Rights From Wrongs

Interesting, I haven't really mentioned faith at all so far and have been trying to quote the book and point out pages. Can you give an example?

I continue to be impressed with the author's honesty and ambition in tackling such difficult and important issues. In chapter 6 he is clearly wrestling with inherent need for some higher authority in which to ground morality and rights. The easiest path, especially for a skeptic like him, would be to ignore the weight of such a need. To his credit he does not and goes after a way to have some higher authority for our morality that is not found in natural law, nor in positive law, nor even in the interaction of both of them together.

"If rights are to trump majority rule, they must have a status higher than simple democracy, as well as a source beyond positive law" (pg. 65)

I think in chapter 7 he too quickly abandons the hope for natural law and positive law to work and fight together for a solution;
"do these two working in tandem serve as an adequate basis for rights? The answer must clearly be no, because the tandem approach provides no criteria for resolving conflicts between natural and positive law..." (pg. 70)
What about good old debate and reason to mediate when natural law and positive law come into conflict? I feel bringing to bear all our scientific, philosophical, and historical knowledge about the human person and the world could be in a sense a neutral judge that could mediate these conflicts when they arise. Notice that in a secular government the teachings of religion would not play a role in these discussions. In fact I would go so far as religious people discussing these things in the public sphere would not and should not turn to religious revelation to justify morality. This takes a sincere trust/faith that revelation can never contradict nature nor take away the freedom of human beings that do not prescribe to its beliefs. Therefore I could see for example in the case of same-sex "marriage" a faithful Catholic making the argument that the government should either get out of the "marriage" game entirely or allow same-sex couples to get married in the states eyes and at the same time personally holding strongly his or her Church's belief that this is against God's Will. The Church does not have secular power and it is always at its worst when it does. It's power is found only in the attractiveness of a truth it believes comes from God and written on hearts not in legislation. Such honest debates truly seeking after truth based on reason would allow homosexuals to marry and adopt children, but at the same time would outlaw abortion, open borders, and pornography - based not on religion but natural law, reason, and positive law working together.

At the end of chapter 7 he quotes Stephen Jay Gould and agrees with him that life and human life in particular is randomness and ultimately meaningless. He ten says, "If [Gould] is correct, then the randomness of the universe poses the greatest challenge to human morality." He seems to give short shrift or no thought at all to if Gould is not correct, which I think he painfully obviously is. However, that argument is not to be had here especially because Dershowitz comes to an acceptable conclusion I agree with, "We cannot endure without morality, law, and rights..." Very true. The second half of this quote I am still waiting for him to explain in detail because he says, "...yet they do not exist unless we bring them into existence."

I hypothesize that rights are a social construct begotten by the sole interest of self-preservation - which is the most basic biological instinct
We choose to give up certain liberties in an effort to ensure our own self-preservation

I'm almost done with the book and
I started a post several times. But
I stopped because I didn't know if
it fell within the strict guidelines
FrG laid down. He was, after all,
put in charge of everything by
a god. Or so he was told and
chose to believe.

I can never meet his high standards
so I'll just read others posts and
hope to be enlightened. Who was
I, a mere atheist, to think I could
participate in a thread like this.
Shame on me..

Quote: Evenbob

I'm almost done with the book and
I started a post several times. But
I stopped because I didn't know if
it fell within the strict guidelines
FrG laid down. He was, after all,
put in charge of everything by
a god. Or so he was told and
chose to believe.

I can never meet his high standards
so I'll just read others posts and
hope to be enlightened. Who was
I, a mere atheist, to think I could
participate in a thread like this.
Shame on me..

EB - I welcome your posts - please post your thoughts

Quote: aceofspades

EB - I welcome your posts - please post your thoughts

FrG clearly laid out instructions on
how I should post and what my
content must be. I'll surely screw
up again and be chastised for it.
Not worth the extra time I have
to put in worrying if I'm living
up to his high standards. I
respect the awful burden he
carries, being in charge of
everything. Better him than
me..

Quote: aceofspades

EB - I welcome your posts - please post your thoughts

I agree 100%. I'm not in charge or have any rules. I want to hear your thoughts on the book. If you are going to just be mean or bash religion, we do have other posts for that. But do as you like, one of the fundamental rights we have is freedom.

Quote: FrGamble

If you are going to just be mean or bash religion, we do have other posts for that.

And there you go AGAIN , giving me
instructions on what to post. Have
I ever even once in all the thousands
of posts we exchanged in the last
6 years given you instructions on
what to say and where to say it?
It would never even occur to me
to do so. But you just can't help
yourself, can you. They told you
god put you in charge and you
believed them. That's one of the
reasons my friend Ed left the
priesthood, he saw thru sham
that is the Church.

Oops, sorry, that remark probably
doesn't meet your standards for
this discussion. Oh well..

That's fine, post whatever you want my friend.