Defeding Inalienable Rights: a Crisis of Philosophy (We are unable to defend 'natural rights')

Excellent Debate! (I apologize for the slow start!!!) Let it Begin! My task appears to be twofold: (1) prove the existence of Natural-Rights, and; (2) show the fallaciousness of PRO's -shall I say- Lament? The first task I have given myself is the least difficult, and perhaps is even given by PRO. Natural-Rights are -well- natural. Because I am here in the world, being both conscious and imbued with intentionality (indisputable), I have a borne obligation unto myself; as John Stuart Mill declared: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" [1]. This is the 'original-position' of Natural-Rights - self-sovereignty. One CANNOT eliminate the existence of self sovereignty for the following reasons: -consciousness and intentionality (which are the constituent components of self-sovereignty) are irreducible. Even if we describe what consciousness IS (chemical interaction, what-have-you) or what intentionality IS (deterministic 'about-ness') we have NOT eliminated their existence, nor what they entail -being- self-sovereignty. For example you could describe what LOVE is: a series of certain chemical interactions caused by various events, thoughts, other persons, ect. HOWEVER, in describing the composition of love you do not remove the feeling - the 'essence' of the experience. It is still there, it cannot be displaced even if one foolishly reduces it down to chemicals. From our Original-Position of Self-Sovereignty we can begin to see the formation of additional Natural-Rights. If I am obligated to myself then I have a Right to continue my own existence - I have a Right to self-preservation, self-defense. In addition, through my own labor I can create VALUE in the world. In the words of John Locke: "He hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property" [2]. Through what I have shown we arrive at the proverbial maxim that oft constitutes an understanding of Natural-Rights - that man has the Right to 'Life, Liberty, and Property'. These values are intrinsic, inalienable, indubitable; their value is first to themselves, they cannot be reduced nor transfered - they are Natural-Rights and to deny their existence is to deny your own existence; one cannot ever logically declare that, "I do not Exist" (feel free to say it, but it is gibberish). ---------This brings us to my second task ---------- My second task is to remove a cumbersome and misguided categorical error. That error is the notion that the sometimes undefendable nature of Rights makes them somehow less valuable, or less real, or less 'natural'. The most critical error PRO makes is that he confuses the defense of Rights as being a conflict as to their authenticity (that is, if we fail in our defense of them they cease to exist or be valid), with the truthful view that defense of Rights is about defending an addition premise - RECOGNITION of Rights. When I defend my Natural-Rights I am not defending their validity - I am defending their acceptability - that is, whether or not a government or society actually recognizes my Rights. PRO uses the phrase "devaluing human life", I like this phrase, but it points out a deep contradiction within his line of thought; to devalue life is to ignore its basic Rights - not eliminate them. Rights are always 'inherent' - the problem is (which PRO definitely touches but misinterprets) is whether or not the Rights are realized. PRO somewhat realizes, and is correct in doing so - that some form of Mutual understanding or Compact (in PRO's language 'social-contract', a term I refuse to use - I prefer the term 'Compact' meaning 'a formation of') is required to fully realize Rights. But again it must NOT be confused that if we fail to defend Rights on a social or governmental level, they do not cease to exist - they have simply been ignored. I hope I have provided a sufficient and coherent argument - but it is obviously NOT up to me to make such a decision - let the contentions be raised!!! Thanx; Remi ---------------------------------------------- [1] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998. [2] Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Ed. C. B. Macpherson. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc, 1980.