Skeptical Due Diligence: Rights Not Endowed By a Creator

[Hlafordlaes]

From the US Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.

My question to you is this: in the absence of a belief in any supreme being, what for you, or for us as skeptics, is the proper formulation for the statements italicized above? How do we argue these truths today?

Although I have placed the thread in US Politics, and discussion is likely to be closely tied at times to the DoI, my question is for everyone, as these same ideals or statements are formulated similarly or implied in most democracies. Or not? Perhaps that is another question worth exploring.

I of course have my own opinion, which I will state in my replies to others. But my purpose is for many to state their own formulations as well, which I would enjoy hearing.

 

[Aepervius]

There is no right with a form of entity to enforce it. A human entity. De facto there is no inalienable liberty, as the local government can and do in some time decide to remove those rights from somebody and cry of inalienable rights wont take you far. Without a government one has no right whatsoever except what he can enforce himself by strength.

That out of the way I would replace it "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are entitled certain fundamental Rights"

 

[Beelzebuddy]

There is no right with a form of entity to enforce it. A human entity. De facto there is no inalienable liberty, as the local government can and do in some time decide to remove those rights from somebody and cry of inalienable rights wont take you far. Without a government one has no right whatsoever except what he can enforce himself by strength.

That out of the way I would replace it "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are entitled certain fundamental Rights"

The idea is to rhetorically invert the government's agency. The people always have their rights, except where the government doesn't respect them. You've even got that in your post: the government is removing to right to live from the people they kill, not granting it to the people they don't kill. I imagine kings and warlords and such heavily favor the latter formulation.

 

[Crossbow]

From the US Declaration of Independence:


My question to you is this: in the absence of a belief in any supreme being, what for you, or for us as skeptics, is the proper formulation for the statements italicized above? How do we argue these truths today?

Although I have placed the thread in US Politics, and discussion is likely to be closely tied at times to the DoI, my question is for everyone, as these same ideals or statements are formulated similarly or implied in most democracies. Or not? Perhaps that is another question worth exploring.

I of course have my own opinion, which I will state in my replies to others. But my purpose is for many to state their own formulations as well, which I would enjoy hearing.

I have long thought that Thomas Jefferson really hated to invoke supernatural beings into the Declaration of Independence, and that is why he made a rather oblique reference to such a thing. After all, one could essentially remove the supernatural reference and the text would still hold up quite well.

Please keep in mind how Jefferson did surgery on the Bible in order for it to make at least some degree of sense.

 

[Magrat]

Ninja'd by crossbow.

I'd say, endowed by right of sentience. Maybe. Idk.

 

[BStrong]

Interesting question, as I've run into a couple of folks in RW that claim an atheist shouldn't benefit from civil rights as stated in the BoR.

Seriously.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'm not chiming in yet because I am trying to avoid this being all about only my take. Only posting to show I haven't abandoned the thread. If work allows, I am planning to put up my own little wall of text tomorrow (it being almost bedtime locally).

Reason for this thread: derivation of foundational postulates for consistent use in other threads.

ETA: Can't resist a teaser: It's not as easy as implied in some posts. Self evident? Shaky. (I may play devil's advocate to start; perhaps a better way to tease out some stuff.)

 

[psionl0]

2 points:

The DoL is not part of the constitution and has no legal force.

The legal system abounds with "legal fictions" (eg corporations) so an atheist legal scholar should have no difficulty in regarding God the same way.

 

[mgidm86]

the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

The mentions of god are pretty vague (which god?), especially the first. Since it isn't in the constitution I really don't care too much about it. Leave it alone - my opinion.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

2 points:

The DoL is not part of the constitution and has no legal force.

The legal system abounds with "legal fictions" (eg corporations) so an atheist legal scholar should have no difficulty in regarding God the same way.

The mentions of god are pretty vague (which god?), especially the first. Since it isn't in the constitution I really don't care too much about it. Leave it alone - my opinion.

Before popping off to bed, I'll only remark that not taking a position at this level is what allows misreads at a legal level. That is, at issue is if rights precede law. If they do not, Pandora's box. By "this level" I mean the actual conceptual foundations for equality, then of rights, then of legal systems inspired by them. Misreads can include the obvious, such as legalized ownership of humans, or other less obvious examples. Rather than focus on that, first one must get the notions of equality, freedom and rights squared away.

There are no more magic wands to waive away the obvious: humans are not created, and they are not equal. The house of cards crumbles. Screw rights. Gimme.
/devil's advocate mode (please be sure about that; these are some of the ideas to defeat/deal with)

 

[BobTheCoward]

The idea is to rhetorically invert the government's agency. The people always have their rights, except where the government doesn't respect them. You've even got that in your post: the government is removing to right to live from the people they kill, not granting it to the people they don't kill. I imagine kings and warlords and such heavily favor the latter formulation.

I love your comment. I'm an atheist and I readily quote that line in the declaration.

 

[BStrong]

The idea is to rhetorically invert the government's agency. The people always have their rights, except where the government doesn't respect them. You've even got that in your post: the government is removing to right to live from the people they kill, not granting it to the people they don't kill. I imagine kings and warlords and such heavily favor the latter formulation.

Excellent explanation, nominated.

 

[shemp]

I think the concept of rights has evolved along with humans. The earliest humans had no concept of rights. If Og and Zog couldn't agree which one was in charge, they'd just come out of caves with their clubs, and when Og crushed Zog's skull, he was King. They had no concept of rights.

As humans evolved, religion came into play. The earliest religions probably involved local kings invoking deities to prove that they had a right to be king. As long as Og had the biggest club and maybe some hired muscle to help enforce it, Og could do as he pleased. This was the only "right".

But then writing came along, and the more educated began thinking more about it. They didn't like the idea that nobody but the King had rights, so they expanded religion with other concepts, such as that not only did a deity give someone the right to be King, that the deity also gave people the right to be free from the King's capricious decrees. This developed into the first laws, which really created these rights, rather than being created from rights.

As time went by, both rights and laws expanded, but they were still seen as coming from a deity, through that deity's grace. However, this was just a myth to give the law credence. It wasn't the deity that drove rights and laws; it was belief in a deity that did.

Today, many people accept the idea that there is no deity. This doesn't mean that they throw away their rights, it means that we no longer should see rights as deity-given, but as law-protected. We need laws to codify our rights.

This is rather rambling, but I'm going to leave it as is (Mrs. Shemp is calling me to dinner). Maybe somebody can help clarify my ideas, or tear them apart.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

THE FOLLOWING POST IS IN DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE

The idea is to rhetorically invert the government's agency. The people always have their rights, except where the government doesn't respect them. You've even got that in your post: the government is removing to right to live from the people they kill, not granting it to the people they don't kill. I imagine kings and warlords and such heavily favor the latter formulation.

I say they have none. I can readily observe the huge inequalities across a wide range of attributes. Government or not, no agency or person may make that argument and not be laughed at. I'd like to hear a defense of these so-called rights, quite obviously a whiny liberal invention to hold back winners. I'm a winner. What is yours is now mine, as I can take it, and you cannot stop me.

... Today, many people accept the idea that there is no deity. This doesn't mean that they throw away their rights, it means that we no longer should see rights as deity-given, but as law-protected. We need laws to codify our rights.

If laws are what give rights, in my (fictional) country, the laws grant what we superiors feel appropriate. We do not allow our lessers free rein to wreak ignorant havoc.

***

In general, the natural state of all animals is pure competition. Losers lose, winners win. Rights are an invention to hold back the wiser and the stronger. Survival of the fittest, including use of any forms of subterfuge, ambush, overwhelming force, is the name of the game. The best must not hesitate to take what they can, dominate the weak, and to order society in their favor. The least must follow in acquiescence or fall behind.

/DA Mode off
I believe there are answers to the above. So far, however, we only have either a simple appeal to existing law, or a declarative statement of natural rights. None fly in current form.

 

[shemp]

I think I'd prefer not to live in your fictional country (unless I was King, of course).

As I said above (I think), rights come from force or law, they aren't inherent. The level of rights depends on the form of government and what laws are passed.

Sometimes you have to fight for your rights. Here's an example.

 

[casebro]

They are inalienable when the PTB agree that they are inalienable.

Like out Second Amendment, which says our rights are not to be infringed, which implies they are already existant. And, according to our system, they can be alienable, when the system agrees to.

So, not god given. Or inalienable.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What's killing me right now is that the burning issues and foundational questions I see, and which relate to so many threads, are unimportant or invisible to many. There is no way to discriminate between the legitimacy of a total dictatorship and democracy, so far, and judging from what I read, that is fine as long as one does have one's own rights still in force. This is the consumerist wasteland I was fearing, and it has an empty echo...

(Think I'll trust to time and wait for, perchance, a post that argues a positive case.)

 

[aleCcowaN]

From the US Declaration of Independence:


My question to you is this: in the absence of a belief in any supreme being, what for you, or for us as skeptics, is the proper formulation for the statements italicized above? How do we argue these truths today?

They are not "truths", they were and are ideology. A sceptic thinker wouldn't confuse a convergent problem (how to get from Charing Cross to Blackpool for the less money using public transportation on Mondays) with a divergent problem (what rights has a human being in society). The first ones are close to science and tend to have a limited set of solutions, if not just one. The second kind of problems are "political" and are sorted out according to values.

In the historical context of the DoI, they are just saying nay to the divine right of kings and the stratified society that created it, and replacing by a vision more aligned with modern -for the time- French and British philosophers. Of course, the self-evident truths and inalienable rights of the ones created equal were just crap because they weren't intended for negroes or indians. Reference to some god comes just from the stance "we are empowered directly and not through another bone and flesh human wearing a powdered wig". The use of the eighteenth-century top empowerer, the creature named "god", is just what the contemporary culture had to offer.

This topic is far from get the attention of the sceptic community, not because it's not worth but because it's alien to scepticism itself, unless you analyse the tricks they used, like "our rights come directly from god and we all share them evenly, unless they are slaves or occupy lands we ambition".

Finally, there's no effect, hence no harm, of leaving that "god" dude there. In 1994, last time my country's Constitution was amended, they discussed if they should delete from its preamble the bit saying "...invoking God's protection, source of all reason and justice...". Finally, to appease everyone, they decided to keep it "just for historical reasons" and this was explicitly declared in the final document, so that's "el espíritu del legislador", that is, the criteria the lawmakers used and what the judges must take into account in the doubtful case of any legal controversy involving that text.

 

[Delvo]

This is the same for me as when a Christian asks where an atheist would get a sense of morality without God. The answer is in their failure to look at it from an atheist point of view in the first place: in a world that is without God, Christians must have gotten their morality without God, too. So atheists could easily, and in fact did, get ours from the same place where Christians really, actually got theirs.

Just replace "morality" with "concept of rights".

 

[catsmate]

I believe my sig adequately expresses my position.