[extropy-chat] Natural law

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 07:54 AM 10/25/2004 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >Natural Law starts off recognising that all power,
> rights, and
> >responsibility originates in the individual as a
> sovereign entity in a
> >state of nature. There are no societal rights, no
> group rights of any
> >kind.
> 
> And this is where the analysis fails even before it
> kicks into first gear. 
> The proposition is ahistorical and absurd. The worth
> of the individual is a 
> perception or choice that emerged very slowly indeed
> against an absolutely 
> apodictic sense that individuals were role-bearers
> in a small tightly-knit 
> community of people entirely dependent upon each
> other for survival, 
> knitted together by bonds of annual liturgy.

Distinction: the worth of the individual was there
all along, but the *decision and wisdom to recognize
this worth* is a perception or choice that emerged...

If a "natural" right is ignored by others, does it
still exist?  In theory it does - even if it is
rendered mostly meaningless in that (common)
situation.