But postmodernism adheres to a rejection of natural rights. It's a hallmark of postmodernist thought, regardless of its rejection beforehand. — Buxtebuddha

I don't care. I'm not guilty by association. I see right through what you're doing.

Anyway, the semantics of my point wasn't my point. — Buxtebuddha

What was your point? Your contributions seem to consist of petty smears from the sidelines.

I'm laughing from the sidelines, actually. Why join when I agree with Thorongil and will be belittled?

Pardon me but I must go, gotta go publish an article about this fascinating topic, (Y)

If that's the case, then you'd fit right in, as your own comments have been belittling. But maybe it's for the best if you have little of substance to say and don't care to elaborate when pressed.

What happened? — Michael

I'm glad you found those quotes, as I think and hope it speaks positively of my character. I'm not an ideologue unwilling to change his opinion when confronted with alternative evidence and arguments. I seek the latter out regularly on a range of issues and am often torn by what I should believe, not to mention irritated about not having the proper time and means to research problems to my satisfaction.

What happened is that I dipped into reading about and listening to some of the arguments on the other side, found out about some of the history behind the second amendment, and read the opinions of Scalia and others about the Heller case and the purpose of the Supreme Court. I also came more firmly to realize that there are such things as natural rights, contrary to what Bentham and others think, which is that they're just made up. Finally, I have come to appreciate the fact that there are only trade-offs in life, not perfect solutions. Solving or at least alleviating one problem inevitably involves exacerbating or creating another, perhaps unforeseen, problem or problems. Different values come into conflict in real life, and it's hard trying to adjudicate which of them ought to be emphasized.

So, again, it really comes down to the fact that I have bothered to acquaint myself with the arguments of those hitherto on the other side of the debate, found that they were more cogent and convincing than anticipated, and saw that they fit with other philosophical positions and axioms I accept.

Yeah, it's certainly true that every argument must be published in some journal so that it can be read by nobody — Buxtebuddha

It only shows the complete ignorance of my interlocutors. My argument is not new. Maybe my particular wording of it is, and perhaps it could be better worded, for which I take full responsibility (I wouldn't want a good argument presented or defended badly, which is also partly why I've bowed out of the fray here), but versions of it and arguments that form the basis of it have been made by people like Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Blackstone, Locke, Beccaria, Montesquieu, the American founders, and yes, even Schopenhauer. One can also find journal articles defending versions of my argument from self-defense if that's really so important.

Well, when someone denies natural rights, thus denying the inherent right to one's own life, I think people are justified in being bothered by that kind of post modernist malarkey. — Buxtebuddha

Denying someone a gun is not denying them a right to life. Denying people access to all guns is not necessarily my position anyway, but neither Thorongil nor PO-MO were interested in discussing self-defense or bearing arms in a nuanced sense.

Could you please make clear what you mean by "established right"? By "established" do you mean "unalienable"? There are very few absolute rights that Americans have - arguably three and no more.. — tim wood

I mean it has been established by the courts that it is a right. I do not think it is unalienable.

If that's the case, then you'd fit right in, as your own comments have been belittling. But maybe it's for the best if you have little of substance to say and don't care to elaborate when pressed. — Sapientia

Why would I want to elaborate? Thorongil's been elaborating and providing substantive exposition on the topic of this thread for 6 pages now, such that it still hasn't made a lick of difference. Why? Because it would seem that you concur with Andrew and think that the only substantive argument to be had is the argument that runs congruent with yours.

Now, please give me your stock response to any and all disagreements and tell me that I need to read your posts again, that what I've said is uncharitable and wrong, I should go read philosophy, that I'm insane, yada yada.

In the meantime, I'll be waiting for further explanation from Andrew, as it was he whom I had originally responded to, not you.

Denying someone a gun is not denying them a right to life. — ProbablyTrue

That's not quite what I said. My point was that denying the existence of inherent rights in nature - which entails yourself - means denying an inherent right in one to defend themselves; in other words, their natural right to life.

As I think Thorongil attempted to bring up, if someone does not possess a natural right to owning a gun (I would argue that one does not), then the next step is whether one possesses the natural right to self defense. That's where I would say, YES, we do. Yet, Sapientia, for example, wouldn't say that, as he doesn't believe in natural rights, meaning that rights, such as a right to life, is not natural (inherent to one's being), but relative to the laws passed stating that they apply.

I laughed at this, and Sapientia, because relative rights entails relative ethics, which are flawed piles of illogical crap. That's all perhaps fit for another thread, though.

Edit: Just to make it crystal clear, a right to life without natural rights is one dependent upon laws. Were there no laws, then Sapientia would presumably be without any reasoned defense if someone wanted to end his life.

Could you please make clear what you mean by "established right"? By "established" do you mean "unalienable"? There are very few absolute rights that Americans have - arguably three and no more..
— tim wood

I mean it has been established by the courts that it is a right. I do not think it is unalienable. — ProbablyTrue

Which means it's a privilege. It's like the "right" to drive a car. No one has a right to drive a car (on public roads). Everyone who meets certain minimum requirements can apply for a license to drive a car. And these minimal requirements are determined locally.

My point is that pretty much every discussion of gun control goes immediately off the rails because of misuse/abuse of language, or plain ignorant or often deliberate misunderstanding. Any discussion absent clarity on language and understanding is doomed from the start and becomes a Hobbesian exercise in power tactics.

I also came more firmly to realize that there are such things as natural rights, contrary to what Bentham and others think, which is that they're just made up. — Thorongil

Ah yes, Bentham. That other notorious postmodernist. Full of malarkey.

Why would I want to elaborate? — Buxtebuddha

Yes, why would you want to elaborate in a discussion of all places? What is this? Some kind of forum?

Stop arguing and act. — Banno

Stop acting and argue.

As I think Thorongil attempted to bring up, if someone does not possess a natural right to owning a gun (I would argue that one does not), then the next step is whether one possesses the natural right to self defense. That's where I would say, YES, we do. Yet, Sapientia, for example, wouldn't say that, as he doesn't believe in natural rights, meaning that rights, such as a right to life, is not natural (inherent to one's being), but relative to the laws passed stating that they apply.

I laughed at this, and Sapientia, because relative rights entails relative ethics, which are flawed piles of illogical crap. That's all perhaps fit for another thread, though.

Edit: Just to make it crystal clear, a right to life without natural rights is one dependent upon laws. Were there no laws, then Sapientia would presumably be without any reasoned defense if someone wanted to end his life. — Buxtebuddha

Straw man alert! You could have just asked me to elaborate - although I accept that in your world that sort of thing might be considered outlandish - but instead you decided to dive in head first with a whole load of assumptions.

Rights are relative. That much you got right. But they're not necessarily relative to laws. It depends on the context. In the context of U.S. law, it's a right to bear arms, but it's not a right in my book. Rights are not natural: they do not reside in nature, waiting to be discovered. That's just a story. Rights are artificial: they're what we come up with. They're as artificial as the stories about natural rights and the concept itself. But that says nothing of the importance of any given right. I might, for example, accept that there's a right to self-defence, and I might feel just as strongly about that right as you seem to.

I find these proclamations that such-and-such is a natural right to be shallow. It's akin to the naivety of the ethical realist who proclaims that those ethical beliefs which he just happens to feel most strongly about simply must count as objective truths.

You can get as excited as you like. You can exclaim "YES!" as loudly as you like. But sometimes you just need to step back, calm yourself down, and face up to the fact that you can't make the thing what it's not, no matter how secure it might make you feel to convince yourself otherwise.

Yes, why would you want to elaborate in a discussion of all places? What is this? Some kind of forum? — Sapientia

You clipped the rest of what I said, which answered your question. But good job showing me how little you actually care about the substance of others' words.

As for your other post, I'm not going to take your bait and go down the shit-hole like Thorongil did only to be brow-beaten by you because you're so easily affronted by disagreement. Anyway, if you want to discuss natural rights, maybe start another thread where more posters can share their thoughts. At present, this thread is a gangbang.

Anyhoo, I'm off to sip some hot tea and snuggle with my pup - toodles never-sappy, Sappy!

Anyway, if you want to discuss natural rights, maybe start another thread where more posters can share their thoughts. — Buxtebuddha

That would be a great topic IMO.

I don't have a definite position on the matter, but I'm reading Harry Jaffa's A New Birth of Freedom right now and I think he makes a very strong case for natural rights. Much better than I'd anticipated, at least.

Highly recommended read for anyone interested in the topic, as it's framed within the context of the debates over slavery leading up to the Civil War between Abraham Lincoln on the one hand - a firm believer in natural rights - and his many intellectual adversaries on the other, especially Stephen Douglas. Douglas championed the cause of popular sovereignty disconnected from any 'higher' rights or values - and is thus cast as the Thrasymachus to Lincoln's Socrates.

It does seem important to move away from abstract discussion on the particular issue and place it in actual, concrete circumstances. Douglas apparently could not condemn the extension of slavery in the territories on moral grounds, since he felt that values were completely relative to the will of the majority, and was therefore content to leave it up to the people to decide whether they wanted it or not. Relativism seems inescapable, but also completely heinous when its possible consequences are presented through these types of historical examples.

Anyhow apologies for the digression, but yeah, somebody start that thread!

Just to make it crystal clear, a right to life without natural rights is one dependent upon laws. Were there no laws, then Sapientia would presumably be without any reasoned defense if someone wanted to end his life. — Buxtebuddha

Well said.

Does Jaffa discuss any economics or is it purely about rights? Surely Douglass would've held a more nuanced position about slavery, couldn't be that simple.

He briefly touches upon economics but the work is overwhelmingly concerned with the issue of rights. He quotes Douglas as using his home of Illinois as an example of a state which ultimately outlawed slavery - but only after the states' citizens found that it wasn't in their economic self-interest to allow for its continuation, and not because they found it inherently wrong or immoral.

So Douglas is portrayed, at least to my understanding, as prioritizing economics over natural rights. Jaffa obviously rejects this stance and claims that Lincoln did too. Lincoln abhorred the idea that if the citizens of a new territory (or anywhere for that matter) found it in their economic (or other) self-interest to legalize slavery, or to engage in other forms of what he felt to be violations of individual natural rights, then so be it.

Douglas was however extremely principled when it came to the notion of popular sovereignty. He rejected the Lecompton Constitution, for instance, which followed the Kansas-Nebraska Act and sought to permit slavery in the new state of Kansas. He did this - despite the fact that it would cost him the support of Southern Democrats - because he felt that it was unfairly rushed through by pro-slavery advocates who quickly flooded the state after the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and who tried to impose their (minority) will on all.

This cynical attempt to legalize slavery quickly before incoming anti-slavers had a chance to have their voices heard in the creation of a state constitution, meant that it didn't genuinely represent the will of the people and was therefore illegitimate.

So Douglas apparently remained neutral on moral issues like slavery while also maintaining that in order for the laws to be considered legitimate, at least in a democracy where power is vested in the will of the majority, they must be grounded in the the will of the people (the majority), and this regardless of what that will decided upon.

I purchased a copy of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates recently and I'll see for myself if Jaffa oversimplified or otherwise misrepresented Douglas's position(s) in the book.

You clipped the — Buxtebuddha

Sorry about that. I won't make that same mistake twice.

Well said. — Thorongil

No, it really wasn't, and that comment only serves to reflect your poor judgement. The first sentence is false, and the second sentence contains a false presumption about me.

Unless you're counting being a law unto myself as law, which I would not expect, as it is only a metaphor, then the argument is unsound.

Were there no laws, then Sapientia would presumably be without any reasoned defense if someone wanted to end his life. — Buxtebuddha

I don't think you need to use a notion of natural rights to argue that killing is wrong.

And, of course, you can reason with a would-be killer without bringing up morality at all. So it's not entirely clear what you're trying to say.

I don't think you need to use a notion of natural rights to argue that killing is wrong. — Michael

You don't. To think otherwise exemplifies a failure in understanding.

And, of course, you can reason with a would-be killer without bringing up morality at all. So it's not entirely clear what you're trying to say. — Michael

I can tell you what he's trying to do. He's attacking a weaker position than my own, based on a weakness inherent in that position, and then attempting to draw a link between that position and my own. It's a rhetorical ploy and a fallacy.

Sorry about that. I won't make that same mistake twice. — Sapientia

Once again you show that you don't care. I'm done interacting with you.

I don't think you need to use a notion of natural rights to argue that killing is wrong. — Michael

I'm not denying that someone can attempt to argue a relativist ethics with regard to what constitutes moral quality.

And, of course, you can reason with a would-be killer without bringing up morality at all. So it's not entirely clear what you're trying to say. — Michael

What, then, would your argument be? Wrongness is a quality of morality, so you'd have a difficult time, as I see it, arguing with someone who wouldn't be compelled not to do what he desires.

Once again you show that you don't care. I'm done interacting with you. — Buxtebuddha

That's fine with me. You laugh from the sidelines, yet you can't take a joke, and your attempt at substance got picked apart quicker than you can say "Heister Eggcart was a better name".

I'm not denying that someone can attempt to argue a relativist ethics with regard to what constitutes moral quality. — Buxtebuddha

A consequentialist, virtue ethicist, or divine command theorist, for example, can argue for universal/objective moral principles without arguing for natural rights.

Perhaps even a deontologist can argue the same. Does the duty not to kill require a right not to be killed? I see no prima facie reason to believe that. The first formulation of the categorial imperative could be an example of this.

What, then, would your argument be? Wrongness is a quality of morality, so you'd have a difficult time, as I see it, arguing with someone who wouldn't be compelled not to do what he desires. — Buxtebuddha

It's possible to convince someone not to do something without persuading him that it's wrong. Perhaps there will be consequences to him killing you that he'd rather not face (or consequences to him not killing you that are more appealing than satisfying his desire to kill).

Besides, I wonder how many people who desire to kill refrain only because they believe it to be wrong? I'm sure such people are more constrained by practical considerations. I don't know how compelling a moral argument would even be to a would-be killer. Do killers even believe that what they're doing is right? Or do they just not care?

But at the end of the day, Sap can always lie and pretend to believe in natural rights just to convince his would-be killer (assuming that such an argument would even help). So yours was a rather pointless comment to make.

A consequentialist, virtue ethicist, or divine command theorist, for example, can argue for object moral principles without arguing for natural rights.

Perhaps even a deontologist can argue the same. Does the duty not to kill require a right not to be killed? I see no prima facie reason to believe that. — Michael

A right, whether thought to be natural or not, contains moral quality, so I can't see how a right, thus, is without any moral consideration. It'd be difficult to argue that how one ought to act is not dependent upon themselves or others.

It's possible to convince someone not to do something without persuading him that it's wrong. Perhaps there will be consequences to him killing you that he'd rather not face (or consequences to killing him that are more appealing than satisfying his desire to kill). — Michael

Appealing how? Instead of wrong you'd have to somehow falsify their intention to kill you? How would you do that? Again, natural rights would go both ways, in that one's own right ought not be broken with regards to another's same right.

A right, whether thought to be natural or not, contains moral quality, so I can't see how a right, thus, is without any moral consideration. — Buxtebuddha

I'm not saying that there can be rights without morality. I'm saying that there can be morality without rights.

It'd be difficult to argue that how one ought to act is not dependent upon themselves or others.

I didn't say that it wouldn't be dependent upon themselves or others. I said that it wouldn't be dependent upon people having rights. It can be wrong to kill even if nobody has a right to live, e.g. with consequentialism, divine command theory, virtue ethics, or the first formulation of the categorial imperative.

Appealing how? Instead of wrong you'd have to somehow falsify their intention to kill you? How would you do that? Again, natural rights would go both ways, in that one's own right ought not be broken with regards to another's same right.

My friends might look for revenge; I might be the only doctor in the community, and he might be very sick; I could pay him off; etc.

There are plenty of reasons not to kill someone that don't depend on believing that people have a right to live.

I'll respond later when I get back. Gotta go, (Y)

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO Very well stated. In the other gun thread, the argument I gave in favor of retaining the constitutional right to bear arms is that this right is grounded in the natural right to self-defense. Put in a syllogism, it looks like this:

I have the natural right to defend my life and property.
I have the right to own the proper means of defending my life and property.
Firearms are one proper means of defending my life and property.
Therefore, I have a right to own firearms.

This was the chief principled argument I gave, but apparently, it's easier to endlessly compose infantile, sarcastic quips than engage with such arguments, judging by the responses. — Thorongil

I think that the way this thread has unfolded greatly supports the thesis that inspired its conception: Enlightenment progress is being reversed, and it is liberals/progressives who are responsible.

The usual narrative says that liberals/progressives fight for liberty, equality, and the rights of the individual; fight against oppression and the abuse of power; etc. while conservatives resist the expansion of liberty and individual rights; maintain the status quo; and seek to undo progress.

Guns are dangerous. Guns are a major threat to public safety and public health. Guns are involved in many avoidable, preventable early deaths. We get that.

What is the liberal/progressive response to that public health crisis? Better educate the public about the risks of guns to individual and public health and safety? Better educate the public about more effective alternatives--such as Neighborhood Watch--for protecting one's self, loved ones, property, neighborhood and community? Empower individuals and better inform them to make their own decisions about the relationships between firearms, themselves and their communities? No.

The liberal/progressive response has, as far as I can tell, been to increasingly call for taking away what most people recognize as a right: the possession of a gun for one's personal protection. Some go even farther and say that it never was a right of any kind in the first place.

Some of the same people who lecture us--when the issue at hand is same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.--about how taking away rights is not the American way make no effort to employ tact or be diplomatic with respect to guns: even though the status of gun rights is not clear (just look at the disagreement over that question in this thread alone) they are not going to err on the side of caution or give any benefit of the doubt like they do with other rights; denying or taking away a right is their intention, and they have no hesitation and no qualms in saying so. Some of the same people who lecture us about how American history in particular, and Enlightenment progress in general, has been about expanding rights make no secret about their wish to do some subtraction in the rights column with respect to firearms.

This is not about what kinds of guns existed when the U.S. Constitution was drafted and what kinds exist now. It is not about unfettered freedom from any kind of regulations any more than freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. are about unfettered freedom--all rights have limits. It is not about the U.S. versus "other industrialized countries" (which gets very tiresome). It is about the rights of individuals and the role of those rights in a just society, in moral progress, etc.

I am not sold on "It is not hypocrisy". But even if these liberals/progressives who can't wait to see governments deny or take away gun rights are not being hypocrites, I think that their language and their lack of tact/diplomacy betrays either internal inconsistencies in the idea of liberal democracy or, on their own part, a denial of or backtracking on Enlightenment progress, universal human rights, etc. The fact that when they say that individuals do not or should not have gun rights they add that the government--and only the government--should have guns is the most telling thing about their viewpoint and the worst indictment of their position on liberty, democracy, etc. What's next? Words cause a lot of harm, so only the government should have freedom of speech, maybe?

If guns, which, unlike tanks, submarines, nuclear missiles, etc. have historically been owned and used by individuals, are the dangerous, horrible menaces that liberals/progressives say that they are then the liberal/progressive thing to do is to call for complete eradication of them and to trust free, informed, responsible individual citizens to make the right choices in realizing that goal.

in favor of retaining the constitutional right to bear arms — Thorongil

Yes, "bear arms." How do you get from that carefully written amendment to an individual's "right" to own a gun? Please be clear and exact, here, because the whole discussion to date, and not just here, takes place mostly in a fog of of obfuscation and deliberate misreading. And your personal argument is out of place, here, whatever you imagine it's merits are.

I read the amendment as saying nothing at all about individual rights with respect to gun ownership.

Apologies for the late reply, escaped my mind.

I'm not saying that there can be rights without morality. I'm saying that there can be morality without rights. — Michael

I can grant this, but I'd be curious to know how you'd define a right, natural or no.

It can be wrong to kill even if nobody has a right to live, e.g. with consequentialism, divine command theory, virtue ethics, or the first formulation of the categorial imperative. — Michael

Again, what's a right to you?

My friends might look for revenge; I might be the only doctor in the community, and he might be very sick; I could pay him off; etc.

There are plenty of reasons not to kill someone that don't depend on believing that people have a right to live. — Michael

You'd still need to answer why? questions in those examples.

Yes, I think they have turned their backs on such values. It's interesting to note that the majority of figures I listed earlier who provide arguments very similar to the one I gave are classical liberals and Enlightenment thinkers. Strange to say, defending classical liberalism and the moderate Enlightenment is to be a conservative now.

Michael documented some of the changes in my thinking on guns, but in general my thoughts on politics haven't changed so much as they have been reclassified as conservative according to the political Overton window shifting dramatically to the left in the last decade.

Go read the Heller decision if you want to know the details. Simply put, the founders who wrote the amendment considered firearms to be included under the notion of arms.