From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 20:45:52 MST
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> gts wrote
>
> "Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into
> the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty
> of
> moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal
> liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary
> for
> his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE
> 1:376
>
> Thanks for that! It perfectly illustrates the error unmistakably.
>
> It is patently false that humans are born free or with a
> right to his or her own person.
Well, then, Sheeeeaaat! Lee, why don't you mosey on over here so's I
kin clap you in some chains. I 'bin in need of a good slave for a while
now, seein' as how buying power has eroded so much of late. I shorely
could use an extra set of hands workin' on my behalf.
>
> Mike Lorrey writes
>
> > > Mike explains
> > > >
> > > > The deist view is essentially that Natural Law
> > > > is Objective Truth, embedded in the structure
> > > > and function of the universe, and exhibited
> > > > in our daily lives by much more than gravity
> > > > and relativistic effects, but also biological
> > > > evolution and the development of intelligence
> > > > and individualistic generalist organisms such
> > > > as ourselves.
> > >
> > > Oh! It suddenly dawns on me that you are explaining what
> > > natural laws are, as, for example, Newton's. Well, of course
> > > they exist! They are objective constraints on what can happen
> > > in our universe. They are patterns that were here before us
> > > and (heaven forbid) will be there after us.
> >
> > Yet the deist/Natural Rightist sees no difference or delamination
> > between Natural Law i.e. the laws of physics, and the Natural
> Rights of
> > Man.
>
> Evidently not! As the Jefferson quote above perhaps illustrates.
Evidently so.
>
> > Our Natural Rights evolve specifically out of our evolution, via
> > natural selection, as individualistic social primates with an
> > inclination toward tool invention and use and exploration of new
> > habitat.
>
> It really surprises me that a number of distinguished
> thinkers can believe in such a thing given the modern
> discoveries in so many branches of science, but especially
> anthropology. You're quite clear and correct about
> "individualistic social primates with an inclination
> toward tool invention", but what has this to do with
> rights?
Natural Rights are those legal liberties which the evolutionary history
of human culture has demonstrated provide superior selection, survival,
of both the individual and the society in which the individual resides.
Human history is a record of this cultural evolutionary process: those
less free have less survivability, and their cultures are less likely
to survive, and those who are more free have greater survivability.
This survivability is a consequence of the human animal's naturally
evolved characteristics. For example, when we speak of the natural
rights to keep and bear arms, and to defend oneself, one's family,
property, and nation, we can follow all the way back to Aristotle a
scientific recognition that societies which recognised this right had
greater survivability (as did the individuals who exercised these
rights). Weapons, as tools wielded by a technological primate with a
hand with an opposable thumb, are the natural right of those primates
to create, own, and use.
Similarly, technology in general is the natural right of those primates
to create, own, and use, free of interference. These include cloning,
stem cells, cryonics, AI, space technology, nanotech, etc.
>
> > Transhumanism is a further development of this Enlightenment
> > philosophy. As Greg Burch and Max More have previous said, we
> > see ourselves as a more honest and consistent evolution of the
> > Enlightenment philosophers than modern humanists and self-described
> > liberals, much as we see the US revolution as a more honest
> > expression of that philosophy than the French Revolution.
>
> I could agree more, but not by much. What the Enlightenment
> philosophers achieved in my book is they described the ideas
> (notions) that were being developed in their times, consciously
> or unconsciously, and expressed two important other things:
> One, that they highly approved of these new views, and that
> two, such assumptions embodied into habit and legal precedent
> *worked*, i.e., made societies more prosperous and resourceful.
But WHY did they make societies more prosperous and resourceful if it
were not a matter of them being in greater agreement with the Objective
Truth embedded into the warp and weave of the universe?
The Enlightenment philosophers saw themselves first as scientists, for
they saw no delineation between scientists and philosophy, and both
existed to serve and demonstrate the validity of the deist God and his
wisdom in constructing such a universe. Our place in that universe is
to discover the Objective Truth of Natural Law through the use of
science and technology, and in the end to use that knowledge to reach
the Omega Point.
>
> > Both modern humanism/liberalism and the French Revolution
> > tread down paths to tyranny, genocide, dehumanization of
> > the individual, and pastoral romanticism/mysticism.
>
> Well, their hearts are in the right place, and that's
> one of the most important things to them.
Which has nothing to do with Enlightenment philosophy.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST