• 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
You don't understand the concept of evidence.

Ok, so who possesses and controls your body besides you? This should be fun..
 
We will just have to agree to disagree I guess. Because I agree with the Founders 100% when it come to the concept of natural rights.

No, I don't think you do. They weren't equating rights to physical laws or anything like that. They were saying that rights don't come from kings. They were advocating a better society, not magic.
 
No, I don't think you do. They weren't equating rights to physical laws or anything like that. They were saying that rights don't come from kings. They were advocating a better society, not magic.

Actually, many of the founders did in fact believe in natural rights and were in fact advocating they be supported by the new government. Saying something like the man that finds the acorn in the woods has a rightful claim to it is advocating an ethical principle. Why would anyone else have a rightful claim to it? Because they want it?
 
Ask an actual slave if he disagrees with that sentiment.

I'd be willing to wager that actual slaves had a very real problem with being slaves.....even those whom were utterly uneducated and totally ignorant of any theory of rights probably had the distinct feeling of being treated contrary to what they felt they were entitled to.
 
Ok, so who possesses and controls your body besides you? This should be fun..

Again, I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. Get to work.
 
No, I don't think you do. They weren't equating rights to physical laws or anything like that. They were saying that rights don't come from kings. They were advocating a better society, not magic.

and yet they based the US Constitution .. Supreme law of the land.. on certain natural rights (as well as legal rights)
 
Again, I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. Get to work.

Just answer the question. :lol:
 
and yet they based the US Constitution .. Supreme law of the land.. on certain natural rights (as well as legal rights)

Name one natural right in the constitution. Also, if it were natural, wouldn't it not need to be in the constitution? If we had a natural right to free speech, wouldn't we not need the first amendment? And if we do need the first amendment to have that right, then it's a right we created, and has nothing to do with nature.

I return to my original test. Please demonstrate some method for determining what is or is not a natural right.
 
Name one natural right in the constitution. Also, if it were natural, wouldn't it not need to be in the constitution? If we had a natural right to free speech, wouldn't we not need the first amendment? And if we do need the first amendment to have that right, then it's a right we created, and has nothing to do with nature.
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

our government was set up to protect rights... so it makes perfect sense that rights are enumerated in the Constitution (the inclusion of the 9th amendment provides protections against the arguments provided to NOT enumerate rights)

I return to my original test. Please demonstrate some method for determining what is or is not a natural right.
well, for me, such a test would comprise of reflecting whether or not a right is dependent on an external authority.
take the right to vote... without an external authority, the right to vote is rather absent.... the entire mechanism wouldn't exist.. it's entirely dependent on that external authority.
now take speech... does it take an external authority to permit you to feel entitlement to express yourself though speech?... or are naturally entitled to speak your mind due to your humanity?

that's not to say such rights can't be violated... they surely can... and the person that has their right violated surely understands that something is wrong when that happens ( which further points to the existence of natural rights)

property is an easy one to demonstrate.... simply go take a toy from a toddler and you'll be able to tell immediately what that lil human feels naturally entitled to:lol:
 
You should already know my answer.

Blind faith? That seems to be all you've got, that's why people laugh at libertarianism.
 
The only natural 'right' I believe exists is the right to do whatever you want until something else stops you. This is the only 'right' that seems to be universal throughout nature, rather than something made up by humans, that applies only to humans.

For example, a lion has a right to eat an antelope, unless the antelope is fast enough to get away.
 
Blind faith? That seems to be all you've got, that's why people laugh at libertarianism.

Yes, it's just blind faith that makes me recognize that I am in control over my own body. :roll:
 
Blind faith? That seems to be all you've got, that's why people laugh at libertarianism.

it seems to me you people are laughing at the United States, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, the social contract, Abolitionists,etc etc... and about 2000 years of philosophers whom have developed an understanding of rights.
 
No, but society needs to believe in it for its own good.
 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

our government was set up to protect rights... so it makes perfect sense that rights are enumerated in the Constitution (the inclusion of the 9th amendment provides protections against the arguments provided to NOT enumerate rights)

I'm all about unenumerated rights.

well, for me, such a test would comprise of reflecting whether or not a right is dependent on an external authority.
take the right to vote... without an external authority, the right to vote is rather absent.... the entire mechanism wouldn't exist.. it's entirely dependent on that external authority.
now take speech... does it take an external authority to permit you to feel entitlement to express yourself though speech?... or are naturally entitled to speak your mind due to your humanity?

I don't think rights have anything to do with feeling entitled to things. Plenty of people feel entitled to things that society doesn't determine people should have a right to. And it certainly takes external force to ensure that you aren't prevented from speaking your mind. I would call that community and society rather than authority. I don't think that rights are handed down from above, but are secured by a people. That takes a group. The only time when you can really claim rights without group consensus is if you are completely alone.

that's not to say such rights can't be violated... they surely can... and the person that has their right violated surely understands that something is wrong when that happens ( which further points to the existence of natural rights)

It seems rather egocentric to suggest that every past society had these rights but they were being violated constantly, and that future societies won't have rights that we've never dreamed of. It also suggests that we are progressing towards some perfect society that was predetermined by nature, rather than improving upon and replacing flawed human constructs. Neither of those ideas seem at all reasonable.

property is an easy one to demonstrate.... simply go take a toy from a toddler and you'll be able to tell immediately what that lil human feels naturally entitled to:lol:

Again, rights are not about feelings. Rights are about not stopping people from doing things or empowering people to do things.

Ultimately, if nature granted us rights, they would apply in circumstances besides just human interaction. A hungry lion is never going to respect your right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. But other people will. People create rights. Each society creates its own rights.
 
it seems to me you people are laughing at the United States, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, the social contract, Abolitionists,etc etc... and about 2000 years of philosophers whom have developed an understanding of rights.

When there are irrational claims made about those things, yes. There are a lot of people, particularly libertarians, who treat all of those things as though they were magic. They're not. There isn't an "understanding" of rights, there are simply claims made about rights. We have to go and look at those particular claims and see if they stand up rationally and logically. Most of the time, they don't. That doesn't stop rights from existing, it just means they aren't magical as a lot of people seem to think.
 
Perhaps. Yet without ideals or goals, we are nothing more than savages are we not?

Good ideals and goals are good, bad ones can be used to justify savagery.
 
Good ideals and goals are good, bad ones can be used to justify savagery.



Perhaps. It would be hard to argue against the concept of natural rights as a collective good, though, given that they spring from the very needs and character of the human condition, and are things virtually all of us want.

And as I've argued before.... even if you believe they ARE a social construct, are those rights more secure if the general populace believes them "Natural Law" or ordained by God... or if everyone just says "oh well they're just social constructs..." (and therefore subject to change or discarding...)


I'd prefer they be viewed as sacrosanct in some manner... seems more secure to me.
 
I'm all about unenumerated rights.
most of us are... most of us are all about enumerated rights as well.... though i'm curious, how do you know if you have a right to something or some action if it's not on a list for you?...if you aren't specifically told you have the right to do something by your community, society, or government, what would leave you to believe you have that right?



I don't think rights have anything to do with feeling entitled to things. Plenty of people feel entitled to things that society doesn't determine people should have a right to. And it certainly takes external force to ensure that you aren't prevented from speaking your mind. I would call that community and society rather than authority. I don't think that rights are handed down from above, but are secured by a people. That takes a group. The only time when you can really claim rights without group consensus is if you are completely alone.
umm.. rights are principles of freedom or entitlement.... so i don't know how to address this with you when you utterly deny even the most basic of definitions.



It seems rather egocentric to suggest that every past society had these rights but they were being violated constantly, and that future societies won't have rights that we've never dreamed of. It also suggests that we are progressing towards some perfect society that was predetermined by nature, rather than improving upon and replacing flawed human constructs. Neither of those ideas seem at all reasonable.
yeah.. denying rights exist and have no basis in reality or human nature is much more reasonable.:roll:



Again, rights are not about feelings. Rights are about not stopping people from doing things or empowering people to do things.
nevermind.. you obviously don't understand when i say " feel".. nor do you want to.

Ultimately, if nature granted us rights, they would apply in circumstances besides just human interaction. A hungry lion is never going to respect your right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. But other people will. People create rights. Each society creates its own rights.
wow, that was compelling... natural rights don't exist because animals don't respect them.
rights are all about human interactions.... not interactions with the animal kingdom...
 
most of us are... most of us are all about enumerated rights as well.... though i'm curious, how do you know if you have a right to something or some action if it's not on a list for you?...if you aren't specifically told you have the right to do something by your community, society, or government, what would leave you to believe you have that right?

Because in this country, you have every possible right unless there's a constitutionally sound reason to restrict it. That's what the ninth amendment is for.

umm.. rights are principles of freedom or entitlement.... so i don't know how to address this with you when you utterly deny even the most basic of definitions.

You're not talking about principles. You're talking about feeling entitled. I think you ought to refine your definitions.

yeah.. denying rights exist and have no basis in reality or human nature is much more reasonable.:roll:

Of course rights exist. We're talking about whether or not they're a human construct or if they're intrinsic to nature. You are asserting the latter while I am demonstrating good reason why it's the former.

nevermind.. you obviously don't understand when i say " feel".. nor do you want to.

You should try to be more clear when you speak then, so people can understand you.

wow, that was compelling... natural rights don't exist because animals don't respect them.
rights are all about human interactions.... not interactions with the animal kingdom...

Yes, they are about human interaction. They are therefore a creation of humans.

Perhaps. It would be hard to argue against the concept of natural rights as a collective good, though, given that they spring from the very needs and character of the human condition, and are things virtually all of us want.


I will argue that. The concept of natural rights is an incredibly imprecise method for determining what should be protected. There is no way to demonstrate nature's stance on anything to do with rights.


And as I've argued before.... even if you believe they ARE a social construct, are those rights more secure if the general populace believes them "Natural Law" or ordained by God... or if everyone just says "oh well they're just social constructs..." (and therefore subject to change or discarding...)


Wrong. They're not "just" social constructs. We create them, and we can improve them. They aren't handed down by anyone, and so they aren't static. Leaving rights up to a god would mean that we'd still have slavery. In 1789, the concept of natural rights meant that we had rights that kings couldn't take away. In 2015, it's just an excuse to say that everything was perfect in 1789 and we shouldn't progress beyond that.


I'd prefer they be viewed as sacrosanct in some manner... seems more secure to me.


They should be viewed as extremely flimsy and easily disposed of. That obliges us to continually act to protect them and not allow ourselves to get complacent. Complacency about our rights has lead us to allow incredible injustices.
 
Last edited:
When there are irrational claims made about those things, yes. There are a lot of people, particularly libertarians, who treat all of those things as though they were magic. They're not. There isn't an "understanding" of rights, there are simply claims made about rights. We have to go and look at those particular claims and see if they stand up rationally and logically. Most of the time, they don't. That doesn't stop rights from existing, it just means they aren't magical as a lot of people seem to think.

I don't consider philosophy to be "magic" whatsoever..... and ,well, these mere "claims" have stood the test of time.
none of this stuff was invented in 1776... we've been building our understanding of these things since..well.. since the founding of philosophy itself.
it's a rare thing that human would reverse course on their understanding ... but that seems to be the basic theme when it comes to natural rights/natural law.... lots of laymen are doing just that

what really intrigues me about all of this is not the specific arguments.. but why people choose to disavow the existence of natural rights.
it's interesting that people will go to lengths to disavow something that is ultimately beneficial to each and every one of us and consist of nothing harmful to any of us....my guess is that it completely surrounds political expedience/bias.
it seems to me that more than one person around here disavows their existence merely on the grounds that libertarians believe in them... and i think that's born out fairly well by simply looking at their responses ( even yours)
 
Back
Top Bottom