Natural Rights as conceived are no different than the ten commandments, there is no known or conceivable scientific methodology in which to discover them, their limits or their origins.
Pretty ignorant statement if you ask me. You have to know the history to understand. See they didn’t have Darwin back then so theism seemed a bit more reasonable. It arose in opposition to the divide right of kings in that environment. They believed mountains and oceans were created by God too so of course they would attribute natural right to a god. Natural rights theory has advanced a bit since then, however even back then it meant universal and non-arbitrary rights.
So when you claim there are no natural rights you are making the claim that there are no universal and non-arbitrary rights.
Are you claiming that you have no natural right not to be murdered?
I won’t get into a discussion of how these rights arose because that’s beyond your pay scale at this point.
So they exist the same as religious proclamations in that they are unfalsifiable and therefore strictly anti-science.
Actually, no. The arose through common law, which has it’s own rules but is quite similar to the way science operates.
One can falsify them. How about you set up a society where murder and slavery is allowed, property rights are not respected, free speech, and self defense disallowed. Then I’ll set up where natural rights are protected, and we’ll see which does better. Of course we don’t have to actually set up an artificial experiment when we can examine what happens in nature. Turns out that North Korea isn’t doing so well.
Inalienable rights are simply imaginary because they have no corollary in any animal ethology let alone a theorematic explanation of how such rights came to exist out of the blue only in a single species.
A clueless statement. You don’t know what was meant by inalienable do you? Go ahead look it up on the internet and get back to us.
Do you believe your right not to be murdered is alienable?
“Sam has shown that morality has been inborn genetically for some time and has the research chomps to prove it.”
Oh please. That only supports the notion of natural rights, because the reasoning goes, “Man has a nature ... therefore ...”.
There is zero data on the existence of natural rights yet every libertarian on this site believes them without fail.
Just because there is zero data between your ears doesn’t mean the same is true of everyone else.
How can anyone who claim to be a skeptic also claim that NR exist?
Because there is credible evidence that natural rights do exist.
Looking over these forums and the massive libertarian circljerking, it amazes me how people can be so unaware of their fallacious reasoning when the only thing they can hear over irrationally shouting down those who disagree with them is constant regurgitation of the same trite tropes and tricks of true believers to keep everyone in line.
Sounds like what you are doing actually. Your argument about natural rights is very old hat.
I’ll take my social contract, with all its attendant flaws over imaginary natural rights any day.
I never signed a social contract. Talk about imaginary.