It was hardly considerate of me as one of the hosts here to post something like this and then go offline for over a week, bu that’s the way things turned out. Rather than reply to each comment, I’ll address various bits and pieces in one longish response. Before I commence that, I would like to say to everyone participating that I very much appreciate the tone of the conversation—for the most part it’s been respectful and civil.

Okay, the easy part’s over ... now to the main course.

From Suverans2:

Justified – necessary, defensible, right, acceptable, reasonable, warranted – Source Microsoft Word2000 Synonyms

Reasonable is probably a good yardstick here. Would you consider it "reasonable" for someone to kill you because you didn't show them enough respect? Do you think it would be "reasonable" for someone to kill you, particularly as a "baby", just because you wouldn't stop crying?

"As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

I’m pretty sure all of us reading this know what “justified” means, thanks. And if not, dictionaries and such are just a couple of clicks away.

Regarding the more substantive items, I do not think killing under those conditions would be reasonable—but such killings have happened. And that was the entirety of my point in bringing up the examples. Your closing quote is an older formulation of how I began my penultimate paragraph, so I’m not sure why you thought it needed to be said again.

More from Robert:

You inadvertently left off my i.e., which means,"that is to say", Sunni.

Um, no, I didn’t; and I do know what the abbreviation means.

Robert: The "right to life" does not refer to a right to everlasting life, i.e. that you won't die from a deadly virus, a mountain lion attack, or even from another human attacking you…

Sunni: “I don’t recall insinuating that the phrase did.”

Robert: I believe you did insinuate that, Sunni.

I can understand how someone might infer that from the words, but that was not what I intended to communicate. Going back to an earlier exchange, I thought I’d made my meaning clear: you had commented that the phrase communicates a belief that one has an essential right to live; and I responded that it is not a universal belief.

From Brian:

Poppycock, I say! Moral theories are presented all the time, often haphazardly. There's a reason why, of course, it's probably the most directly practical and derived of the philosophical fields. Everyone except for sociopaths knows they need it and though usually not in a fully conscious from first principle up to individuated instance sort of way they formulate their own codes. Often it is simply what works practically.

Ah, okay; we had differing contexts in mind, then.

From PintofStout:

When the balance of power between entities appears to be nearly equal or not so biased as to reduce the risk of conflict then morals dictate the interaction. If that balance of power is skewed, the moral basis (rights and such) matters not.

Very interesting ideas in your commentary, PofS; I for one would like to see you expand upon them at your place once you’ve the time for it. For now, I’ll focus on the bit I pulled out. When morals are not highly congruent between the parties, the flimsy nature of rights becomes evident. As an example, honor killings are still acceptable in some societies, but not in others.

Pagan contributed:

I see “rights” – to life, liberty and property – as an individual assertion of defiance against any group (including society itself) that expects everyone to think and act the same way.

Thank you very much for your thought-provoking post. From your context I see the concept in a new light—one I could value deeply. But again, that perspective is far removed from the current conceptualization of rights.

Brian again:

This:
"But such killings happen every day, do they not? And I would daresay that what one person considers “warrantable cause”—He was raping my child; She was having sex with a man not her husband; He didn’t show me enough respect; The baby just wouldn’t stop crying!; She brought shame upon our family—another will not."
seems to implicitly assert that an objective reference to reason is impossible with regards the ethical nature of a given act. I don't see as you're actually saying such but it could be inferred from that.

Yes, it could; but I was not saying nor implying that. My point was mostly to highlight that other societies have differing views of what can justify killing another—and with that frame of reference, the baby example doesn’t belong. Sorry about the sloppiness.

Suverans2 wrote:

Although I perceive that what you state there is true, we should not confuse "can" with "may". "We can do whatever we want, within the bounds of the physical world of course" but we "may" only do what the [sic] laws permit.

I am not going to wander off into the thicket of law here; I see that as another mental shortcut that has led many, many individuals very far astray.

Jeremy contributed:

The bottom line is that if you rely on a third party for your freedom, you're not very free, and rights have no meaning if they do not invite enforcement (if you're just going to defend your own interests, you can do that without rights, and I am starting to retool my approach towards this anyway).

Again very well said! I'll be ripping off your essay posting something similar in the not too distant future, I hope.

Thanks for registering and sharing your thoughts! Given the response my ramble has generated, I’m sure your contributions to the exploration will shed more light on our perspective than mine apparently has. I look forward to seeing your ideas. I deeply enjoy—and get a lot of value from—exploring these mental shortcuts, but doing so typically leads me into territory most others don’t seem to grok or like.

While waiting for the deeper exposition, I’ll just wonder aloud why we refer to others as “third parties” and not “second parties” ...

From selylidne:

Other humans have a moral obligation not to murder you. That is your right to life.

When and how did that develop? I’m not being flip in asking. Since you distinguished mountain lions as in a different class from humans, yet we are animals also—albeit very different ones, since we are thinking animals—I can’t help but wonder when in our ancestral past we crossed some line that put upon us obligations that other animals do not have.

Does our capacity to think really change all the rules of the game, so to speak? (I’m wondering out loud again, and that is probably an exploration better saved for another time, but anyone who wants to answer briefly and generally is welcome to do so.)

Thanks for joining the conversation, Gabe.

Regarding PofS’s and Brian’s exploration of natural rights, I will only say, please continue. PofS has focused on an area I have long wondered about, but have not done any serious/formal reading or exploration into; thus I think it best I stay out of the subthread for the most part.

To conclude, then. Mama Liberty and PofS have restated my position most clearly: “NO guarantees of any kind exist”; “I hold no illusion such that everybody truly believes in the sanctity of Natural Rights but some are simply worse than others at the execution of this ethical doctrine.” The concept of natural rights has much more value to me than all the modern, often state-based claptrap chewed over so much in political and social commentary, but it also is a mental shortcut that, while it may work well in a peaceful society where it is at least implicitly accepted, it is still a “warm fuzzy”, as I believe Jeremy put it. Under less optimal conditions, one sees the wishful thinking behind the concept much more clearly—and we may experience some of that here, if economic conditions continue to deteriorate and more Americans recognize the chimera of political leadership as realized in the USSA. As Heinlein put it, I think our society is on a cusp ... but few apparently recognize that and are going to the bottom of the pool.