Most here believe rights do not exist, I think this is because of how we've been taught about rights.

[Trivium_method_man]

I will admit, the way I am going to speak may seem very strange but the words we use matter. I'm trying to be very specific. Because sometimes the simplest concepts get muddied up because of opposing definitions.

 

So here goes...

 

First lets define two terms...

Simple put:

 

"Wrongs", are actions which cause harm to others.

"Rights", are actions which cause no harm to others.

 

If you are ever unsure about your rights just think about it personally in the apophatic sense.

 

"Would I feel wronged if someone did this to me?"

If so, it's not a right, it's a wrong, it is incorrect and immoral.

And NO ONE has the "right" to do it.

 

What we just did is called "affirmation through negation".

 

By understanding what something is not, we come closer to knowing what it is.

 

In the same way, by knowing THE FEW things that are wrong for us to do, our near infinite amount of rights (right/neutral actions) become blatantly apparent and are not in need of mention.

 

I understand and practice UPB, but I feel that such a deep proof is unnecessary. I think it's wonderful but unnecessary.

 

If people (general public.. this doesn't apply to psychopaths obviously) looked within themselves and honestly thought about what is wrong for them, AND THEN ACTED WITH INTEGRITY, the same, if not a better conclusion than UPB seems to come about.

 

Lets look at a few examples, then the rebuttals can come pouring in..

 

Ex. 1

If you think it is wrong to be killed or eaten by other living beings

And it makes you feel wrong or bad inside when other living beings kill and eat you

Then that action is not a "right" to you, it is a "wrong" to you, by your own admission.

So now if you take an action that you think and feel is wrong you are the definition of a hypocrite.

 

You will always have the choice (not "the right to") to take such action, but will never be right/correct/moral.

 

Regardless of the situation if you think and feel something is wrong internally, you do not have the "right" to take that action.

 

Ok, Trivum... what if someone is trying to kill me? Do I have the "right" to kill him? NO!

But you do have the right to defend your body and property.

And if in the process of protecting your right to life, liberty and property the aggressor inadvertently dies, that is not your fault.

 

To think of it in terms of Tai Chi,

There is an initiator of force and a reflector of force.

Self defense only requires the deflection or reflection of force being initiated against you.

You don't have to overpower an attacker, you simply have to keep him from overpowering you.

That's why I use the words reflect and deflect.

Self defense doesn't mean getting away only to sneak up later with a baseball bat a give him a whack!

 

Tried to get the self defense question out of the way....

 

Anyway,

 

To live with integrity and be a fully conscience, unified being, our Thoughts, Emotions and Actions must not be in contradiction.

What I am referring to here is known as the three aspects of consciousness.

Everything we are, EVERYTHING, manifests in one of three ways:

What we think, what we feel, what we do.

 

I threw that seemingly random part in but it's actually crutial to understand.

 

If we think violence is wrong, feel that violence is wrong then we cannot act in opposition to that. Otherwise cognitive dissonance occurs and chaos and uncertainty begin to manifest externally because internally we are at war with ourselves.

 

Kinda like Steph talking about personal freedom before political. "Deal with yourself and your family.. then deal with the state".

 

I would put it this way, if we at all hope for a free society we must all rise in consciousness and live in a state of non-duality. Which means aligning our thoughts, emotions and actions and knowing what are Natural Rights are by knowing what is naturally wrong to do individually.

 

If these three things are not in harmony/unison/non-contradiction, the only thing that can follow in the world is chaos.

 

Ex.2

If you Think it is wrong to be taken from without your consent

And it makes you Feel bad when people take from you without your consent

Then to live in non-contradiction you Actions must not contradict your Thoughts and Emotions.

Your action must always be to not take without the owners consent.

 

The examples could go on forever. Basically all it takes is a look within...

 

Rights aren't granted, they are inherent in nature. Animals have the same rights as every other being by the very nature of their existence. Steph once claimed that I own my body because I'm the only one who can fundamentally make it work. Well, same applies for animals.

By stephs own logic, animals own their bodies.

 

Now if we wanna go deeper for the next one.. lets use steph's fav.. the scienific method.

 

Ex. 3

What happens when you go to kill an animal? It crys, shreaks, runs away, fights back...

Go all around the world, see if you get the same result...

Go in space, see if animals do not try and escape death..

 

So far we see that animals Universally Prefer to NOT die. Otherwise, why would they run from death?

Hmmm seems about the same things we as humans do.

 

So if for no other reason, why not utilize the sensory data coming in and make the simple relation to the pain and fear both our species experience in similar situations?

 

This sets us up for the fourth example.

 

Ex. 4

"I'm noticing that as I try and kill this animal it is producing the same reactions I would."

"How do I feel when experiencing those emotions?... If I recall, I don't like being scared or cut open."

"Hmm maybe because I don't like feeling that way, I shouldn't cause others to feel the same."

 

Ex.5

I don't think I'd like to be shot in the head with an arrow instantly making my children orphans.

I feel great pain and sorrow at the thought of someone hunting and killing me and leaving orphans.

Therfore my actions will reflect what my mind and heart are telling me.

Regardless of how tasty venison is.

 

Basically UPB is awesome, but the golden rule can suffice as long as people live with integrity or another way of putting it is: just to live in non-duality.

 

As the ancient saying goes, if One suffers, All suffer.

 

I apply that saying to the state as well... if there's even one state, we all suffer.

 

I'd love to hear any responses to this but especially I like to hear what Steph thinks about my take on rights... if he never responds eventually I'll just call in.. I know he's busy

[dsayers]

Generally speaking, I reject your premise. "Feeling wrong" is not a standard, nor is it objective.

 

As for the questions of defensive force, a LOT of people surprisingly do not realize that the statement "Theft is immoral" DENOTES that the prevention of theft is righteous. If we own ourselves and therefore the effects of our actions, for somebody to steal from me is to voluntarily create a debt to me. Defensive force is the collection of that debt. Within reason; Killing somebody for taking a candy bar is so disparate, that it is not the collection of a debt, but the creation of a new, much larger one.

 

Steph once claimed that I own my body because I'm the only one who can fundamentally make it work. Well, same applies for animals.By stephs own logic, animals own their bodies.

 

Animals do not have the capacity for reason, which is why they do not own themselves. I thought it seemed odd that you started the thread speaking as if you were doing an analysis on the word "right," and came out of nowhere with an animal cruelty slant. Incompatibility aside, I think being forthcoming is a greater mark of integrity. Especially since in the context of politics, "rights" are indeed fictitious.

 

Lastly, I just wanted to point out that "ancient saying" doesn't denote that it is accurate or principled.

[DCLugi]

Would I feel wronged if someone hot waxed my nipples during sex. Yes but it doesn't apply to everyone so it can't be universalized as a principle.

[square4]

I'd love to hear any responses to this

 

So basically, you are proposing the maxim: "Do not do to others, what which would cause you to feel wronged when done to you." To address the criticisms, maybe it can be improved as follows: "To be consistent, do not do to others, that which has characteristics that you would consider wrong when done to you (or otherwise change your opinion about what is wrong)" The above is similar to your maxim, but more difficult to disagree with.

 

Within reason; Killing somebody for taking a candy bar is so disparate, that it is not the collection of a debt, but the creation of a new, much larger one.

 

I agree, but I don't know how to reconcile this with your view that value and well-being is subjective. If the value of candy bars, and of any other property, and of being alive and healthy is entirely subjective, how can we decide objectively what kind of the defense force is justified?

[dsayers]

your view that value and well-being is subjective

 

Are you saying that value or well-being are not subjective? It is unclear what purpose is served by your use of the qualifier "your view." They either are or are not. Making it personal only serves to avoid the discussion.

 

Assault, rape, and murder are forms of theft. Where they differ from theft is that they are irreversible. Therefore, in order for bodily harm/death to be a rational response, bodily harm/death must be what it is in response to. The taking of a candy bar is not comparable to killing somebody even though what people value a candy bar to be is subjective.

 

Beyond that, I suspect you are being disingenuous. If I steal your candy bar and you steal my car in response, was that the settling of the debt I voluntarily created or voluntarily creating a new, much larger one? Do you think anybody would have difficulty answering that question? Even if you were somebody that was asked that question and had never driven before, you can look up what people generally pay for a candy bar vs a car and see that they're not comparable.

[Trivium_method_man]

"Animals do not have the capacity for reason, which is why they do not own themselves."

Right now I am just trying to figure out Steph's statement, "I own my body because I am the only one who can fundamentally make it work."

 

I completely agree with this statement, yet I find that he fails to fully universalize the premise.

 

Are animals the only ones who can fundamentally control their bodies?

 

If so, then they do own their bodies.

 

Please explain how this is not the case.

[dsayers]

Animals do not have the capacity for reason. Their behaviors are a direct response to biological imperatives. They don't choose because they don't understand what choice is, what the consequences of their choices are, how to compare that to alternatives, etc.

[Tweety]

"I'm noticing that as I try and kill this animal it is producing the same reactions I would." "How do I feel when experiencing those emotions?... If I recall, I don't like being scared or cut open." "Hmm maybe because I don't like feeling that way, I shouldn't cause others to feel the same."

 

I have never seen or heard any predator show by their actions that they would consider the survival instincts and fear of their prey in this manner, i.e. "I would not like to be/i would feel bad being chased and killed, therefore I should not chase and kill". I agree on what dsayers pointed out, that animals do not have the capacity for reason. Therefore, as Steph also mentioned in a fairly recent podcast, animals are not subjected to morality.

 

"if One suffers, All suffer" - What do you mean by that?

[J. D. Stembal]

Another animals rights appeal... with all the joy of a wall of text.

 

How you define "rights" is not how most people define the word. Plenty of leftists claimed that ACA was necessary because health care is a right, never mind that it is inefficient and steals money from people. What some people define as "rights" come at the expense of others, namely the suckers expected to pay for those rights. Now that my father is 64, he's all about single payer subsidies to health care. This is the same man who voted for Ross Perot in the 1990s. People are motivated to use the political system to garner goodies for themselves at the expense of others.

 

Explain to me how the lion acts with integrity when it eats a gazelle while it is still alive? At least humans strive to kill and cook their meat before they eat it.