When Do We Acquire Our Four Natural Rights?

 Yes, four rights.  The moral code given in these posts in the past referred to "Honoring the equal rights of all to their life, liberty and property, to be free from violation through force or fraud".  It was brought to my attention lately that self-defense was an exception to the universality of the code, to which I replied that it was part of the code, which is true, it just hadn't been included as it should be.  So:

Morality is honoring the equal rights of all to their life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation  through force or fraud.

Self-defense is a right which should be included with the other three--life, liberty and property. I'm surprised Locke, Jefferson and Paine didn't include it way back then, or that it took so long here. When someone breaks the absolute moral code by violating the rights of another, he nullifies any protection of his rights.

It is that simple, but that doesn't mean there aren't any special cases (exceptions?) that put the code to the test on that given issue. There is one such issue like that which I can think of and that's abortion, because it deals with the rights of two individuals and when it is that we acquire our rights. That extends to the question of when children, after they're born, acquire their rights. Certainly a child doesn't have the right to liberty and property at birth. And when does an embryo acquire the right to life?

The issue of rights acquisition is problematic and doesn't have universally pat answers, but these questions still don't apply to the overarching and vast universality of the rights of adults. I think we can see why we can't veer off into this every time the subject of rights comes up. It's a relatively small portion of rights issues, and, except for abortion, we're in overwhelming agreement. If we weren't we'd be having people claiming that children have the right to go play in traffic, or that we're immorally locking babies up when we put them in a playpen.

The Innate Superiority of Full Sentients

All animal life (essentially) subsists on plant life or other animals that do. What makes animal life superior? The absence of pain in plants or lack of some form of consciousness? But animals subsist, at least, by taking the lives of plants, the right to life being the ultimate right of any living thing that is said to have rights. The only distinguishing characteristic of many forms of lower animal life from plants is the ability to move around. Does that make them morally superior?

Morality is what we're talking about here. When does it become immoral to take the life of another living thing? Is it anything but a grey area?

As we move up the food chain, intelligence increases, particularly with mammals, some displaying primitive forms of self-awareness in higher primates, cetaceans, elephants, maybe dogs, and cats--well, dogs anyway--and maybe even some birds. Many cultures bestow informal rights on these higher animals to better treatment, especially to those most valued in this category, our children, who do not achieve full self-awareness for several years.

So what is full self-awareness, and does it give those who have it, or the potential for it, superior rights over the rest? Even animals who have learned a language, such as Koko the gorilla, and who recognize themselves in mirrors, struggle with the concept of "I", "me", "mine", "them" and "theirs". And while they may grieve the death of a "loved" one, we are apparently the only ones that understand the universality and inevitability of mortality--and that's what makes us fully aware. That and self-awareness itself enable us to understand what it means to kill another, giving birth to innate morality.

I think some take that too far and attempt to give equal rights to (some/all?) animals. Does our superior self-awareness make us immoral if we eat other animals, but not the many predators in the animal kingdom lower down on the food/intelligence/self-awareness chain that do? Why?

Is Freedom Worth It?

The question comes up from time to time, is freedom really worth it?  Why is it so important?  The easiest answer is to point to genocide, slavery or any of a near infinite number of examples of man being inhumane to man.  The worst such examples are when an elite group has the power of government/military to impose it's will, sometimes via the law, on another group.  Freedom is when a man or a nation is limited from exercising such power over others.  Freedom is also following our desires in how we make our livelihoods, who we marry, or hitting the open roads or hiking trails.  Freedom has also been defined here as the ability for someone to be as dumb as they want--on their own dime.

Freedom can have its costs, in humiliation, money, time and even our lives; but those from countries where there is a despotic government never question the value of freedom, only the lack of its defense.  But some in modern western society tend to take it for granted, allowing government every greater power, often in exchange for government provided security--thinking for some reason that their government would never abuse its power.  That is government's basic purpose after all, providing security via the police, military and court system; and while most people are familiar with the concept of the corrupting influence of power, we tend not to recognize the problem in our own back yard.  We corrupt our government by bestowing too much power on it, and ourselves by shirking our responsibilities to remain informed and to always champion liberty.

Benjamin Franklin has been famously paraphrased many times from this original quote in Poor Richard's Almanac in 1738, "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."  Here is another slight variation of the many paraphrases:  Only liberty guarantees whatever security we have, and if you trade too much of it away, you will loose both.  How much is too much?  When the only way to get it back is revolution--a point which is seldom recognized until it is passed.

A Reasoned Attitude Toward God--In Movies

There are precious few movies, reasonably well made and in English anyway, which fit the category. There are many, particularly older titles which deal with religious faith, but such faith is inevitably blind since faith is held up as its own justification.  There are only 6 titles given here.  It isn't surprising that there are so few, and one of those is musical.  As science progresses, presenting us with natural answers and evidence to questions that had previously been deemed to be the realm of religious faith, we tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater when we reject God along with religion.  We rush to judgement, so if God doesn't intervene, He/It must not exist.  But science has yet to come up with the first bit of evidence that addresses the origin of the universe, pro- or no God.  The least favorite thing for us as a species to do is to admit that we're clueless.

A model or theory that answers this conundrum has been given in previous posts here, but this is only one tiny voice squeaking in the ethereal wilderness  So if there are movies which have a wider appeal while promoting reason and reasonable questions in this area of inquiry, we may draw benefit from their messages, and we may support those messages by bringing them up in our social interactions.

Inherit the Wind (1960)--The first and in many ways the most courageous, it's thinly fictional look at the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 brought teaching religion and suppressing science in the classroom to the forefront again.  A classic with some outstanding performances.

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)--Another classic, this first major rock opera (based on the 1971 Broadway production, which itself followed the music album in 1970) uses an outstanding Webber-Rice score telling the story of the Passion of Jesus, based on the gospels but without  the supernatural elements.  The lyrics of the title song at the end ask the questions we've been asking, often in hiding, ever since. 

The Devil's Advocate (1997)--It's important to remember that most of the film is a dream sequence, with the Devil being, for the protagonist (as he is for us all), a symbol for temptation.  As he declares at the end, "Vanity is definitely my favorite sin", but on introspection we realize that it's the justification for all sin.

 Doubt (2008)--The specific problems that are a consequence of the abuse of power of an authoritarian church, lead the parochial school principle/nun to question the divine source of that authority.  Those questions, given her commitment to that divine authority, lead to her soul crushing doubt.


Creation (2009)--Well made but little known independent film about the events surrounding Darwin's publication of On the Origin of the Species.  He struggles with it due to his wife, Emma, being very religious and insists that she agree to its publication (profound speculation?).  The death of their sweet, favorite daughter, due possibly to their being close cousins, points to natural selection, while there's no explanation for God's non-intervention in any case.

The Tree of Life (2011)-- The opening quote sets the stage, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4,7".  In other words, it isn't your concern, which is the only answer any revealed religion can give to man's continual question, Why?  (See post by that title below.)

God or no God

The Truth, through reason, speaks for itself. But we are social animals and subject to the influence that individuals we respect bring to an argument—often to the exclusion of reason. I see no indication that we are moving away from such cults of celebrity, but, when in Rome…. The following are some examples of well known atheists and skeptics who do more than pay lip service to reason. The argument that God is a possible explanation for the universe is often dismissed if its presenter is an unknown without credentials. So, in keeping with the goal of promoting Truth through reason, I submit the comments from a few who possess such credentials and respect, and therefore credence.

One thing that becomes obvious is that many of those who are called atheists, even some who call themselves atheists, are often just anti-religion and those religions’ gods. Man’s invention of our many gods, argues only against their invention or “revelation”. It doesn’t carry over as evidence against the possible existence of God, or that a deist God was/is arrived at due to similar self-serving motivations. If God exists, It is not our salvation (only we can be that), rather, It would be our explanation.


Richard Dawkins (atheist) debate with John Lennox www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw begin @ 4:30
"We could take a deist god, sort of god of the physicists. A god of somebody like Paul Davies who devised the laws of physics, god the mathematician, god who put together the cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen and that would be…the deist god would be one…I think one would be…one could make a reasonable respectable case for that. Not a case that I would accept, but I think it’s a serious discussion that we could have."
@ 37:45
"You could possibly persuade me that there was some kind of creative force in the universe, there was some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything…the expanding universe, devised quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You can possibly persuade me of that."

Lawrence Krauss (scientific skeptic) debate with William L. Craig youtube.com/watch?v=Fs_pgaSrxP8 begin @ 3:15…Uploaded 03/30/11
“I actually think deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be, I mean the Universe is an amazing place."....
...."So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."

Victor Stenger (atheist) in Huffpost Blog. 06/30/11
“In short, the world looks just like it should look if there is no God with these attributes. True that this does not rule out other gods, such a deist god that does not act in the universe. But we can rule out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God to a high degree of probability.”

Stephen Hawking (atheist?-skeptic) A Brief History of Time (1988)pp. 8-9
“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!". (note: an expanding universe was initially considered a blow to atheism since it indicated a beginning as opposed to the Steady State model. But that, ultimately, is unable to sidestep the issue of a beginning anyway.)

Carl Sagan (scientific skeptic) God and Carl Sagan: Is the Cosmos Big Enough for Both of Them? Edward Wakin (May 1981)
“To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.”

Albert Einstein (agnostic) Einstein: The Life and Times. Clark, Ronald W. (1971) p.425
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."….
…."In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

Isaac Asimov (atheist) interviewed by Paul Kurtz on “Science and the Bible”, in Free Inquiry, Spring 1982
“I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it.”

Charles Darwin (supposed atheist) Letter to John Fordyce, 7 May 1879
"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

Anthropomorphizing God

In many discussions about God, those who consider it possible that God exists are accused of anthropomorphizing nature, even if those proponents don't claim any human attributes for God except conscious will.  In fact, attributing any supernatural powers and/or the ability to create the universe would be non-anthropomorphic, and even reasonable, if those supernatural powers weren't exercised in this universe where, so far, there exists no evidence for it.  The only possible evidence is the universe.

On the other hand, when I say that God mustn't intervene without destroying our free will, many who make the first argument also argue that if God exists, how can It not help people in danger or trouble?  But wouldn't thinking that God should intervene be to anthropomorphize It?

This is not to argue for or against the existence of God, only against the supposed necessity that belief anthropomorphizes It.

I have reluctantly resorted to using the impersonal (but capitalized) pronoun, It, when referring to God.  Using a gender pronoun leaves one open to the argument of anthropomorphizing God.  And as just stated, the only human quality we can attribute to God, if It exists, is conscious will.  That says nothing pro or con about whether God cares about us.  But, since a God with supernatural powers could ostensibly create anything instantaneously, except sentient creatures with free will, that would imply divine interest and caring.

Abandoning the use of any pronouns for God altogether, becomes tedious and distracting.

Defining the supernatural:  One possibility is that the supernatural is a total lack of natural law or even a physical universe or cosmos, in which our universe could be suspended as a mere bubble.  Another possibility is that our universe is just an extrusion, if you will, of our four dimensions within a broader (infinite?) cosmos composed of many more, even an infinite number of dimensions, which could be governed by natural law as well.  The supernatural could then exist even if there were no God.

Is This a Test?

I passed these two guys recently who were stopped at a red light. They were flailing their arms to some tune I couldn't hear, obviously enjoying that particular moment in their lives. It started a chain of thought; what about the billions of people who don't have all the resources we have for enjoying life in the wealthier countries? What about those who are capable of achieving fulfillment in life wherever they are? And what about those with greater talent, intellectual ability, courage, appreciation for living or a propensity to be good or evil? If there is a God and this is It's test, we obviously aren't all given the same starting point.

Would all the rewards be equalized out to make it fair somehow? Or (I'm not suggesting rank), is there a natural recognition of those who made the greater or lesser use of their time here? Would we judge others as we would ourselves, in the light of undeniable Truth, recognizing the need for oblivion for some, and to feed on the brighter light of others?

Doesn't the greater obstacle or the greater the achievement from one's starting place deserve more respect? Would the rich child who grows up in the freedom of Singapore or the wealth of the US who saved the world, be more or less worthy than a street urchin in Zimbabwe who risked his life to save another's? Is fairness even an objective. Think of an audience enjoying the talents of the performers they see on stage or screen, only now all types of talents and accomplishments would be appreciated in the same way.

For the moral subjectivists, should this recognition be a goal in this life, is that possible, or should we go further and attempt to give equal respect to everyone no matter what they do? Should we make Hitler equal to Gandhi, for instance? If not, how do we differentiate?

As you can see, this post is more questions than answers.