• 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
Then it CANT POSSIBLY be a right. Its an idea.
You would be wrong on that. Why do you think that dictatorships and China are accused of human rights violations. The rights exist, they aren subjegated by government force, coercion.
 
But if it is a right...wouldnt it be something we all enjoy? Wouldnt it be something that no one could ever take from us?

No one can take your rights.

As an ideal...human/natural rights is a wonderful concept. That concpet assumes everyone is benevolent, moral, and motivated to provide for the greater good.

No it doesn't. That's why government was created.
 
Rights are natural; the problem lies in enforcing them.

You get how silly that sounds...correct? Rights are 'natural'...and must be 'enforced'...so if you dont HAVE food water and shelter, who violated your rights?
 
You would be wrong on that. Why do you think that dictatorships and China are accused of human rights violations. The rights exist, they aren subjegated by government force, coercion.

Because we have this fantasy governing body that creates this fantasy concept of human rights...a code...a set of definitions. Were it not so then they could not ACCUSE China of violating those human rights.
 
No one can take your rights.

Sigh...

OK...I will accept your word.

We all have these human rights...basic...decent rights...survival. Food. Water. Shelter. Safety.

People in Rwanda are getting screwed. All the worlds starving...homeless people...thank goodness they ahve their 'rights' to all those things...
 
You get how silly that sounds...correct? Rights are 'natural'...and must be 'enforced'...so if you dont HAVE food water and shelter, who violated your rights?

Nothing silly about the way it sounds. If my speech rights are violated, I fully expect government to step in and enforce said rights. Failure to do so takes rights out of the natural category and places them into the societal construct category.
 
I believe that anything that can reasonably be done is a natural right. In fact, I believe there is a natural right to murder another person.

The difference in my thinking is that there exist both inalienable rights and alienable rights.

An inalienable right is one that can be freely exercised without restraint or society induced punishment.

An alienable right is one where one cannot freely exercise the right without restriction or society induced punishment.

It is society that dictates which rights are alienable, and which are inalienable.

For example, I still have the natural right to kill someone in a society that alienates that right. I just cannot do so without restiction or society induced punishment.

But nobody can legitimately prevent me from exercising that right, they can only add consequences to my exercising of that right.

Our society primarily sets the boundary between alienable and inalienable rights at those rights rights that do infringe upon the rights of others, and those that do not infringe upon the rights of others, respectively.

But this is not always the case. Our society also alienates some rights that do not infringe upon the rights of others, such as certain types of personal intoxicant intake or certain types of sexual commerce between consenting adults.

But generally, everything is a right, it's just that society seeks to remove the free exercise of certain rights for the greater good. In any society, the impetus for the alienation of certain rights is based on a shared "moral" viewpoint.
 
Nothing silly about the way it sounds. If my speech rights are violated, I fully expect government to step in and enforce said rights. Failure to do so takes rights out of the natural category and places them into the societal construct category.

Which government?
 
Because we have this fantasy governing body that creates this fantasy concept of human rights...a code...a set of definitions. Were it not so then they could not ACCUSE China of violating those human rights.
I'm not going to be able to help you understand the concept of rights, because you are trying to monopolize the discussion to your own constructs. You are missing the point that all humans are born with certain needs and desires and those supercede government, these needs and desires are older than the social contract and law. The purpose of good law isn't to control every facet of human life, rather it is to protect against the worst desires of human nature such as murder, robbery, etc. Anarchy is slightly less desireable than a small government which is much more desireable than a full authoritarian government. You seem to play a nice appeal to authority game, but don't understand that they suppress rights by monopolizing force, they must use that force and coercion to suppress the most natural of rights, not the other way around.
 
Sigh...

OK...I will accept your word.

We all have these human rights...basic...decent rights...survival. Food. Water. Shelter. Safety.

People in Rwanda are getting screwed. All the worlds starving...homeless people...thank goodness they ahve their 'rights' to all those things...

You think that rights are magical? That acknowledging their existence makes the boogie man go away or all the bad things go away? What sort of childish thought is that? Natural rights doesn't mean that everything will be fair and that people will have their rights recognized. It's a premise for the limitation of government power against the People. We all do have the same base set of innate and inalienable rights all based in life, liberty, and property. Rightful government is constructed to adhere and be restricted by the rights of the individual. Are there ****ty places in the world? Yes. Does that mean that rights don't exist? Of course not, that's not a logical conclusion in the least.
 
I believe that anything that can reasonably be done is a natural right. In fact, I believe there is a natural right to murder another person.

The difference in my thinking is that there exist both inalienable rights and alienable rights.

An inalienable right is one that can be freely exercised without restraint or society induced punishment.

An alienable right is one where one cannot freely exercise the right without restriction or society induced punishment.

It is society that dictates which rights are alienable, and which are inalienable.

For example, I still have the natural right to kill someone in a society that alienates that right. I just cannot do so without restiction or society induced punishment.

But nobody can legitimately prevent me from exercising that right, they can only add consequences to my exercising of that right.

Our society primarily sets the boundary between alienable and inalienable rights at those rights rights that do infringe upon the rights of others, and those that do not infringe upon the rights of others, respectively.

But this is not always the case. Our society also alienates some rights that do not infringe upon the rights of others, such as certain types of personal intoxicant intake or certain types of sexual commerce between consenting adults.

But generally, everything is a right, it's just that society seeks to remove the free exercise of certain rights for the greater good. In any society, the impetus for the alienation of certain rights is based on a shared "moral" viewpoint.

So from your perspective our rights extend solely to what we do...what we individually have the ability to do and choose to do and ultimately do. I agree with that...provided that its realistic. I can call myself the president of Microsoft...I cant necessarily BE the president of microsoft.

I can have a desire to provide for my family and bust my hump to acheive that....OK...Im good with that. I can even violate another persons physical and emotional well being. Just so long as I recognize my society has laws and i fill face certain consequences. Much more reasonable.
 
The difference in my thinking is that there exist both inalienable rights and alienable rights.

That's because not all rights are natural. The natural rights as argued by Locke or Paine would revolve around concepts of life, liberty, and property. The essentials to existence basically. But there are rights which arise from positive law and social contract as well.
 
That's because not all rights are natural. The natural rights as argued by Locke or Paine would revolve around concepts of life, liberty, and property. The essentials to existence basically. But there are rights which arise from positive law and social contract as well.

I would say that all rights are natural, but not all rights are equal.
 
The Martian government.

Good luck with that...I hear their are a purely authoritarian state and dont allow their citizens rights to free speech. And they have ray guns that reduce you to bone and ash...provided that they dont kidnap you and run experiments on your body. I also hear they are extremely vulnerable to the warbling yodel of Slim Whitman...

So...I take it because of your 'Martian Government' answer you get that not all countries view rights the same way...
 
I would say that all rights are natural, but not all rights are equal.

I wouldn't. Because natural rights revolve around that which cannot be taken. For instance, you have natural ownership of your body. There are rights which come from social contract and rights which come from positive law as well. And these rights are different than natural rights, is how I would put it.
 
Good luck with that...I hear their are a purely authoritarian state and dont allow their citizens rights to free speech. And they have ray guns that reduce you to bone and ash...provided that they dont kidnap you and run experiments on your body. I also hear they are extremely vulnerable to the warbling yodel of Slim Whitman...

So...I take it because of your 'Martian Government' answer you get that not all countries view rights the same way...

Like I said, if government won't enforce your rights, you have no rights.
 
I wouldn't. Because natural rights revolve around that which cannot be taken. For instance, you have natural ownership of your body. There are rights which come from social contract and rights which come from positive law as well. And these rights are different than natural rights, is how I would put it.

I would say that "rights" that come about by positive laws are actually privileges.

And no one can take away your right to murder, which is why I consider it a natural right. They can, however, add consequences to the exercise of that right.
 
I'm not going to be able to help you understand the concept of rights, because you are trying to monopolize the discussion to your own constructs. You are missing the point that all humans are born with certain needs and desires and those supercede government, these needs and desires are older than the social contract and law. The purpose of good law isn't to control every facet of human life, rather it is to protect against the worst desires of human nature such as murder, robbery, etc. Anarchy is slightly less desireable than a small government which is much more desireable than a full authoritarian government. You seem to play a nice appeal to authority game, but don't understand that they suppress rights by monopolizing force, they must use that force and coercion to suppress the most natural of rights, not the other way around.

gag...

I could just as easily say "I'm not going to be able to help you because you cling to this moronic principle that we are all granted these God given moral rights at birth"

Im am SO anti-authoritarian. I also happen to be a realist. ive spent several years in other countries and witnessed first hand people that dont enjoy the same rights that we as citizens of the US enjoy. So there is a DRAMATIC inequality there...someone is getting screwed because they landed in the wrong family...got in the wrong line. Nuns that got bulldozed in Korea most DEFINTELY did NOT enjoy those human rights. Children that got raped, mutilated, and murdered in front of their parents in Kuwait by Iraqi troops didnt enjoy those rights. Starving people in the slums throughout the middle east...someone forgot to tell THEM that THEY TOO had all these 'rights'.

Rights is an ideal...and it s a WONDERFUL concept. its just not reality for the majority of the world. They dont enjoy free speech. they dont even necessarily enjoy food...water (let alone clean drinkable water)...shelter...basic essentials of health care...etc

We have a desire to GIVE these things to them because WE believe they SHOULD have them. We BELIEVE that because largely WE have them and want to share them.
 
Can you define what would be considered as "natural rights"? Make a list to them and then explain to us what makes them natural?
 
Rights are an invention of man. So no. They are not natural at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom