• 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!

Are Rights Natural?

Are Rights Natural?

  • Total voters
    50
Ikari said:
I'm not angry, I was just pointing out the obstructionist behavior of one of the more anti-libertarian people on the board...maybe the second most so.

And if we act like a married couple, than Cephus is the poster child for domestic abuse!

ZING!
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Alright, alright, enough of the personal attacks.
 
Cephus said:
Apparently it's not self-evident, otherwise everyone would have the same view.
Click to expand...

All humans have a conception of self-ownership and self-determination. That's why they eat when they're hungry and sleep when they're tired and drink when they're thirsty or pull their hand away from a fire when it pains them. This is true of all humans. This is human nature, and what the philosophy of "natural rights" is based upon. You're free to disagree with the philosophy and wallow in pure nihilism and absolute moral relativism if you like, but I prefer a more consistent and logical philosophy...
 
The only rights you have are the rights society or the government gives you.
 
Blackdog said:
The only rights you have are the rights society or the government gives you.
Click to expand...

Rights cannot be "given" by anyone or anything, as they do not physically exist. They are philosophical constructs that are based upon human nature. You're free to disagree with the philosophy but the only people who could logically maintain such a denial are tyrants and nihilists.
 
Ethereal said:
Rights cannot be "given" by anyone or anything, as they do not physically exist. They are philosophical constructs that are based upon human nature. You're free to disagree with the philosophy but the only people who could logically maintain such a denial are tyrants and nihilists.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately reality for me says different. I have a right to own a gun. If no amendment existed, I have no right.

I understand what you are saying, but reality and having been overseas says different. For me anyway.
 
Ethereal said:
Rights cannot be "given" by anyone or anything, as they do not physically exist. They are philosophical constructs that are based upon human nature. You're free to disagree with the philosophy but the only people who could logically maintain such a denial are tyrants and nihilists.
Click to expand...

Basing rights on human nature is a good idea since human nature will support it and it will tend to work well with the human psyche, but it is nothing more than a good idea, not a fact. Perhaps this stances makes me a nihilist.

However, my question is, should this conception of human nature based rights change as we learn more about biology, the brain, and other scientific topics?

And please do not reply with "Ugh, you just need to be a scholar on this subject and read these 53 books!" as you tend to do.
 
Blackdog said:
Unfortunately reality for me says different. I have a right to own a gun. If no amendment existed, I have no right.
Click to expand...

Why not? Wouldn't you still recognize your self-ownership in the absence of the Second Amendment? Wouldn't you exercise self-determination in the absence of a Bill of Rights? Wouldn't anyone?

I understand what you are saying, but reality and having been overseas says different. For me anyway.
Click to expand...

Just because a right can be violated does not mean it ceases to be a valid concept.
 
Ethereal said:
Why not? Wouldn't you still recognize your self-ownership in the absence of the Second Amendment? Wouldn't you exercise self-determination in the absence of a Bill of Rights? Wouldn't anyone?
Click to expand...

If the government said no? Of course not.

Rights can be taken away and given as I have seen with my own eyes in other country's. It is always done by government in every case.


Ethereal said:
Just because a right can be violated does not mean it ceases to be a valid concept.
Click to expand...

Rights as a concept is one thing. Rights in reality is another.
 
megaprogman said:
Basing rights on human nature is a good idea since human nature will support it and it will tend to work well with the human psyche, but it is nothing more than a good idea, not a fact. Perhaps this stances makes me a nihilist.
Click to expand...

Human nature is a fact. Rights, however, are ideas or constructs based upon that fact. You're free to disagree with the idea / construct of rights, and this would make you a nihilist, but I don't think you're a nihilist, in fact, I don't think anyone is really a nihilist, even if they claim to be...

However, my question is, should this conception of human nature based rights change as we learn more about biology, the brain, and other scientific topics?
Click to expand...

Rights are based upon the most intrinsic and universal element of human nature (self-determination, self-ownership, individual sovereignty) which means it is unchanging, which means there is nothing we could learn about biology that would alter these human universals.

And please do not reply with "Ugh, you just need to be a scholar on this subject and read these 53 books!" as you tend to do.
Click to expand...

Show me where I have said this.
 
Blackdog said:
If the government said no? Of course not.
Click to expand...

So, if the government told you to stab yourself in the eye, you'd do it?

Rights can be taken away and given as I have seen with my own eyes in other country's. It is always done by government in every case.
Click to expand...

How can something that does not physically exist be taken away or given out?

Rights as a concept is one thing. Rights in reality is another.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this.
 
Ethereal said:
Human nature is a fact. Rights, however, are ideas or constructs based upon that fact. You're free to disagree with the idea / construct of rights, and this would make you a nihilist, but I don't think you're a nihilist, in fact, I don't think anyone is really a nihilist, even if they claim to be...

Rights are based upon the most intrinsic and universal element of human nature (self-determination, self-ownership, individual sovereignty) which means it is unchanging, which means there is nothing we could learn about biology that would alter these human universals.
Click to expand...

Interesting, because I see the end result of human nature being quite different. However, your take on it is quite interesting I will admit. The first thing that comes to mind is that I do have some issues with the idea of self determination because in my view our environment forces many more decisions on us our than our desires do (unless you are wealthy). It would be nice if we were more free to exercise it, but often we aren't.

Ethereal said:
Show me where I have said this.
Click to expand...

I will concede the point. Thanks for answering. :)
 
megaprogman said:
The first thing that comes to mind is that I do have some issues with the idea of self determination because in my view our environment forces many more decisions on us our than our desires do (unless you are wealthy). It would be nice if we were more free to exercise it, but often we aren't.
Click to expand...

Just because something outside my control forces me into a circumstance I would otherwise reject does not mean my conception of self-determination has been altered.

For instance, if I jumped out of the way of a moving vehicle even though I desired to remain stationary, wouldn't I still being exercising self-determination? I mean, I could have stood there and just got hit, instead, I chose to move.
 
Blackdog said:
The only rights you have are the rights society or the government gives you.
Click to expand...

Rights are given by nature, to be restricted or protected by society and government.

If there were no society or government what rights would we have? Would they cease to exist? At that point I would see them as limitless. From the concept of civility we attempt to create a society that maximizes the rights of the whole, while limiting your infringement on the rights of others. This in no way means that those rights are granted by a civilized society, just protected.
 
Ethereal said:
So, if the government told you to stab yourself in the eye, you'd do it?
Click to expand...

Ridicules fallacy. Has no bearing on this at all.

Ethereal said:
How can something that does not physically exist be taken away or given out?
Click to expand...

By force and law.

Ethereal said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Click to expand...

I have seen in other country's rights stripped from people for no reason. Rights are given and taken away by the government or society you live under, period.
 
Blackdog said:
Ridicules fallacy. Has no bearing on this at all.



By force and law.



I have seen in other country's rights stripped from people for no reason. Rights are given and taken away by the government or society you live under, period.
Click to expand...

I can see you have no interest in a constructive dialog. Good day.
 
Tucker Case said:
Those only add negative consequences to the exercising of one's rights, but they cannot remove the ability to exercise that right, only the freedom to do so without recourse.
Click to expand...

OK but where did the right come from? Who gave us rights in the first place? I don't understand if they cannot be given or taken away, why do they even matter?
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
I can see you have no interest in a constructive dialog. Good day.
Click to expand...

Because I mentioned the reality of the situation in other country's? Or because I rejected the fallacy, what?
 
Jray573 said:
Rights are given by nature, to be restricted or protected by society and government.

If there were no society or government what rights would we have? Would they cease to exist? At that point I would see them as limitless. From the concept of civility we attempt to create a society that maximizes the rights of the whole, while limiting your infringement on the rights of others. This in no way means that those rights are granted by a civilized society, just protected.
Click to expand...

Rights are granted by civilized society based on instinct, desires, and morality... the first biological, the other two, relative to the person or group. If there was no civilized society, there would be no rights. Just instincts, desires and morality governing an individual's or a group's actions. The first would be based on biology. The latter two would be relative to the individual or group.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Rights are granted by civilized society based on instinct, desires, and morality... the first biological, the other two, relative to the person or group. If there was no civilized society, there would be no rights. Just instincts, desires and morality governing an individual's or a group's actions. The first would be based on biology. The latter two would be relative to the individual or group.
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that the difference in opinion here is due solely to our definition of the word "rights." How would you define it?
 
Jray573 said:
Rights are given by nature, to be restricted or protected by society and government.
Click to expand...

Says who? This is the question I keep asking over and over and all the libertarians can do is keep repeating the unsupported claim. How do you know "rights are given by nature"? Where did you get that information? How did you verify it? How, exactly, do you determine precisely what rights are given by nature and which ones are not? These are important questions that apparently no libertarian is able to answer.

If there were no society or government what rights would we have?
Click to expand...

Zero. If there was no law and order, then things would be lawless and disorderly. Humans impose law and order on their societies to make those societies safer, healthier and more productive. Unfortunately, there are people who cannot justify their ideas with logic or reason, thus they try to impose their ideas by fiat, calling on an unchallengable authority figure as the source of their ideas, be it nature or a god or whatnot.

Sorry, "this is true because it's true" is irrational. The only thing anyone ought to care about is *WHY* you think it's right, what evidence you can present to demonstrate that it's right, what course of logical reasoning you have gone through to determine that it's right, etc.

Until you can do that, you're just spouting a load of nonsense.
 
Jray573 said:
It would seem to me that the difference in opinion here is due solely to our definition of the word "rights." How would you define it?
Click to expand...

A legal guarantee. Such as the right of free speech per the first amendment of the constitution. Or voting rights in a corporation due to stock ownership.
 
Cephus said:
Says who? This is the question I keep asking over and over and all the libertarians can do is keep repeating the unsupported claim. How do you know "rights are given by nature"? Where did you get that information? How did you verify it? How, exactly, do you determine precisely what rights are given by nature and which ones are not? These are important questions that apparently no libertarian is able to answer.
Click to expand...

Lol, you might actually be the most angry person I have ever debated with. I guess this isn't exclusive to religion. I attempted to explain my reasoning after the comment you quoted. I'll try to be a little more descriptive.

I like how Thomas Paine broke it down in "Rights of Man." How at creation, or at man's beginning, however you want to look at it, man was completely unrestricted. Do you disagree with that? Also, how would this limitless freedom be considered different from rights? If you think it differs, I would love an explanation. Perhaps in this is where the confusion between our two lines of thinking lies.

Cephus said:
If there was no law and order, then things would be lawless and disorderly. Humans impose law and order on their societies to make those societies safer, healthier and more productive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree 100% with this statement. Which is why I claim that civilization restricts and protects the rights they desire. All laws restrict freedom, society chooses which rights should be protected, and which should be restricted. Libertarians tend to believe that rights should be extended to the greatest extent that allows the rights of others to be protected. So if what you are doing doesn't hurt someone else, you should have the right to do so.

Cephus said:
Unfortunately, there are people who cannot justify their ideas with logic or reason, thus they try to impose their ideas by fiat, calling on an unchallengable authority figure as the source of their ideas, be it nature or a god or whatnot.

Sorry, "this is true because it's true" is irrational. The only thing anyone ought to care about is *WHY* you think it's right, what evidence you can present to demonstrate that it's right, what course of logical reasoning you have gone through to determine that it's right, etc.

Until you can do that, you're just spouting a load of nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, wow, I don't even know how to respond to this. I think I provided enough perspective that we don't need to resort to insult, but feel free to debate as you like. I don't believe that I stated anything was true because it was true.
 
Jray573 said:
It would seem to me that the difference in opinion here is due solely to our definition of the word "rights." How would you define it?
Click to expand...

I have asked this question MANY times of those who believe in natural rights and have never gotten an answer. How would YOU define rights?
 
megaprogman said:
A legal guarantee. Such as the right of free speech per the first amendment of the constitution. Or voting rights in a corporation due to stock ownership.
Click to expand...

hmm... yeah, I see the right to free speech as natural. Governments before decided this should be restricted. Our Government decided to protect it.

How would a complete lack of government impact your right to free speech?

Voting rights would be a different matter. Of course those rights aren't natural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom