundation; it definitely hasn't been perfect; but its ours. It feels like those that want to change that say "You claim an objective morality; which even if objective cannot be fully understood due to its supernatural genesis, therefore it's merely preference. We claim a subjective morality; nothing is good, and nothing is bad....here's why ours is better and yours needs to die".

kurt vonnegut said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

So when a government official decides that since the government gave you those "inalienable" rights they are actually quite alienable and he takes them away because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed, what do you do?

---

The same thing you do. Argue against the action.

From your perspective, if a God-given right is taken away by the government, its still on you (or the collective 'you') to push back. God doesn't come on down to either smite or to reason with the government official who woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

Yes, I think we need to understand that our argument is less about practicality and more about morality. If you have the right to bear arms, but the government takes your guns away, you have are morally justified in asserting your right. Unfortunately, you still don't have a gun until you successfully do.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

So when a government official decides that since the government gave you those "inalienable" rights they are actually quite alienable and he takes them away because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed, what do you do?

---

The same thing you do. Argue against the action.

From your perspective, if a God-given right is taken away by the government, its still on you (or the collective 'you') to push back. God doesn't come on down to either smite or to reason with the government official who woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

Yes, I think we need to understand that our argument is less about practicality and more about morality. If you have the right to bear arms, but the government takes your guns away, you have are morally justified in asserting your right. Unfortunately, you still don't have a gun until you successfully do.

---

They may take away your right to argue too.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Definition of inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor

How can you say you agree with inalienable rights while simultaneously saying the rights are granted by the government, which means that they are in fact alienable? This is why people are finding it difficult to get their point across to you. You want the benefits of transcendent truth, while also denying transcendent truth, and you don't see why that is contradictory.

---

In practice all rights are given by the government or authority of the society you live in. Even if you think certain rights are inherent / endowed by the Creator, God doesn't write and enforce our laws. So even so-called inalienable rights from God can be given / taken away by government in practice. Outside a right to your own free will or moral agency, what is an inalienable right that a government could not take away? Governments all over routinely strip people of their rights to life and dignity and religion and whatever.

If my use of inalienable is in dispute, then I apologize. I would say that, for me, it is my opinion that there are certain human rights stemming from rational secular ideas about human worth and dignity that I feel should be protected by government and held 'sacred' by a society. These ideas will no doubt overlap with many Christian ideas. But, I'm not appealing to the transcendent for justification of these 'inalienable' rights.

---

Inalienable right from God -> Something I possess and can never be taken -> any action taken by government action against my rights is infringing upon the right that I still possess -> any protest that I have against the government is based on stopping the infringement of what I possess, not giving me something I do not possess. I am a person with basic rights no matter what they say.

Rights from government -> Something that I possess as long as the government grants it -> my rights are alienable -> any action taken by government against my rights is taking something away from me -> when I protest the government's actions, I'm asking them to give me something that is not intrinsic to who I am as a person. They can even make me not a person if they so choose. Not just say I'm not a person. I mean literally de-person me. I have no intrinsic personhood.

In the first view, the government can't strip you of any inalienable rights. You still have them. They are doing an immoral act when they prevent you from exercising these rights, but you still have them. This is important when we think of things like chattel slavery. The US government didn't have the ability to grant black people status as humans. The government did not grant them the right to liberty. All the government did was recognize an objective wrong and correct it. If we de-person black people and put them back in slavery, we aren't "stripping" them of their personhood or rights. We're infringing upon them in a horrendous way, but they are still persons with the right to liberty because the Grantor of inalienable rights said so.

In the second view, black people were simply not equal humans in the south. They really and truly were less than white people, in the most literal sense, and all because the governments said so. When they were freed, no wrong was righted. We simply decided that black people were less than whites, and then decided we will let them be like white people. They had no inherent value that was being trampled upon. If we de-person black people and put them back in slavery, we're just stripping a right away that they had no objective claim to.

The difference between these two ideas are what make Western values Western values. You can't choose option 2 and keep the system we have today. That's the whole point of the founders using inalienable rights as reason for rebellion. It may seem like a difference without a distinction, but it is distinct and it is engrained in the fabric of our society. These IRs are something inherent to us as people. It's an unproveable (by materialist standards) value statement on what is "right" and what is "wrong". You understand the need for this right and wrong when you say things like:

Quote:

---

human rights stemming from rational secular ideas about human worth and dignity that I feel should be protected by government and held 'sacred' by a society.

---

"Worth". "Dignity". These are not materially provable things. They are immaterial value claims. If you're appealing to something immaterial, you are appealing the transcendent.

Quote:

---

transcendent: existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe

---

Or maybe you think "worth" and "dignity" are something provable? Based on they way you used 'sacred' there, I think you'd agree that they aren't, but maybe you'd disagree? I know I'm a broken record, but it seems to me that you are using the transcendent principles that Western society is founded upon while claiming the transcendent doesn't exist. I'm glad you're holding on to these transcendent principles anyway, as it definitely helps us as a mixed-religious society, but on the macro scale, it's a very worrisome proposition.

You said:

Quote:

---

I agree that they are a must as a foundational element for a free and stable society. A secular version of these rights is front and center within our country's founding documents.

---

The founders didn't give us "secular" inalienable rights, because there is no such thing. They clearly say in the Declaration that these rights come from the Creator. Without that, Western society crumbles. I'm not saying it can't make it another century or two, but it will ultimately fail. You may hold onto the idea of inalienable rights without God, but history and modernity in the East shows us what governments do when God is removed as the source of these rights. We can look at the psychosis of the podcaster Destiny and watch people cheer on murder to see how it's affecting what we do here. Once an objective Giver of personhood and rights is removed, it's only a matter of time. I'm not saying the West has been perfect on every issue, but our trajectory since Christ walked the Earth has been incredible. Compare this to the trajectory of the Middle East or Asiatic East, we are the shining beacon on the hill. The philosophical value of the individual is abysmal in those countries, and any western-ish views they have are only held legally as a condition of being a trade partner with the West.

ETA: I do agree that there are certain alienable rights (right to drive a car, right to walk about freely in society should I commit a crime, etc). But the inalienable rights the act as the foundation of Western society are distinct and of greater importance than the alienable ones.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Yes, I think we need to understand that our argument is less about practicality and more about morality. If you have the right to bear arms, but the government takes your guns away, you have are morally justified in asserting your right. Unfortunately, you still don't have a gun until you successfully do.

---

I don't know that I fully follow your point here.

Governments pass laws all the time that some people find morally objectionable. I have my own views on what is morally justified as retaliation against an immoral law, but its not my place to tell you what your views ought to be.

For me personally, I think it would take an awful lot for me to resort to violence. But protests, civil disobedience, and other forms of objections exist.

FIDO95 said:

---

I was coming here to post this video. You beat me to it! Great video on the need for objective truth. Relying only on subjective truth only results in more violence. The foundation of that objective truth is we are all have "inalienable rights endowed by our Creator". Take the "Creator" out of it and it all falls apart.

---

I have to disagree here. If they are inalienable, that is what matters. You can build something on that.

BusterAg said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

I was coming here to post this video. You beat me to it! Great video on the need for objective truth. Relying only on subjective truth only results in more violence. The foundation of that objective truth is we are all have "inalienable rights endowed by our Creator". Take the "Creator" out of it and it all falls apart.

---

I have to disagree here. If they are inalienable, that is what matters. You can build something on that.

---

Perhaps I'm not understanding your disagreement? Are you suggesting you can have "inalienable" without a creator? Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Yes, you can build on "inalienable" but there has to be a foundation of natural law, first principles (whatever you want to call it) on which that idea is supported. Why do inalienable rights exist? Why "your answer here"? Why "your next answer"? Why? The end point of the exercise is, "I am who I am". If there is no God and no afterlife, then none of anybody's behavior matters.

Zobel said:

---

I actually think the people here arguing passionately for natural rights in a modernist / enlightenment framework are missing the mark.

I would split the difference between the two camps: you're both wrong.

The humanists are wrong because their statements about human equality etc are wanting. They are underdefined, appeal to a God who gives rights without really any explanation of how, or what utility such rights give. They lead to an ever expanding list of rights, because God. Or, without God, no rights at all. In reality our rights come from consensus and nowhere else. The declaration of independence may appeal to God for these, but the framers of the constitution, particularly Hamilton, were quite clear that the only guarantee of rights is the people, their collective spirit and character.


The people arguing for natural rights from a Christian framework are wrong because they're accepting a modernist worldview which is at best ambivalent to Christianity uncritically. Humans don't have natural rights because God created them. Every culture in the history of the world has a creation story involving supernatural beings, and merely being created by a god does not elevate the human or give any kind of universal rights. Humans are not equal, are not created equally. No pagan culture ever concluded that, so there must be something more. And there is. The idea of human dignity and equal worth is downstream of some claims about the nature of reality:

1. There is a Most High God who created the universe
2. He created humans in His own image and likeness, and placed them over creation
3. God became incarnate and joined the human nature to the divine nature in His person.

All three of these claims are pivotal, but the revelation of Jesus Christ is where the radical understanding of human value comes from, and nowhere else. Any discussion about "natural" rights without understanding that "nature" must refer to our human nature, and that any dignity conferred upon human nature is because of the Incarnation, is just missing the mark.

---

Are you trying to argue that there was no human dignity before the incarnation of Christ? Our human dignity comes from our soul in that we were made in Gods image.

27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. -Gen 1:27

The Incarnation allows for salvation and Jesus established a new covenant allowing for salvation beyond Gods chosen people. However, before Christ, there existed natural truths that have been seen across cultures and religions. These natural laws (first principles or other term you want to use) provide societies with stability when established and I believe it is because those are rules that God created us to live by. Those rules recognize human dignity. We can certainly see a significant refocus/rediscovery of these truths coinciding with Christ arrival. This makes sense because He is the truth. Nonetheless, the truths existed since creation. We just kept loosing the way due to our own folly.

No. You can tell I wasn't trying to argue that because I didn't argue it.

I was talking about the concept of "natural rights".

I said the concepts of human dignity and equal worth are downstream of some fundamental claims about reality, one of which is that humans are created in the image of God.

Aristotle is the father of first principles. He never recognized anything like natural rights. Ancient cultures barely recognized humans from other tribes or nations as human. You have to be careful with the word nature as well - having the right by nature to something doesn't always mean the nature common to all mankind in classical thinking. Some humans in ancient thought had the nature of slaves; their natural "right" would be to be a slave. "Freedom" is the right to fulfill your nature - a person with the nature of the slave is truly free when they are being a slave, or so the argument would go.

Modern concepts don't map 1:1 to ancient ones.

Just for fun, here's some stuff from Aristotle's Politics.

Quote:

---

He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue...and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved. For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest...But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say, "It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians" as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one.

...When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.

...Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity

...A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.

...Let us first speak of master and slave, looking to the needs of practical life and also seeking to attain some better theory of their relation than exists at present. For some are of opinion that the rule of a master is a science, and that the management of a household, and the mastership of slaves, and the political and royal rule, as I was saying at the outset, are all the same. Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust.

...We see what is the nature and office of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another's man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to be another's man who, being a human being, is also a possession.
...
But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

...Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.

...Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens - that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right.

---

Aristotle's argument is not even necessarily at odds with liberty as a natural right. A things nature includes its telos or end. Liberty for him is the ability to achieve the proper end, and the final end of a thing is the best. So Aristotle would say, the best possible liberty for a slave is to be a slave, and that is appropriate and dignified...because the end he has in mind is an earthly one, the best possible life, the Good life.

It takes a more modern understanding of liberty as freedom to act however you like (as opposed to perhaps what will accomplish your end based on your nature) to object.

So what are you talking about when you say "nature"? Because "liberty" and "nature" are things we need to define if we're going to go around saying "man by nature has a right to liberty". Aristotle would say that slave has liberty to be a slave, because of his nature, and everyone would be confused.

Here again is why Christianity is necessary. What nature are we speaking of? The nascent form of the end, what a thing will become. But is any human's end to be a slave, or an earthly ruler, and then to die and be buried in the ground and fade to nothing? Our faith says no - our faith says our end, our telos, is union with the divine. Why? Back to those three points - there is a God who created the universe, He created us in His image, He joined our nature to His. So when we talk about our human nature we are not talking about the nature unique to each of us, in particular - which can be described as the nature of a ruler or a slave or whatever by Aristotle - but the common nature of all Mankind. Each of us in that nature are joined to Christ, and have the same end, the only end proper to us.

Whether you have the Aristotlean nature of a ruler or a slave, whether you in fact are slave or free, Scythian or Greek, male or female - because of your human nature which you share with Christ, because of the Incarnation, Christ is all and is in all, and your nature confers dignity upon you and your life.

And what is liberty then? To be able to achieve that end, to have the freedom to live faithfully, to live in Christ. What does St Paul say? "To live is Christ" and "Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day" and "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith" and "whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus" and "give thanks in all circumstances." And so on.

My conclusion here is that the promises of modernism about freedom of action because God made us teach us nothing, and tell us nothing, benefit for us nothing, without something more. Freedom to destroy yourself is no freedom at all.

Instead the freedom offered to us in the scriptures comes claims about the nature of reality and mankind, and orienting our lives to our proper end (which is the best) and that comes with radical freedom because there is no heavenly or earthly power or human or any circumstance or situation which can separate us from the love and grace of God to propel us toward that end. In Christ, we are truly free.

FIDO95 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

I was coming here to post this video. You beat me to it! Great video on the need for objective truth. Relying only on subjective truth only results in more violence. The foundation of that objective truth is we are all have "inalienable rights endowed by our Creator". Take the "Creator" out of it and it all falls apart.

---

I have to disagree here. If they are inalienable, that is what matters. You can build something on that.

---

Perhaps I'm not understanding your disagreement? Are you suggesting you can have "inalienable" without a creator? Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Yes, you can build on "inalienable" but there has to be a foundation of natural law, first principles (whatever you want to call it) on which that idea is supported. Why do inalienable rights exist? Why "your answer here"? Why "your next answer"? Why? The end point of the exercise is, "I am who I am". If there is no God and no afterlife, then none of anybody's behavior matters.

---

Because it doesn't matter WHY we believe that men have certain inalienable rights, only that we believe that they do, and such a belief is self-evident.

The question about why is just a turtles-all-the-way-down circle jerk.

You and I can disagree on why the rights are inalienable. If we agree that they are, then that proclamation is a suitable and solid foundation for a helpful system of government.

It is way more important than we agree that they exist than to agree on to why they exist.

The question for why inalienable rights exist is a question for philosophers about metaphysical questions with no provable answer.

The fact that we agree that they exist, regardless of why, is a much better basis of government than watery tarts throwing around swords.

I think that 250 years of world dominance predicated on the fact that they exist is also pretty good evidence that they do exist, regardless of why.

That is why the Declaration of Independence is so profound. TJ proclaims that the founders believe in God, but their argument that inalienable rights are self-evident doesn't rely on the existence of God in order for the argument to be correct.

Another argument that they exist is because only tyrants and ********s would argue that they don't, and we don't really care about what those people think.

BusterAg said:

---

Another argument that they exist is because only tyrants and ********s would argue that they don't, and we don't really care about what those people think.

---

This is exactly the point of the OP. "those people" are increasing finding their way into seats of power so we best care about what they think before we find ourselves ruled by "tyrants and ********s". Moreover, we need to be able to articulate a convincing response to keep those people and ideas in check.

As an example, we have understood the difference between men and women for thousands of years. It was such an incorporated fact of society that many had no ability to ague for it's defense. Then came the tyrants who demanded we deny what was self evidently true. People's who had no response or only response consisted of "because that is the way it's always been" were likely the first to repeat the lie the sex was a "social construct". People who understood Gen 1;27 were less likely to do so based on the understanding that the sexual differences were endowed by God. That needle doesn't move.

It is clear that societies that accept inalienable rights are more successful. We agree on that. But if we fail to articulate and/or understand that those rights are tethered to the existence of God and not to the whims of those in power, those rights will eventually be eroded. Just ask the British.

I disagree. If you don't know why you're just begging for consensus without any reasoning. People didn't just wake up one day to say hey guys wouldn't it be great if we all pretended we were equal in some way? It doesn't work like that. The lack of an underlying claim is why people are diverging in their views.

Things are only self-evident when you have some degree of commonality.

The fact that no society found these rights in prior times, and actually argued against them, means they aren't self evident.

Why should man have a right to life? Liberty? Property?

If you can't answer that beyond "because it's obvious!" that's just like, your opinion, man.

?w=525

Self evidently top 5 movie of all time. If you disagree, your out of your league!

What is funny about this particular question, "Do all people have innate value and inalienable rights", is that the argument is almost always about how to prove that they do, and almost never about the correct answer to the question.

I think that the inability to see how other people can arrive at a critical idea or belief under different intellectual foundations to be a lack of imagination and myopic thinking.

I think it is also pretty irrelevant.

What do you call being unable to offer any reason -at all- to support your belief?