• 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!

Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 41.4%
  • No

    Votes: 51 58.6%

  • Total voters
    87

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".

Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.
 
Drat, I intended to make this an open poll. Is there any way to edit it so that people can see who voted for what? I think it makes these threads more interesting.
 
Rights are whatever you can defend, be it through individual strength or collective teamwork.
 
Embarrassing confession time: I have literally no idea why "natural rights" are brought into certain threads when they are.
 
I believe in self ownership.
 
I believe in self ownership.

I believe in the right to fight for 'self-ownership' in the context of your own survival. It is the only right I can think of that cant be taken away from you. The 'will to live' or 'will to survive' is what I'm getting at. Other than that everything is dependent upon your own strength and the intentions of others.
 
Yes, I do. And I also believe in natural lefts.
 
This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".

Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.

The concept of natural rights is that which all living things are granted by nature, or, if you are a 'believer', by God. The implied intention of your existence to live, to breathe, to think, to speak, to hope, to create, to aspire, to strive, to survive--anything that requires no contribution or participation by any other in order for you to have it.

For me to live, to write, to speak my thoughts, to express my belief, to practice my religion, to hold whatever altruistic or bigoted or prejudiced or noble convictions that I hold, require no participation or contribution by any other and therefore were intended by the founders to be my unalienable (i.e. natural) rights to have without interference from any despot, dictator, feudal lord, pope, monarch, or any other authoritarian government.

But. . . .when I CHOOSE to live among and in cooperation with others, I may CHOOSE via social contract for the benefit of all to give up my right to certain liberties. For instance, on my own property on my own private road I can drive as recklessly and as fast as I choose. But on public roads in which all must share as well as share in their creation and upkeep, I agree to the rules of the road intended for the benefit of all.

We get away from the concept of natural rights and social contract, when the strong presume to take property by force from whomever they want and give that property to whomever they want, or afford some favored people privileges that others are denied.
 
This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".

Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.
The entire concept of a "right" is man-made so I don't even think natural rights CAN exist.
 
The entire concept of a "right" is man-made so I don't even think natural rights CAN exist.

Is it? Did man think up the ability to breathe? To think? To hope? To aspire? To defend oneself and/or survive? To do what makes us happy or grateful or satisfied? Or are we born with such traits/ability as human beings without anybody willing that it be so?
 
Is it? Did man think up the ability to breathe? To think? To hope? To aspire? To defend oneself and/or survive? To do what makes us happy or grateful or satisfied? Or are we born with such traits/ability as human beings without anybody willing that it be so?
There is a logical step between everything on earth wanting things and everything on earth being entitled to things.
 
The notion that a god decided we have rights is ridiculous.

An animal or person in the wild has complete freedom to do what they want, whenever they want. When a person agrees to join or remain in a society of any type, they must agree to give up some of their freedom in exchange for the advantages that being a member provides. When that society codifies the restrictions that are imposed on individuals, anything not restricted is something of a "right," until revoked. If the society specifies limits on which individual activities can not be restricted then the rights are more established. But anyway you cut it, the rights comes from the society or the leader(s) of the society. Indifividuals can try to change the rules, ignore the rules and suffer the consequences, or leave the society. Only the last option, leaving the society and losing the privileges it provides, resembles a "natural right" and even that option can be restricted by the society.
 
Is it? Did man think up the ability to breathe? To think? To hope? To aspire? To defend oneself and/or survive? To do what makes us happy or grateful or satisfied? Or are we born with such traits/ability as human beings without anybody willing that it be so?
Man didn't think up any of those things, but he did think up rights, like I said.
 
The notion that a god decided we have rights is ridiculous.

An animal or person in the wild has complete freedom to do what they want, whenever they want. When a person agrees to join or remain in a society of any type, they must agree to give up some of their freedom in exchange for the advantages that being a member provides. When that society codifies the restrictions that are imposed on individuals, anything not restricted is something of a "right," until revoked. If the society specifies limits on which individual activities can not be restricted then the rights are more established. But anyway you cut it, the rights comes from the society or the leader(s) of the society. Indifividuals can try to change the rules, ignore the rules and suffer the consequences, or leave the society. Only the last option, leaving the society and losing the privileges it provides, resembles a "natural right" and even that option can be restricted by the society.

Ahem..just so everyone is aware God is not necessary for the theory.
 
Gravity, mathematics, chemistry, bacteria, the elements all existed long before humankind became aware of them, how they worked, what they were useful for, or that they even existed. No government or person willed them into existence or created them. All government or people did was learn what they are, recognize them, give a name to identify them, and learn the value of them.

It is the same with natural rights. The fact that it took most of the many millennia of civilization before humankind recognized and appreciated and gave a name to natural rights does not mean that they did not always exist. Humankind has always needed food, clothing, shelter and some form of self defense to survive. Humankind has always had a curiosity about the unknown, a desire for love, comfort, pleasure, happiness, and self satisfaction. Nobody had to grant anybody that. It has always existed.
 
Just because evil people and evil governments can take away or restrict natural rights does not mean they do not exist.
 
There is a logical step between everything on earth wanting things and everything on earth being entitled to things.

Entitlement is a manmade concept and is allowed or authorized by human beings. Entitlement requires contribution and/or participation from others.

Natural rights require no contribution or participation by anybody. All that is necessary for natural rights to be respected is non interference by others.
 
Just because evil people and evil governments can take away or restrict natural rights does not mean they do not exist.

But if a right depends upon either your own strength or the sufferance of others in what sense can it be called a right? Moral ideals perhaps, but a right? I just don't see that.
 
Just because evil people and evil governments can take away or restrict natural rights does not mean they do not exist.
If you can take something away, it's not very "inalienable."
 
Ask an actual slave if he disagrees with that sentiment.

Tell me, if no one ever enslaved them what would they be doing more than likely? Also, how do you control the body of another human being?
 
Back
Top Bottom