Catholic attitude towards embryo research

BonnieDundee · 08-04-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

The Nazis were elected, were they not? The general population followed a hideous philosophy, does that excuse the concentration camps?

Not to gov't, they got into power by backroom intrigues with conservative elites.

Smidgey · 08-04-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

But none of this is a prior correct or some "natural" right. There is no such things as "natural" rights and many outlooks on property.

It is derived from a natural right and I completely disagree with your assertion that there are no natural rights (or natural right).

Furthermore, I don't see what saying there are many outlooks on property has to do with anything. There are many outlooks on any political issue - take yourself for example. There are many people who disagree with regionalisation and decentralisation, does this make that political philosophy false? Of course not.

BonnieDundee · 08-04-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

It is derived from a natural right and I completely disagree with your assertion that there are no natural rights (or natural right).

There is no proof for these rights, they are nothing more than an assertion and of a very dubious character. Where do these rights come from? What do they look like? Why do they seem to be habitually broken? How are they applied?

This is far from the first time I've had this discussion and I've never had a decent answer. In the end rights are little more than social contructs.

Quote:

Furthermore, I don't see what saying there are many outlooks on property has to do with anything. There are many outlooks on any political issue - take yourself for example. There are many people who disagree with regionalisation and decentralisation, does this make that political philosophy false? Of course not.

Decentralism is a fluid and pragmiatic idea. It does not presmue to derive an exact formula for the state from a few dubious axioms as much natural rights property theory does.

Smidgey · 08-04-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

There is no proof for these rights, they are nothing more than an assertion and of a very dubious character. Where do these rights come from? What do they look like? Why do they seem to be habitually broken? How are they applied?

This is far from the first time I've had this discussion and I've never had a decent answer. In the end rights are little more than social contructs.

I own myself. I see absolutely no reason to doubt this.

Quote:

Decentralism is a fluid and pragmiatic idea. It does not presmue to derive an exact formula for the state from a few dubious axioms as much natural rights property theory does.

Just as well I don't base my political philosophy on that then.

BonnieDundee · 08-04-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

I own myself. I see absolutely no reason to doubt this.

But from this little solid basis for any "natural" rights can be drawn.

Smidgey · 08-04-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

But from this little solid basis for any "natural" rights can be drawn.

I might disagree, however, I think we are having a misunderstanding over language here.

I consider self-ownership to be a natural right, to be the foundation upon all other so-called 'rights'.

However, whether or not natural rights really do exist (although if I own myself, at least one most certainly does) is irrelevant for two reasons:

1) A society should found its laws around negative rights anyway, since they are the most moral.
2) The utilitarian arguments in favour of libertarianism make any moral basis for libertarianism unnecessary, although that is not to say that moral arguments cannot be useful.

BonnieDundee · 08-04-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

I might disagree, however, I think we are having a misunderstanding over language here.

I consider self-ownership to be a natural right, to be the foundation upon all other so-called 'rights'.

How? Any kind of rights involve two people or more and they tend to involve inanimate material(or animals) which is not covered by self-ownership. I see no "natural" approach to this material coming from the idea of self-ownership.

Quote:

However, whether or not natural rights really do exist is irrelevant for two reasons:

1) A society should found its laws around negative rights anyway, since they are the most moral.

How? I can see that the case for absentee ownership of resources being immoral is at least as strong as it being moral.

Quote:

2) The utilitarian arguments in favour of libertarianism make any moral basis for libertarianism unnecessary, although that is not to say that moral arguments cannot be useful.

Well I take it you mean American style libertarian and not say anarcho-communism(which was the first ideology to use the term libertarian.). I don't see why the lockean idea of ownership must necessarily create this. I think by allowing more absentee ownership and therefore decreasing the average individuals access to land and natural resources as well decreasing access to credit and their wages therefore lowering their autonomy and freedom. Geolibertarian or mutualist or distribution seem much more acceptable to me.

Smidgey · 08-04-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

How? Any kind of rights involve two people or more and they tend to involve inanimate material(or animals) which is not covered by self-ownership. I see no "natural" approach to this material coming from the idea of self-ownership.

By 'see no' do you mean that you have never seen an argument put forward for this, or that you find them all inconclusive?

Quote:

How? I can see that the case for absentee ownership of resources being immoral is at least as strong as it being moral.

This mostly depends upon how justly one came to own the land in the first place.

Quote:

Well I take it you mean American style libertarian and not say anarcho-communism(which was the first ideology to use the term libertarian.). I don't see why the lockean idea of ownership must necessarily create this.

I mean what is the current commonly accepted definition of libertarianism. A right wing ideology that wishes to maximise both economic and social liberty.

Secondly, I never made the argument that the Lockean idea of ownership necessitates this ideology, which is why I made it clear that I was talking about Nozick's reformation of the Lockean proviso. However, concerning whether I own myself or not, whether or not Locke said this is irrelevant. I don't see an axiom such as this up for debate. Furthermore, the majority of modern interpretations of Locke would place him as a precursor to (or a member of) the modern libertarian/classical liberal movement (obviously after we, like with Aristotle, ignore the small sections on slavery and such). So I don't really understand what you are implying by the latter part of this statement.

Quote:

I think by allowing more absentee ownership and therefore decreasing the average individuals access to land and natural resources as well decreasing access to credit and their wages therefore lowering their autonomy and freedom. Geolibertarian or mutualist or distribution seem much more acceptable to me.

I don't agree that this would be the case. However, the Geolibertarian stance does the exact opposite, it restricts freedom in the opposite direction.

tito · 08-04-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Not to gov't, they got into power by backroom intrigues with conservative elites.

They were elected the largest Reichstag party democratically. That Hitler didn't become chancellor immediately was the choice of Hindenberg and the elites; that didn't last long though after the Reichstag fire.

I don't believe rights are natural either. They (negative rights) are merely the only civilised and rational way we can treat one another, and are the basis of justice.

Hume believed rights were natural because he himself had the intellect of an animal!

BonnieDundee · 10-04-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

They were elected the largest Reichstag party democratically. That Hitler didn't become chancellor immediately was the choice of Hindenberg and the elites; that didn't last long though after the Reichstag fire.

Hitler was already Chancellor when the fire happened.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode