God is love. God is just. God is merciful.

[genkaus]

The existence of slavery and prisons through the ages show that liberty isn't a fundamental human need.

No, they don't. The denial of a need being met is not evidence regarding anything about its nature.

Regarding legitimate human needs, how do you objectively prove that all people have a right to have those needs met?

Why would I have to prove anything of the sort? Just because you have a need - fundamental or otherwise - doesn't mean you are entitled to having those needs met.

[John V]

No, they don't. The denial of a need being met is not evidence regarding anything about its nature.

Yes, it is. Air, water and food are fundamental human needs because humans can't live without them. Things which we don't need to survive are not fundamental human needs.

Why would I have to prove anything of the sort?

Because you said, "the fundamental rights derive their legitimacy from these needs which is why they are objective."

Just because you have a need - fundamental or otherwise - doesn't mean you are entitled to having those needs met.

Then why do you say that fundamental rights derive their legitimacy from fundamental needs?

[genkaus]

Yes, it is. Air, water and food are fundamental human needs because humans can't live without them. Things which we don't need to survive are not fundamental human needs.

First of all, you can deny someone air, water and food - that doesn't mean those things aren't fundamental human needs. The same way you can deny someone their liberty, that doesn't mean liberty isn't a fundamental need.

Secondly, fundamental to life and fundamental to survival are two different concepts.

Because you said, "the fundamental rights derive their legitimacy from these needs which is why they are objective."

And I didn't say that those rights serve the purpose of fulfilling those needs.

Then why do you say that fundamental rights derive their legitimacy from fundamental needs?

Because they provide a framework for the fulfillment of those needs.

[John V]

First of all, you can deny someone air, water and food - that doesn't mean those things aren't fundamental human needs.

Yes, I noted that those things are fundamental human needs myself.

The same way you can deny someone their liberty, that doesn't mean liberty isn't a fundamental need.

No, it's not the same at all. Withhold air, water or food long enough and the person dies. Withhold liberty, and the person continues to live.

Secondly, fundamental to life and fundamental to survival are two different concepts.

How so, and which are you using?

And I didn't say that those rights serve the purpose of fulfilling those needs.

OK, what is the purpose of those rights?

Maybe it would be easier if you'd use specific laws as requested.

Because they provide a framework for the fulfillment of those needs.

How do you prove that this framework is the objectively correct one to use? As I said earlier, "Even if you use some objective framework, the choice of that framework over others was ultimately subjective."

[Jacob(smooth)]

Bullshit. By no stretch of the imagination is "liberty" a fundamental human need. Nor is it objective come to that. I don't have liberty to stand in the street and shout profanity at the top of my lungs. Does that mean I don't have liberty?

You don't need imagination to identify the needs, you need research. Which has been done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs

FYI, you do have the liberty to stand in the street and shout profanity at the top of your lungs where I live. Where do you live?

Do you? I really, really doubt that.

But that's sort of the point. We're disagreeing about it. That means it's not objective. Besides which liberty is not a law, it's a principle. All societies curb freedom. You don't have freedom to not pay taxes, or to steal from people, or to cross borders without documents.

The things in that "research" Are not objective needs. They are nice things to have in that persons opinion.

[genkaus]

Yes, I noted that those things are fundamental human needs myself.

And your reasoning there contradicts your assertion that "slavery and prison disprove liberty as a fundamental need".

No, it's not the same at all. Withhold air, water or food long enough and the person dies. Withhold liberty, and the person continues to live.

Actually, a person can survive without food and water as well - put him in a coma and hook him up to an IV drip.

How so, and which are you using?

Human life requires more than basic animal survival.

OK, what is the purpose of those rights?

Already answered.

Maybe it would be easier if you'd use specific laws as requested.

How do you prove that this framework is the objectively correct one to use? As I said earlier, "Even if you use some objective framework, the choice of that framework over others was ultimately subjective."

Because it maximizes the possibility of fulfillment of those needs.

---

Do you? I really, really doubt that.

Why, where do you live that you cannot shout profanities in the middle of the street?

But that's sort of the point. We're disagreeing about it. That means it's not objective.

Wrong. Like I said before, disagreement is not a basis to judge the objectivity of a thing. We can disagree about the length of the board - doesn't mean its length is subjective.

Besides which liberty is not a law, it's a principle. All societies curb freedom. You don't have freedom to not pay taxes, or to steal from people, or to cross borders without documents.

I didn't cite liberty as a law - I cited it as the basis for objective laws. And your arguments about "curbing freedom" betrays a limited understanding of the principle. Don't equate the concept of liberty with "absolute, unrestricted freedom to do anything you want".

The things in that "research" Are not objective needs. They are nice things to have in that persons opinion.

According to his research, those things are ontological human needs, i.e. "stemming from the condition of being human". Which makes them objective.

[RobbyPants]

These are claims that the bible and quran make, right? But the ations of this god don't seem to line up with most modern audience's opinion of those words. If he was just a person, and did the kind of things to other people that he does in the bible, he'd be called evil. I have been told that he's not a person, yet if we can't compare him to anything, how do we tell he is good?

Simple: you define anything God does as "good" and say that he has a different set of rules, cuz reasons. This is why I've basically given up discussing the "morality" of God with theists. There's not really much discussion to be had.

One thing I've learned in all of my discussions is that in Christian morality, the actions one takes are less important than who that actor is. For example: take the killing of babies:

Skeptic: When God flooded the world, his goal was to punish the wicked, yet he killed countless babies.

Christian: God created humans, therefore he can kill them. Also, the babies are now in heaven, so they're better off, anyway.


and


Christian: Abortion is murder!

Skeptic: Don't the babies end up in heaven? Aren't they better off?

Christian: Who are you to play God?!

---

It has nothing to do with actions. Christian morality follows two rules:

1) God does whatever he wants.

2) You do what God tells you and swear an oath of fealty to his son, or he'll torture you for infinity years (see rule #1).

[John V]

Actually, a person can survive without food and water as well - put him in a coma and hook him up to an IV drip.

I take it now that you're just trolling.

[Chad32]

Yeah, it boggles the mind how people think Yahweh is good, despite his actions. Except that cultures will make people suffer and die if they don't tow the line, so they need to make up excuses if they're going to get along reasonably with other christians. Though that depends on how hardcore you are. It's no wonder people compare christians to abused spouses sometimes. Abused brides of christ.

As for the basic Human need thing, if you'd die within a week if you didn't get it, it's a need. IV drips are the equivalent of food, since the point of eating food is gaining nutrients. Also you do need socialization and sensory input, since if you stick a person in a sensory deprivation room by themselves, they break down mentally pretty fast. The latter part does require a certain amount of liberty.

[Jacob(smooth)]

As for the basic Human need thing, if you'd die within a week if you didn't get it, it's a need. IV drips are the equivalent of food, since the point of eating food is gaining nutrients. Also you do need socialization and sensory input, since if you stick a person in a sensory deprivation room by themselves, they break down mentally pretty fast.

Yep, those sound like needs to me. You can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty what will happen if someone does not have those things, irrespective of society or expectation.

Human life requires more than basic animal survival.

Nope. Life by the biological definition is synonymous with survival.