• 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
Lots of things are inventions of the human mind. But that doesn't make them any less worthwhile. In fact, Immanuel Kant would agree in a way that natural rights are product of the human mind. In so much that he asserts that natural rights can be derived through reason alone. Rights are very much a philosophical discussion, so what's wrong with bringing in philosophy?

There's nothing wrong with it, but the fact that we even have to think about it means there is an element of human in it and not nature. Because it comes from humans, it is subject to subjectivity and that opens the question of "which definition is best? Locke's, Jeffry Dahmer's, Confucius', Lao Tse's, Ayn Rand's, Neitche's, etc?" If Locke's is best, can that be proven objectively?

If it can't than it simply a preference.
 
Last edited:
There is no technology currently that detailed to do as you want. If we're allowing for sci-fi, then maybe. Regardless, I cannot transfer ownership of my body, ownership of it is innate to my consciousness.

What difference does it make, this is a conceptual discussion, you have to allow for theoreticals in it's debate. If someone implanted electrodes in your brain and could use them to make you do or think anything that they wanted, what happens to your "rights"? Are they taken away? Why or why not? You're the one that made the claim that they cannot be taken away, I want to see if you can actually defend it or if you just like repeating the claim over and over.
 
Sigh

Yes maam they do. Try abdicating natural rights, you can't. All humans share the same base natural rights.

Sigh...

OK...

Sometimes talking on this board i 'feel' like Cephus's lion avatar 'looks'...

sorry about the maam thing...gender association by Avatar...
 
What difference does it make, this is a conceptual discussion, you have to allow for theoreticals in it's debate. If someone implanted electrodes in your brain and could use them to make you do or think anything that they wanted, what happens to your "rights"? Are they taken away? Why or why not? You're the one that made the claim that they cannot be taken away, I want to see if you can actually defend it or if you just like repeating the claim over and over.


I think I have an answer to that!
 
To me, natural rights apply to all in nature. I have the right to whatever I can maintain, be it by my own force or innovation, or that of society. A lion has natural rights to the extent that he can procure his own food and can physically survive his environment. A tree has the right to survive assuming it can adapt to its environment. We all have a natural right to survive and act based on our ability to maintain our own life via adaptation, force, or within social constructs.
 
Sigh...

OK...

Sometimes talking on this board i 'feel' like Cephus's lion avatar 'looks'...

sorry about the maam thing...gender association by Avatar...

That's why I never look at the avatar, just the "Gender". It's hard when people don't use the "Gender" category though, I guess then it would be safer to just assume a gender (or avoid all gender-specific terminology). Or whatever.
 
There's nothing wrong with it, but the fact that we even have to think about it means there is an element of human in it and not nature. Because it comes from humans, it is subject to subjectivity and that opens the question of "which definition is best? Locke's, Jeffry Dahmer's, Confucius', Lao Tse's, Ayn Rand's, Neitche's, etc?" If Locke's is best, can that be proven objectively?

If it can't than it simply a preference.

It's more than just preference though, the understanding and accepting of natural rights is of profound importance. It's the limiter of government. It says that we have just reason to stand and fight for our rights, that we don't have to accept things as they are. If we don't have a thing called natural rights, then one couldn't believe that a slave should ever get upset over being a slave. They have to right to anything else but what they are. If the government acts against us, and starts throwing us in jail for whatever reason, we can't be upset about it because there are not natural rights; just legal privilege. But we obviously can get upset over these things because they are infringements upon natural right. Life, liberty, property; I will always have the right to defend these things, to seek these things. If government infringes upon it, I can rightfully get upset and fight back. The only way for that to be true is if natural rights exist.
 
It's more than just preference though, the understanding and accepting of natural rights is of profound importance. It's the limiter of government. It says that we have just reason to stand and fight for our rights, that we don't have to accept things as they are. If we don't have a thing called natural rights, then one couldn't believe that a slave should ever get upset over being a slave. They have to right to anything else but what they are. If the government acts against us, and starts throwing us in jail for whatever reason, we can't be upset about it because there are not natural rights; just legal privilege. But we obviously can get upset over these things because they are infringements upon natural right. Life, liberty, property; I will always have the right to defend these things, to seek these things. If government infringes upon it, I can rightfully get upset and fight back. The only way for that to be true is if natural rights exist.

See, there you go again. You keep claiming there are natural rights, yet you have never defended them. In fact, I see exactly where you're going wrong, you're working from a conclusion, then trying to backfill with philosophical nonsense to bolster your preconceived conclusion. You proved it in your last sentence.

The problem is, you have to demonstrate that natural rights exist to begin with, not as an afterthought. How do you know they exist? How do you tell what they are? How do you reach these conclusions through logic and reason? Where is your evidence?

What you're doing is no different than Christians from centuries past demanding that the Earth must be the center of the universe because in their way of thinking, God wouldn't do it any other way. It never occurred to them that their entire philosophy might be flawed.
 
It's more than just preference though, the understanding and accepting of natural rights is of profound importance. It's the limiter of government. It says that we have just reason to stand and fight for our rights, that we don't have to accept things as they are. If we don't have a thing called natural rights, then one couldn't believe that a slave should ever get upset over being a slave. They have to right to anything else but what they are. If the government acts against us, and starts throwing us in jail for whatever reason, we can't be upset about it because there are not natural rights; just legal privilege. But we obviously can get upset over these things because they are infringements upon natural right. Life, liberty, property; I will always have the right to defend these things, to seek these things. If government infringes upon it, I can rightfully get upset and fight back. The only way for that to be true is if natural rights exist.

A lot of Christians believe that morality can only be measured against an objective standard. They argue that atheists cannot be moral because they don't have the same standards. You are basically giving the same argument right here.

A slave wants to be free because it would make his life better, but that is the same as a guy working his way up the corporate ladder because he wants more money. We all want our lives to continually get better. This stems from our instinct, not a philosophical concept.

What I am curious about is why you think you need something outside of you to try and make things more to your preference? Ultimately, whether you believe it or not, it comes from within you. You have some ideas and an emotional bond to those ideas and that is the only source of your (or anyone else's) fight for a better world.
 
Last edited:
Rights are an invention of man. So no. They are not natural at all.
No, they aren't. If society did not exist and we all individually had a structure based on simple communication you would still have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit(not guaranteed acquisition) of happiness. There would still be those that would impose their will against your rights and there would still be those that would fight for them, the difference is that under a social contract you appoint others to do so, the extent of their laws is the difference. In other words, whether a government is minimal or authoritarian you have natural rights, that they are denied to you by force or coercion or by law does not invalidate them, it simply means that someone is committing an injustice against your rights.
 
A lot of Christians believe that morality can only be measured against an objective standard. They argue that atheists cannot be moral because they don't have the same standards. You are basically giving the same argument right here.
And some Islamists don't recognize the right to life of infadels, some athiests condescend to believers, my point here, morals and religion are compatible but not dependent upon each other. You either have a solid morality or you don't.

A slave wants to be free because it would make his life better, but that is the same as a guy working his way up the corporate ladder because he wants more money. We all want our lives to continually get better. This stems from our instinct, not a philosophical concept.
Freedom is the desired state of all living creatures, not exclusively man. That being said slaves understand their humanity and want it to be recognized, even to this day, to deny others their due liberty through either socially or government imposed slavery(China, Cuba...etc.) is to violate natural rights.

What I am curious about is why you think you need something outside of you to try and make things more to your preference? Ultimately, whether you believe it or not, it comes from within you. You have some ideas and an emotional bond to those ideas and that is the only source of your (or anyone else's) fight for a better world.
Thus, his rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are proven, if we didn't have those rights he would have no differing opinion or thought, as he wouldn't be at liberty to do so.
 
Me thinks the Founders of our Republic were and are correct.

Our creator endows all of us with unalienable rights that are self-evident. :mrgreen:

They were also correct to codify said basic rights into a Republic governed by a Constitution to protect these rights from Gubment's potential attempts to encroach on them in the relentless quest for power, (as they had observed Gubments do through-out human history).

The historical fact that other individuals or Gubments attempt to violate said God given rights we all possess doesn't mean the rights don't exist.

The violation of basic God given rights may (and has) come historically from other individuals, but clearly the biggest historical risk is from an organized Gubment so the Founders inked 20 pages ta protect us from said Gubment they created as a Republic based upon the rule of law.

The only way to remove this protection we all benifit from is to change the plain meaning of the language used by the Founders to codify said rights, (which modern Liberals* are in the process of doing), by packing the Judicial branch of Gubment (as set up by the Founders to intrepret the Constitution), with tyrants in black robes who will do just that if the modern Liberals* get their way.

After all: what is the TRUE meaning of "is"???? :shock:

The other way is to burden said Gubment with additional Gubment created "rights" that create massive burdens sooooo great that said Gubment fails due to over reaching of said Gubment to provide said Gubment created "rights". This is called dilution, and the media and education system dominated by modern Liberals* do their part to confuse citizens about basic God given rights with Gubment created "rights".

Obamaprompter, (the modern Liberal* messiah), is now leading this charge, with Nasty Nancy and Horrible Harry helpin' as much as possible. Will they succeeed in our destruction? Who really knows? Likely not: IMHO due to the basic strength of the system the Founders created.

This current crisis would never have been possible without the decades long cooperation of the NEA, (who supports Democrats and Liberals*), by failing to properly educate our citizens as to the true nature of this great Republic. (To uphold a rule of law that restricts the Gubment from infringing upon all of our basic God given rights). BTW: the NEA also provides funds to Liberal* Democrats as well. ;)

Instead the modern Liberal* Democrat controlled NEA sees to it that teachers focus on the public education of our children about all aspects of homosexuality and man caused global warming or other tangential Liberal* agendas designed to divide, confuse and cripple the Republic that our Founders created.

The modern Liberal* controlled "main stream media", (now haeded for bankruptcy), continues this flow of cool aid to the masses and the predictable result is the recent, (2006) election of a very Liberal* Democrat controlled Congress and a very inexperienced but very Liberal* and very beholding POTUS, (2008) that works hard to undo what was done for all of us in the late 1700s that has resulted in the Greatest Country that has ever existed.

How will this all work out?

Hard to know at this juncture.

The process of self correcting, (as designed by the Founders), has begun and the last three off cycle elections in Virgina, New Jersy, and Massachusetts are showing promise of a needed reckoning that may come, (and is likely on the way, IMHO).

(*) Modern Liberals who dominate the Democrat party and the main stream non Fox media now control two of the three branches of Gubment and have much more in common with Karl Marx, (then classical Liberals: which the Founders of this Great Country were), and most Americans are. ;)

Dr. Weiner pointedly asks the spot on question: "Is Liberalism a mental disorder?" (He means modern Liberals*)

Now that is worth thinking about a wee bit, eh? :mrgreen:
 
No, they aren't. If society did not exist and we all individually had a structure based on simple communication you would still have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit(not guaranteed acquisition) of happiness. There would still be those that would impose their will against your rights and there would still be those that would fight for them, the difference is that under a social contract you appoint others to do so, the extent of their laws is the difference. In other words, whether a government is minimal or authoritarian you have natural rights, that they are denied to you by force or coercion or by law does not invalidate them, it simply means that someone is committing an injustice against your rights.

Society is defined as a set of relations between people. You cannot argue as if there were no other people and then mention people.

And some Islamists don't recognize the right to life of infadels, some athiests condescend to believers, my point here, morals and religion are compatible but not dependent upon each other. You either have a solid morality or you don't.

In other words, other people's morals are not compatible with your morals. This doesn't really prove or disprove anything. In fact I could use it to argue that it is not self evident or more people would have come to the same conclusions as Locke, but it remains a uniquely European and American concept.

Freedom is the desired state of all living creatures, not exclusively man. That being said slaves understand their humanity and want it to be recognized, even to this day, to deny others their due liberty through either socially or government imposed slavery(China, Cuba...etc.) is to violate natural rights.

When slavery was abolished in the US, many slaves did not leave their plantations because they liked it there. Wanting freedom is not always natural. Many animals have to go through rehabilitation after living with humans to relearn how to life in the wild and be free. Wanting freedom is a learned behavior. Wanting a better life is innate. Some animals and people will put up with a lot of stuff if their food and survival is insured.

Thus, his rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are proven, if we didn't have those rights he would have no differing opinion or thought, as he wouldn't be at liberty to do so.

Having an emotional bond to a concept and wanting it realized can be used to justify any philosophy.
 
Last edited:
What difference does it make, this is a conceptual discussion, you have to allow for theoreticals in it's debate. If someone implanted electrodes in your brain and could use them to make you do or think anything that they wanted, what happens to your "rights"? Are they taken away? Why or why not? You're the one that made the claim that they cannot be taken away, I want to see if you can actually defend it or if you just like repeating the claim over and over.

I mean, if we start allowing for the absurd, that's where the conversation will head. So maybe you should choose before we go on. Are we taking the absurd route or not? There are no natural means by which I can transfer my consciousness, thus ownership of my body is innate. You can't take my thoughts, you can't take my ideas, you can't take my feelings. These are all innate to me and naturally exist within me. So too do natural rights. You cannot take them from me. You can not force me to believe or not believe a religion. You can not force me to accept certain candidates, to believe in their platforms. In the end, there is a base from which everything else is constructed; and that base is composed of natural rights.
 
I mean, if we start allowing for the absurd, that's where the conversation will head. So maybe you should choose before we go on. Are we taking the absurd route or not? There are no natural means by which I can transfer my consciousness, thus ownership of my body is innate. You can't take my thoughts, you can't take my ideas, you can't take my feelings. These are all innate to me and naturally exist within me. So too do natural rights. You cannot take them from me. You can not force me to believe or not believe a religion. You can not force me to accept certain candidates, to believe in their platforms. In the end, there is a base from which everything else is constructed; and that base is composed of natural rights.

I will attempt to settle this theoretical concept with something that exists in nature.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgAEeisfHW8"]YouTube- Parasitic Mind Control[/ame]

If nature can do it, man will be able to do it some day.
 
A lot of Christians believe that morality can only be measured against an objective standard. They argue that atheists cannot be moral because they don't have the same standards. You are basically giving the same argument right here.

A slave wants to be free because it would make his life better, but that is the same as a guy working his way up the corporate ladder because he wants more money. We all want our lives to continually get better. This stems from our instinct, not a philosophical concept.

What I am curious about is why you think you need something outside of you to try and make things more to your preference? Ultimately, whether you believe it or not, it comes from within you. You have some ideas and an emotional bond to those ideas and that is the only source of your (or anyone else's) fight for a better world.

It's whether you are justified in that anger, if you can justly take action. If there are no natural rights, then everything is a construct of the current government and society. If they say, for instance, that slavery is legal then slavery is legal and there's nothing you can do about it. A slave is a slave and must accept that lot. Because the slave has no natural right, the slave has no just reason to be upset over being a slave. The slave has no justifiable reason to revolt or fight back because natural rights do not exist. Thus if the slave is not assigned rights by anyone, the slave has no rights. And without rights, then he has no recourse to fight against that designation. The right gives the limitations to the government and offers legitimacy for acting against it should it err too greatly against our rights. If we do not have rights, we do not have the legitimacy. If everything is privilege granted to us by law or society, then the slave has no legitimate reason to rise up against the government or his owners. He has no rights. According to you.

If instead, there is a base of natural rights which include life, liberty, and property, then the situation is different. Getting upset is justified because your rights have been violated. Fighting back is justified because your rights have been violated. So ask yourself, is getting upset over being a slave justified or not? Is it reasonable? If your answer is yes, then why? Is it just because someone wants a better life? Or is it because the act of slavery is fundamentally wrong. Not just by our social or legal standards. But that when one is enslaved, you have acted against their rights. That one is right to act out; not just because they want a better life; but because they deserve to be able to live for themselves. Because that is their right.

This is not likened to Christians saying that atheists can't be moral.
 
I voted other, I believe some rights are given to us by society, and others given to all by God.
 
I will attempt to settle this theoretical concept with something that exists in nature.

If nature can do it, man will be able to do it some day.

Nature can do a lot of things. Including controlled fusion. We can only make it in bomb form. It does nothing to argue against the existence of natural rights, however. It just shows that maybe there is another way to infringe upon rights. The legitimacy of rights especially as it relates to the restrictions and controls of government are not partial to the existence of parasites. It's a fundamental question over whether or not humans contain rights.
 
Society is defined as a set of relations between people. You cannot argue as if there were no other people and then mention people.
False, society is defined by the social contract it agrees upon. Anarchists don't want a social contract, even though there would be people, it wouldn't necessarily be a society.



In other words, other people's morals are not compatible with your morals. This doesn't really prove or disprove anything. In fact I could use it to argue that it is not self evident or more people would have come to the same conclusions as Locke, but it remains a uniquely European and American concept.
You are arguing using morals, I was attempting to show the fallacy of appeal to one sector of it.



When slavery was abolished in the US, many slaves did not leave their plantations because they liked it there. Wanting freedom is not always natural.
They chose freely not to leave, key word is chose.
Many animals have to go through rehabilitation after living with humans to relearn how to life in the wild and be free. Wanting freedom is a learned behavior. Wanting a better life is innate. Some animals and people will put up with a lot of stuff if their food and survival is insured.
Wrong, captivity is a learned behavior, but if there was no captivity the desire for freedom would be innate.


Having an emotional bond to a concept and wanting it realized can be used to justify any philosophy.
On the one hand you are trying to argue that captivity and rights have to be learned, then you appeal to philosophy, your points aren't compatible here.
 
It's whether you are justified in that anger, if you can justly take action. If there are no natural rights, then everything is a construct of the current government and society. If they say, for instance, that slavery is legal then slavery is legal and there's nothing you can do about it. A slave is a slave and must accept that lot. Because the slave has no natural right, the slave has no just reason to be upset over being a slave. The slave has no justifiable reason to revolt or fight back because natural rights do not exist. Thus if the slave is not assigned rights by anyone, the slave has no rights. And without rights, then he has no recourse to fight against that designation. The right gives the limitations to the government and offers legitimacy for acting against it should it err too greatly against our rights. If we do not have rights, we do not have the legitimacy. If everything is privilege granted to us by law or society, then the slave has no legitimate reason to rise up against the government or his owners. He has no rights. According to you.

Its not what I think that's important, its what the slave thinks. If the slave wants to be free and this person believes that they have a moral right to it, for whatever reason, than I say go for it. The slave next to him might be satisfied with their life, If that's their choice, than that is fine too. Whether you and I agree with either person does not matter, except to us. We will apply our own moral codes (which is unique from person to person) to our view of the situation and react accordingly.

If instead, there is a base of natural rights which include life, liberty, and property, then the situation is different. Getting upset is justified because your rights have been violated. Fighting back is justified because your rights have been violated. So ask yourself, is getting upset over being a slave justified or not? Is it reasonable? If your answer is yes, then why? Is it just because someone wants a better life? Or is it because the act of slavery is fundamentally wrong. Not just by our social or legal standards. But that when one is enslaved, you have acted against their rights. That one is right to act out; not just because they want a better life; but because they deserve to be able to live for themselves. Because that is their right.

This is not likened to Christians saying that atheists can't be moral.

Actually it is, because you are applying an external standard to human behavior. You are saying that people are good and are permitted to do things because some standard says its OK. I am saying it is based on a person's personality. I am not interested in justifying actions because that is something people already do (unless they are a sociopath or something). I will use my moral criteria, others will use theirs. I see nothing wrong with this and I see nothing that would prevent people from acting based on their moral criteria, even if it doesn't agree with Locke's.

But yeah, if the people in the Middle East reject the idea of democracy or natural rights because it is not compatible with Islam, than they will, whether it is good (from our perspective) or not. There is no greater moral criteria in which to judge that than what exists in your own mind. If you want to use Locke's ideas than fine, just don't expect others to. That would be you imposing yourself on them.
 
False, society is defined by the social contract it agrees upon. Anarchists don't want a social contract, even though there would be people, it wouldn't necessarily be a society.

so·ci·e·ty (s-s-t)
n. pl. so·ci·e·ties
1.
a. The totality of social relationships among humans.



You are arguing using morals, I was attempting to show the fallacy of appeal to one sector of it.

I don't understand, sector of morals? Parse error ...

They chose freely not to leave, key word is chose. Wrong, captivity is a learned behavior, but if there was no captivity the desire for freedom would be innate.

I disagree. You cannot easily say which is learned behavior since they would learn the behavior of whatever situation they were born in.

On the one hand you are trying to argue that captivity and rights have to be learned, then you appeal to philosophy, your points aren't compatible here.

That's because captivity vs freedom has no relation to morals unless those morals involve that concept. Either way, I misunderstood your argument. You seem to be saying that we have a freedom of something if we can imagine it though, that doesn't make sense.
 
Its not what I think that's important, its what the slave thinks. If the slave wants to be free and this person believes that they have a moral right to it, for whatever reason, than I say go for it. The slave next to him might be satisfied with their life, If that's their choice, than that is fine too. Whether you and I agree with either person does not matter, except to us. We will apply our own moral codes (which is unique from person to person) to our view of the situation and react accordingly.

Well you're starting to confuse individual case with aggregated effect. It does come down to what you think. If the slave wants to be free, do they have the right to fight to be free? That's the fundamental. You're doing a lot of tap dancing to get around answering the question. I think cause maybe you know the answer. Is the slave justified in fighting for his freedom? Regardless of law, or what the slave himself thinks? These are beyond moral codes and go to the heart of what rights are. The slavery issue is the easiest. But if the government comes down on us, say, and starts throwing people in prison for dissent; are those people justifiably pissed off? Do we have justification to stand against it? By that point the 1st amendment would be gone, the government would have "made" other "rights" in its place. So according to you, we wouldn't have the right to fight back or be pissed off by it. But do we have that justification?

This is where the rights are from. If you think we are justified in fighting back, then there has to be something at the base which provides that justification. That is what natural rights are. They are something so far of limits, that not even government can take them. And if government (or any outside entity) should infringe upon those rights, we are justified in defense and response to that initial aggressive action. If rights are merely as some of you suggest, those situations cannot exist. People may get pissy, but they have no proper justification to fight back.

Actually it is, because you are applying an external standard to human behavior. You are saying that people are good and are permitted to do things because some standard says its OK. I am saying it is based on a person's personality. I am not interested in justifying actions because that is something people already do (unless they are a sociopath or something). I will use my moral criteria, others will use theirs. I see nothing wrong with this and I see nothing that would prevent people from acting based on their moral criteria, even if it doesn't agree with Locke's.

I'm saying that there is a base untouchable by government. A set of laws which are above the grasp of government or others to modify; those are natural laws.

But yeah, if the people in the Middle East reject the idea of democracy or natural rights because it is not compatible with Islam, than they will, whether it is good (from our perspective) or not. There is no greater moral criteria in which to judge that than what exists in your own mind. If you want to use Locke's ideas than fine, just don't expect others to. That would be you imposing yourself on them.

Infringe upon my natural rights, and see how far I'm willing to go to impose myself and protect my rights. The people of the ME may reject the idea of natural rights because it interferes with government power and theocratic rule. But that doesn't mean the natural rights do not exist. All the people in the ME still have the same base rights as me or any other human on this planet.
 
Well you're starting to confuse individual case with aggregated effect. It does come down to what you think. If the slave wants to be free, do they have the right to fight to be free? That's the fundamental.

They do if they believe they do. They don't if they believe they don't. Just like the slave owner has the right of ownership if he believes he does. That matter is between the slave and the owner. Our beliefs, morals, etc are the only thing that can answer this question. So it depends on the slave and what the owner believes.

If there is a disagreement between parties, some method of resolution will be used, probably based on force, but maybe a contract, or an exchange of value, or some other mechanism, such as the slave running away. Society might or might not impose their view on the situation as well which will also affect how the disagreement is resolved.

Sorry, I thought I addressed it. Does that help?

You're doing a lot of tap dancing to get around answering the question. I think cause maybe you know the answer. Is the slave justified in fighting for his freedom? Regardless of law, or what the slave himself thinks?

See above.

These are beyond moral codes and go to the heart of what rights are. The slavery issue is the easiest. But if the government comes down on us, say, and starts throwing people in prison for dissent; are those people justifiably pissed off? Do we have justification to stand against it? By that point the 1st amendment would be gone, the government would have "made" other "rights" in its place. So according to you, we wouldn't have the right to fight back or be pissed off by it. But do we have that justification?

Again, see above, it depends on how we feel about the situation.

This is where the rights are from. If you think we are justified in fighting back, then there has to be something at the base which provides that justification. That is what natural rights are. They are something so far of limits, that not even government can take them. And if government (or any outside entity) should infringe upon those rights, we are justified in defense and response to that initial aggressive action. If rights are merely as some of you suggest, those situations cannot exist. People may get pissy, but they have no proper justification to fight back.

Our rights are what we take from nature and what we can defend by force.

I'm saying that there is a base untouchable by government. A set of laws which are above the grasp of government or others to modify; those are natural laws.

Nope, see above.

I'm saying that there is a base untouchable by Infringe upon my natural rights, and see how far I'm willing to go to impose myself and protect my rights. The people of the ME may reject the idea of natural rights because it interferes with government power and theocratic rule. But that doesn't mean the natural rights do not exist. All the people in the ME still have the same base rights as me or any other human on this planet.

Natural rights don't exist unless you can defend them.

I say Sharia Law is the best because I believe it is the best, its about equally as valid are your concept of natural rights (Disclaimer, I am not a Muslim, so that was hypothetical). This goes back to having a moral code you believe in and fighting for it. I applaud you for it, but I don't have to agree (at least until mind control does happen, which I hope it never will, but marketing folk would simply love for you to buy their product, by any means necessary, so it probably will).
 
Last edited:
Please define "right" in less than 4 sentences.

Then define "natural right" as well.

What is a "non-natural" right?

I think that will clear things up a bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom