• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Natural rights

Moot said:
In that context, everything is a man made concept...including God. Does moral law have any meaning to you?
Click to expand...

That depends on how the term 'moral law' is used. However, if you talk about moral law in the context of 'universal and unchanging', then no.
 
Mach said:
No, you're confusing the language.

You effectively cannot plant tomatoes.
You legally maintain the right.
You can seek legal action, or should we say, seek justice, by virtue of your right being violated.

Why is this being questioned, I don't see anything in here controversial, this isn't even about natural rights, jesus!
Click to expand...
My scenario said...
radcen said:
It doesn't have to be a government, it could be your neighbor in a government-less society.

You might have the right to plant tomatoes on your property, but if you're neighbor comes over and beats the crap out of you every time you try, to the point that you are afraid and give up, then your fantasy right is meaningless. You, effectively, no longer have the right to plant tomatoes on your own property.
Click to expand...
...hence there would be no legal recourse possible.

In such a scenario, unless you are able to enforce your rights yourself, your rights are only in your mind.
 
RAMOSS said:
That depends on how the term 'moral law' is used. However, if you talk about moral law in the context of 'universal and unchanging', then no.
Click to expand...

The term moral law used in the context of natural law are ethical principles inherent in human nature and can be understood by reason. The laws of nature are universal and unchanging in the sense that they apply universally to everyone, with or without legal laws...ie: all men are born equal with certain inalienable rights.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
The term moral law used in the context of natural law are ethical principles inherent in human nature and can be understood by reason. The laws of nature are universal and unchanging in the sense that they apply universally to everyone...ie: all men are born equal with certain inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what that philosophy says. Yet.. I don't see any evidence it is anything more than an opinion about 'this is the way things ought to be'.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes, that is what that philosophy says. Yet.. I don't see any evidence it is anything more than an opinion about 'this is the way things ought to be'.
Click to expand...
Positive laws (legal laws) are a man made construct....whereas natural law is inherent in human nature. The basic instinct of self preservation is a natural law...but through reason, mankind learned that self preservation is easier to achieve in a social construct than it is as an individual alone in the wilderness.
 
Moot said:
Positive laws (legal laws) are a man made construct....whereas natural law is inherent in human nature. The basic instinct of self preservation is a natural law...but through reason, man learned that self preservation is easier to achieve in a social construct than it is as an individual alone in the wilderness.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about legal laws. However, I don't see where natural law is anything more than someone's opinion about 'This is the way things ought to be'. When it comes to 'self preservation', I don't see why it should be considered anything more than biology..
 
RAMOSS said:
Where did I say anything about legal laws. However, I don't see where natural law is anything more than someone's opinion about 'This is the way things ought to be'. When it comes to 'self preservation', I don't see why it should be considered anything more than biology..
Click to expand...

You didn't...I did. There are two of us in this conversation but you only seem interested in your opinion which seems to be based solely on the premise that what you don't see or didn't say, therefore doesn't exist.
 
radcen said:
It doesn't have to be a government, it could be your neighbor in a government-less society.

You might have the right to plant tomatoes on your property, but if you're neighbor comes over and beats the crap out of you every time you try, to the point that you are afraid and give up, then your fantasy right is meaningless. You, effectively, no longer have the right to plant tomatoes on your own property.
Click to expand...

thats known as anarchy.
 
AlbqOwl said:
A family on its own braves the dangers of the unknown and reaches an unpopulated and unclaimed tract of land on the prairie with no other humans within a hundred miles. He sets up a homestead and farms the land. The only 'government' that exists for that family are the rules set by the adults of the family and the expectations the members put on each other.

A second family moves into the area and there is sharing back and forth, mutual management of livestock, etc. And there is an understanding that each will respect the other's property, and help the other out when needed. This is the beginning of social contract.

As more farmers and ranchers move into the area they also work things out with their neighbors and become part of the informal social contract

Finally there are enough people to support a general store selling groceries, feed, fabric, tools, etc. Then a blacksmith sets up shop. Somebody opens a small café. And a town is created that attracts merchants delivering products and wares to the businesses and there is a market for a small hotel and livery stable.

But with increased population comes some increased mischief and a lure for thieves and such. As a practical matter, the towns folks and farmers get together and agree to hire a town constable to check on properties and deal with trouble makers. Then they form a volunteer fire department. In time the town grows to where a shared water system becomes prudent. They work out a system of shared roads. And they mutually agree to hire a mayor to oversee and manage the shared services and a clerk to receive the necessary revenues, register deeds to properties, issue marriage licenses, etc. A judge is elected to settle suits and hear legal proceedings.

All this is done by social contract; i.e. a mutual agreement by which a society organizes itself and conducts its affairs. The government is fully the servant of and responsive to the needs of the people and does not have authority to make things happen on its own. In time the town would be incorporated and become part of the larger network of communities and the state.

When American government at the federal, state, and local level operated under the social contract concept--the Constitution for instance was a social contract for the mutual benefit of all--the government recognized and protected, as much as it could, the people's natural rights. And the government did not tread on those rights.

But once the government was seen as its own entity and was allowed authority to pick winners and losers, favor one group over another, and make laws those in government wanted to have, we have had increasing violations of our natural rights ever since. If the trend continues, we will be just another European country where the government assigns the people whatever rights it wants them to have and the people have little or no say at all in that.
Click to expand...

:)

read the south african constitution which was rewritten, it basically says you have free speech until you piss someone off.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes, that is what that philosophy says. Yet.. I don't see any evidence it is anything more than an opinion about 'this is the way things ought to be'.
Click to expand...
You aren't in a vacuum, you are a biological organism living in a complex ecosystem. In reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

Some people accept that as a species we each want to live, and this is evidenced not just by a survey, but well studied behavior not just in humans, but in nearly all life.
As such, life is recognized by people who observe reality, to be something that we want. And to exist at all, is something we REQUIRE, logically.

When organized in a hierarchy of needs, it's at the top.
You can survive without water for a time, but you cannot survive if you are dead.
Substitute water for other notions of "right to", and you can see that all of these FIRST require the condition that you remain ALIVE, not dead.

This right to life is by virtue of being human, logically necessary for survival, and for the exercise of any and all other "rights".

So given that it results from evolutionary adaptation, we term it "natural".

I'm really surprised this is being quibbled about. Yes, a natural right doesn't EXIST the way a rock exists, it's a relationship, like mathematics, and in any reasonable system of language we use to talk about these things, it's true.

It's not "ought to be", it's logically MUST BE.

You cannot enjoy a right to an attorney if you are dead, that's not an ought.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes, that is what that philosophy says. Yet.. I don't see any evidence it is anything more than an opinion about 'this is the way things ought to be'.
Click to expand...
Precisely. Wishful thinking, essentially.


ernst barkmann said:
thats known as anarchy.
Click to expand...
Right, but the way some portray it, "natural rights" exist regardless.
 
ernst barkmann said:
:)

read the south african constitution which was rewritten, it basically says you have free speech until you piss someone off.
Click to expand...

I believe it. Of course we have had that concept in practice here in the USA for some time now.
 
radcen said:
Never said or insinuated it was just. It just is.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely the point that is avoided. Rights do speak to just acts and limitations of force against the individual. Everyone knows force exists, but just because one exercises force over another doesn't mean that the force is just and that a person must accept it. Might makes right is a broken philosophy that doesn't recognize the basic equality of humans.
 
Mach said:
You aren't in a vacuum, you are a biological organism living in a complex ecosystem. In reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

Some people accept that as a species we each want to live, and this is evidenced not just by a survey, but well studied behavior not just in humans, but in nearly all life.
As such, life is recognized by people who observe reality, to be something that we want. And to exist at all, is something we REQUIRE, logically.

When organized in a hierarchy of needs, it's at the top.
You can survive without water for a time, but you cannot survive if you are dead.
Substitute water for other notions of "right to", and you can see that all of these FIRST require the condition that you remain ALIVE, not dead.

This right to life is by virtue of being human, logically necessary for survival, and for the exercise of any and all other "rights".

So given that it results from evolutionary adaptation, we term it "natural".

I'm really surprised this is being quibbled about. Yes, a natural right doesn't EXIST the way a rock exists, it's a relationship, like mathematics, and in any reasonable system of language we use to talk about these things, it's true.

It's not "ought to be", it's logically MUST BE.

You cannot enjoy a right to an attorney if you are dead, that's not an ought.
Click to expand...


Then, using that , I can make an argument that is totally opposite of what your initial claim was. A life belongs to the society. If you look at bees, and ants, the workers and soldiers give their life for the queen. So, there must be total obedience to society, and no freedom at all.

Or, might makes right. The strongest and biggest male controls all the females, and all the other males.

So far, you haven't shown any argument more than 'THis is how it should be', and rationalize it with 'natural law', without anything to show that it is more than opinion.
 
Mach said:
You aren't in a vacuum, you are a biological organism living in a complex ecosystem. In reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

Some people accept that as a species we each want to live, and this is evidenced not just by a survey, but well studied behavior not just in humans, but in nearly all life.
As such, life is recognized by people who observe reality, to be something that we want. And to exist at all, is something we REQUIRE, logically.

When organized in a hierarchy of needs, it's at the top.
You can survive without water for a time, but you cannot survive if you are dead.
Substitute water for other notions of "right to", and you can see that all of these FIRST require the condition that you remain ALIVE, not dead.

This right to life is by virtue of being human, logically necessary for survival, and for the exercise of any and all other "rights".

So given that it results from evolutionary adaptation, we term it "natural".

I'm really surprised this is being quibbled about. Yes, a natural right doesn't EXIST the way a rock exists, it's a relationship, like mathematics, and in any reasonable system of language we use to talk about these things, it's true.

It's not "ought to be", it's logically MUST BE.

You cannot enjoy a right to an attorney if you are dead, that's not an ought.
Click to expand...

No, it's not what logically MUST BE.

What it is is that a bunch of us fought for "rights" and we ASSUME that, for no discernible reason, every other person in the world would universally fight for the same rights.

It uses the possibility of such universal/natural desire for such freedom as the case for proof. There is no evidence that can articulate that the laws do or do not exist. Basically, it says people will fight back if you abuse them. It's not a universal constant, it's a genetically conditioned reflex.

But, you know, whatever...
 
radcen said:
Right, but the way some portray it, "natural rights" exist regardless.
Click to expand...

That's the biggest problem right there, the people who pretend that "natural rights" are magical things that float around in the ether and exist whether anyone knows they're there or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom