tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4521859499966318420.post7860032151563254702..comments2023-10-26T06:03:17.453-06:00Comments on Corktageous: Natural Rights ExplainedCorkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08372281253122798100noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4521859499966318420.post-9079441390288291202010-03-28T12:35:41.815-06:002010-03-28T12:35:41.815-06:00Hello.
I managed to find your blog article while...Hello. <br /><br />I managed to find your blog article while researching answers to the post by JBollstrom. While I would love to agree with you and the likes of Rand, etc in the existence of "natural rights" I still find the same failure to explain where it's objective authority comes from. Of course I assert values myself in everyday life, as does everyone even those so-called "nihilists". <br /><br />However I would feel like a hypocrite if I rejected the notion of God and at the same time accepted via faith the existence of "natural" rights. So far I see morality as subjective, so where does the actual authority lay in a godless world? Nature cannot assert rights. It reveals processes but they have no moral meaning. To me all of these Randian arguments stem from an "appeal of consequence"; a logical fallacy. Where am I wrong? <br /><br />Thanks for the article though, in spite of my criticisms. It still presents an opening for dialogue about something so essential for everyone.Robert86https://www.blogger.com/profile/07399340685632529674noreply@blogger.com