Right, I haven’t thought about ‘political philosophy’ for a while, but listening to all manner of deviants (not that that’s a bad thing) bleat on about deprivation of rights, i.e. im a homo/lezbo, its my ‘right’ to get married, brings me back to that old Lockian natural Law thing which Ive always found a bit ridiculous, as have all sound thinking people (American constitutional rhetoric aside).

In cyber land one tends to encounter a disproportionate number of liberals, radical leftists, multiculturalists, minority moralizers, and like hard-core nutz who either ostensibly or implicitly espouse a natural law view of morality. They also tend to be non-theist, which is removed from natural law intellectual “god given rights” foundings.

im a devoted athiest and moral realist, so im pleased to see a trend away from God-reasoning. However, I do wonder how other athiests can believe in so-called "natural" rights.

Advocates of natural rights elevate their personal biases/dogmas to cosmic law. However, when one looks for the "naturalness' of these rights, one finds it doesnt exist.

They point either to free-market capitalism, or to the “right” to personal property, or the “right” to indulge some kind of deviant behavior currently unsanctioned by legislation.

As for Capitalism, it is a relatively recent socio-economic system, hardly ‘natural” at all. Our human ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers. Surely we understand that nature is indeed red in tooth and claw. Even the altruism exhibited by species on the individual level is the work of selfish genes seeking propagation.

As for moral fanatics whining for their rights, any “right” can only be approved by a higher authority. The very word right is context dependent on a type of master/slave dynamic, which itself negates the plausibility of a ‘right’ being natural. Before Locke invoked the idiotic idea of God given rights, Aristotle (my favorite philosopher) understood this.

"Natural law", for Aristotle, meant the lowering classes obeying their superiors. One can make a more restrained and better claim to inherent rights this way, but this puts a different spin on the word “natural”. The outcome of this reasoning is rights are not even species-specific - Aliens can also have inherent rights, as can non-human animals here on earth. I can agree with something like this, but having to talk with these sort of examples illustrates how foolish the idea of natural rights is.

In an age of nihilism, non-theism, and overall relativism, it is bizarre that people can really talk about “rights” as being natural at all. Or even using the word “right’ without spefying the context is illogical. Appealing to ‘rights’ you are appealing to manmade (unnatural) political systems, as that is all that can uphold a law.

Sometimes rights get posited in terms of ‘categorical imperatives’ and utilitarian ethics, but, again, in this sense, after the failure of the enlightenment project and the advent of Auschwitz and relativism, its rather ignorant to talk of natural rights now.

Ive no idea why this notion of natural rights remains on the theoretical table.

I've also noticed natural rights being recruited by evolutionary psychologists trying to use the principle to prove that cooperation is in our genes and therefore justify a type of Rawlsian welfare liberalism or even Kantian “liberal internationalism” (This is the heart of Chomsky’s politics and linguistics) . This might be more tenable, as it is a little less bastardizing of the concept of “natural”, but then again, we know so little about the what can be the expected output of a human genome, that is idiotically presumptuous to even to even start talking in this manner. Also, when we do finetune behavioral genetics to an exact science, its more likely to vindicate Machiavelli than Jesus. You just have to look at the jungle law that exists in the animal kingdom and in precivilized places like central Africa to see that.

Basically, natural law is just another foundationalism that dogmatists and ideologues employ to argue their political theory is unassailable, because it's 'natural'. Noone should even say I have the right to anything unless it is suffused with legal reasoning and they are cognizant of the fact that no rights can be natural at all.

The very term "natural" is used more often to condemn and deplore than to accurately describe. I am told that my sexuality is "unnatural", yet it has come about without artificial engineering, without outside interference. I would move that the world "natural" be submitted for reevaluation, and left well alone in the meantime.

If you were born gay, it cannot be unnatural. If gayness was a lifestyle that people opted for as a lifechoice, then one could say its unnatural, buy only Jerry Falwell believes that.

A lifestyle is chosen by a human. A human is an animal. Natural behaviour does not exist, because unnatural behaviour does not exist. We describe as supernatural that which we cannot yet explain, yet there is much (almost everything) about that which we deem natural which we don't understand. The "unnatural" is subject to far greater scrutiny than the natural because the normal seek to understand it (us).

In the latter half of the 20th century, up until the present, we are finally beginning to understand that normalcy is a construct.

shut yer talk hole. Where would all those angsty art homos go if no one oppressed them? Football practice? I hardly think so.

We can but hope though.


Jocko Homo sexy!

No that’s just failing idea spawn by daft French intellectuals like Derrida and Foucault. There are many human ' behavioural norms' and human natures. You can see them by studying independent cultures all over the world that have had nothing to do with each other. Peoples ubiquitously develop traits (because we are all variations of the same genetic template), they are 'universals', 'natural traits' (homosexuality is one, btw), - things like grammar, stock emotions, mathematical logic, many others. There’s an anthropologist whos researched them all but I cant think of his name.

I tend to do this even though I'm not often fond of evolutionary psychology. I don't know. I want people to have rights. I want to come up with something other than "because I said so" and I don't want to involve god (not a fan). And we are social animals. Cooperation keeps us alive. But uh, of course rights are man made.

but then again, we know so little about the what can be the expected output of a human genome, that is idiotically presumptuous to even to even start talking in this manner.

does that gofor youtoo?
haha

in any event the burden ofproof lies on you to prove humans are inherently selfy kikes
butlike you said before^
realistically speaking of course!

not to mention what THEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYve already done to tweak the human genome!
AND SUCH

who really even cares anymore?

altho that was definately very well written
give yourself a pat on the back


so anywaaaaaay
whats youre (selfish?) motivation for this?

referring to--
Even the altruism exhibited by species on the individual level is the work of selfish genes seeking propagation. --ofcourse


maybe its time to mutate?

but thatd be "natural" as well given that its possible and has/ishappeneding
of course thatd be taking for granted that THEY are human beings

its kidnainteresting i was wrking on a sawng about this espousal of -onthe flipside _as you wrote the"liberal "viewpoint" if you can call it that even
i dont like them either
but i seem to hear that humans are basicallyassholes (forlackofabettaword)"NATURALLY"alot more than whatyoure saying
so dont worry alot more people are onyour "side than you think

so anyway i was talkin to mahselfon datoliet
DAS HOW I DU
about this basically
and as i saidbefore the burden of proof lies on yousies
but the evidence has been tampered with? so good luck
i still cant word it correctly tho i jsut kindaleft it as is there is somekinda" filler in therei admit
but im sureitll work itself out in time

law is a numb notion

Probably Claud Lévi-Strauss. He's a bit of a genius. However, the norms he describes don't really cover sexuality. He just observes that there are commonalities between human societies' various myths. Psychologically, some things are considered universal symbols. But these come about from having a "normal" upbringing, a "normal" attitude toward sex, food, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean much.

can you post your picture?thanks

lolz. you sound like a sociobiologist.

You're silly.

You're silly.