Basic human rights

Quote :

Prove it. This would seem to be inherent to your philosophy, and for it to be a valid philosophy you absolutely need to prove where the good comes from, which you have not as of yet.

Well now your are just taking things out of context. I said that the ACTIONS than men undertake, do, whatever, TO SURVIVE, is the good. As long as the men do not violate the right of others to live.

Quote :

Well now your are just taking things out of context. I said that the ACTIONS than men undertake, do, whatever, TO SURVIVE, is the good. As long as the men do not violate the right of others to live.

Okay, prove to me that this is good.

My apologies for the lapse in the discussion, I have been traveling the last week.

I think the discussion, or my argument, ultimately rests on how we, or I, define good. There is no objective good and there is no objective evil. How the culture defines good or evil is based on the dominant or traditional societies norms. The norms are usually enforced passively by that societies collective acceptance of ideas and or behavior that does not violate the collective norms. Or the society responds with ostracism of those individuals who “push” or violate these invisible barriers.

Good and evil is subjective, and are generally the aggregated ideas of generations that came before ours.

I propose that the good should be defined as any action that resists death. Death, on an individual personal scale, and death on the collective national scale. We have two choices, that we have available to us, inherent in our physiology. Life or death. Live or die. Even then, it's all subjective. We will die, because it is our nature, so we can choose to live only for a short time. But, at the other end, it was not our decision to exist or not. So the limited time offer choice is life or die, die later or die now. I hold it that the good are the actions of the human beings who choose to live, even if ultimately the choice to live is irrelevant. Because ultimately we are irrelevant.

Now because life is natural, then, I can make a claim that the actions that support life are also natural. And if I define good as those actions that support life, then good it self becomes natural, a natural law. Since death itself is natural too, but opposite of life, than evil is, those actions that oppose life. Then evil, too, is a natural law. And here is your choice.

The problem then, simply arises out of the fact, that there are simply thousands of subjective interpretation of the natural law. The problem then, is even made more complex by those individuals, who, while defending their own natural law to life, but violate and take the life of others.

So, I then further make the claim, that men made law, that supports natural right (law) to life, then those laws are themselves natural, these laws are discoveries of the human nature. As all humans who live are alive, then the basic natural law (right), the law to live, and to take those actions that support ones live, are all natural. Being the requirement of life. The requirement of our physiology, our physiology is the result of nature, therefore, the actions that humans need to take in order to keep themselves alive are natural.

The rights that guarantee unimpeded actions to support ones life are then natural rights.

Quote :

I think the discussion, or my argument, ultimately rests on how we, or I, define good. There is no objective good and there is no objective evil. How the culture defines good or evil is based on the dominant or traditional societies norms. The norms are usually enforced passively by that societies collective acceptance of ideas and or behavior that does not violate the collective norms. Or the society responds with ostracism of those individuals who “push” or violate these invisible barriers.

Good and evil is subjective, and are generally the aggregated ideas of generations that came before ours.

So in other words, we agree, so long as you recognize that there is some measure of subjectivity in your "natural laws".

There is no such thing as natural law.
A species exists to reproduce and exists because it has found a niche in the ecosystem that it can exploit better than other species. Better exploitation equals better reproduction.
We humans have evolved the capacity to exploit every niche of every ecosystem.
We have invented Laws to maintain the coherence of the family, clan, tribe, nation or empire to ensure the exploitation rights of the fittest in that subset of humanity.
So in a new city state one must create a set of laws for exploiting the available resources from the start.
The resources are social, environmental and financial as per triple bottom line accounting theory. There are four questions that need to be asked concerning resource exploitation.
1. How do we allow exploitation that does not replicate all the mistakes of all previous human societies?
2. How do regulate competition for exploitation rights?
3. How do we ensure sustainable exploitation?
4. How do we ensure that the whole of our society benefits from such exploitation.
Every law is based on the detailed description of these four basics.
Basic Human Rights are then granted because we can as a society ensure that each person has
Air Water Food Shelter Security and the ability to compete for resource exploitation.
ciao