Are Rights Natural?

scourge99 said:

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.

Click to expand...

1. A belief that a person has a moral claim to something

2. A moral framework promoted by philosophers such as Locke and Russeau.

3. I think the definition is dependent on whether someone subscribes to #2. But in my view, it is any right really since they don't naturally occur.

megaprogman said:

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

Click to expand...

Actually, Websters has a much better definition.
1. An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization.

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

Click to expand...

Noun
1. A plane figure bounded by two radii and the included arc of a circle.

2. A body of people who form part of society or economy; "the public sector".

3. A particular aspect of life or activity; "he was helpless in an important sector of his life".

4. The minimum track length that can be assigned to store information; unless otherwise specified a sector of data consists of 512 bytes.

5. A portion of a military position.

6. Measuring instrument consisting of two graduated arms hinged at one end.

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

Click to expand...

Then why are you claiming freedom has to be learned? When it is obvious that captivity is what needs to be learned, i.e. limits.

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.

Click to expand...

No, freedom is the natural state of life, rights are those things which cannot be granted, only infringed. The reason for social rights theory is for those seeking power to claim creation of rights, if it were to follow that "society" grants you rights then that society arguably could change it's mind. However, if you observe past only man, and watch nature in action, or look at the young and their behaviors, it is obvious that rights are simply there. As well, look into the constitution, the writing doesn't say that the constitution grants rights, only that they are not to be infringed.

LaMidRighter said:

Actually, Websters has a much better definition.
1. An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization.







Noun
1. A plane figure bounded by two radii and the included arc of a circle.

2. A body of people who form part of society or economy; "the public sector".

3. A particular aspect of life or activity; "he was helpless in an important sector of his life".

4. The minimum track length that can be assigned to store information; unless otherwise specified a sector of data consists of 512 bytes.

5. A portion of a military position.

6. Measuring instrument consisting of two graduated arms hinged at one end.





Then why are you claiming freedom has to be learned? When it is obvious that captivity is what needs to be learned, i.e. limits.



No, freedom is the natural state of life, rights are those things which cannot be granted, only infringed. The reason for social rights theory is for those seeking power to claim creation of rights, if it were to follow that "society" grants you rights then that society arguably could change it's mind. However, if you observe past only man, and watch nature in action, or look at the young and their behaviors, it is obvious that rights are simply there. As well, look into the constitution, the writing doesn't say that the constitution grants rights, only that they are not to be infringed.

Click to expand...

I will need to come back to #1 and #2 later. My allergy medicine is making me forgetful (and very grouchy) and I think you deserve my full attention. You have #3 and #4 fully addressed in the previous post so I will get to those.

#3, I am saying that both need to be learned. Depending on socialization and instinct. Different animals are different of course. For humans, it is definitely learned.

#4. I disagree. All you are saying is that you place your morals above society's laws. That just means you believe in your morals strongly. I do the same thing, so do most people actually. You just happen to think yours are the only ones worth considering. Most people do that too though. The point is, each person decides this for themselves and they may or may not come to the same conclusions that you did.

I address this more thoroughly in my last post against Ikari. But suffice to say that I completely do not agree with you, even on the most fundamental level, and because they are simply ideas, ultimately it does not matter. We will each do our thing and fight for what we think is right.

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

There are people that live in societies and environments where abuse and violation of their 'rights' are the norm...its expected and accepted.

Rights is a concept...an idea.

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

There's nothing absurd about it, I was just pointing out where your assertion fell apart and instead of actually handling the problem, you waved your hands around and pretended you didn't have to. You seem absurdly concerned with the "natural", there are lots of things that we do every day that are not remotely natural but that doesn't seem to phase you. You cannot fly by any natural means, but millions of people fly every single day worldwide.

The simple fact is, you have control over your body only so long as you maintain that control. If someone knocks you out and you wake up in a bathtub full of ice, missing a kidney, how much control can you say you had over your body? If you take hallucinogenic drugs, you may see things that you might not want to see. So much for control over your mind.

I will agree with you, in the end natural rights is the base from which much of libertarianism is constructed, but the fact that natural rights is demonstrably ridiculous, to the point that you've entirely failed to be able to objectively demonstrate it in any way, shape or form, proves that libertarianism is based almost entirely on faith, not reality. Libertarianism is probably closer to a religion than a credible political system.

And no, nobody can force you to believe any differently, we can simply keep pointing out that what you believe is a farce.

VanceMack said:

There are people that live in societies and environments where abuse and violation of their 'rights' are the norm...its expected and accepted.

Rights is a concept...an idea.

Click to expand...

Just because people live in tyranny and oppression doesn't mean they don't have rights. They most certainly have the same base rights all humans enjoy, even if the exercise of such rights are forcible infringed upon by some outside force.

Cephus said:

There's nothing absurd about it, I was just pointing out where your assertion fell apart and instead of actually handling the problem, you waved your hands around and pretended you didn't have to. You seem absurdly concerned with the "natural", there are lots of things that we do every day that are not remotely natural but that doesn't seem to phase you. You cannot fly by any natural means, but millions of people fly every single day worldwide.

The simple fact is, you have control over your body only so long as you maintain that control. If someone knocks you out and you wake up in a bathtub full of ice, missing a kidney, how much control can you say you had over your body? If you take hallucinogenic drugs, you may see things that you might not want to see. So much for control over your mind.

I will agree with you, in the end natural rights is the base from which much of libertarianism is constructed, but the fact that natural rights is demonstrably ridiculous, to the point that you've entirely failed to be able to objectively demonstrate it in any way, shape or form, proves that libertarianism is based almost entirely on faith, not reality. Libertarianism is probably closer to a religion than a credible political system.

And no, nobody can force you to believe any differently, we can simply keep pointing out that what you believe is a farce.

Click to expand...

What I believe is not a farce. If you want to leave the absurd and go into childish insults, we're done. Good day to you. I won't entertain arguments of children.

megaprogman said:

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?

Click to expand...

No, you're purposefully avoiding the question...same with much of the rest of your argument. You can engage and answer the questions, or you can tap dance around. Your choice.

Ikari said:

If there are no natural rights, then everything is a construct of the current government and society.

Click to expand...

Wow, you got something right for once. Yes, everything *IS* a construct of the current government and society. It doesn't make a bit of difference if that makes you happy or comforted, it is simply the fact of life.

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.

Click to expand...

Entirely wrong. Just because something is currently legal doesn't mean that it must always be legal, or illegal for that matter. Societies change. Slavery was once legal, now it is illegal. Why? Because a significant portion of society decided that the law needed to change. We fought a war over it. The side who wanted change won, thus their will was imposed on the society as a whole. The slave doesn't necessarily have to like his lot in life, they can dislike it intensely, they can, at least under certain circumstances, fight to change the society and many blacks did just that. You seem to think that "right" and "wrong" have any objective meaning. They don't. Personally, I think it was wrong that we allowed slavery. It was wrong when blacks were considered 3/5ths human. It was wrong when women couldn't vote. It's wrong today that gays cannot marry. But those are my opinions, they have no bearing on objective reality, which is exactly what you're trying to assert. You're taking wishful thinking and trying to make it mean something universal and it's just not so.

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.

Click to expand...

Oh good, another ridiculous screed against the government. Guess what? The government is the legislative arm of the society! What you're really trying to do is whine "oh no, the government won't do what I want, therefore I'll cast them as the big baddies out to screw everyone over!" The government gets as bad as the people, collectively, allow it to. Don't like the government? Take it up with society.

Getting upset is justified because your rights have been violated. Fighting back is justified because your rights have been violated.

Click to expand...

How does that stop me from getting upset that my societally-granted rights are violated? Why is some "natural" right required to be justified in acknowledging that you've been abused in a society which has guaranteed that you will not be abused?

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

Click to expand...

It's very similar in fact. Christians who say that are clueless about the source of morality, thus anyone who doesn't believe in their imaginary friend cannot be moral because they misplace the source of morality. Likewise, I think it's clear that you don't understand the source of rights, thus you think, correct me if I'm wrong, that anyone who doesn't believe in your imaginary "natural rights" cannot understand rights.

It's like someone saying "tell them damn niggers I'm not racist". It's someone who doesn't quite comprehend the terms.

Ikari said:

No, you're purposefully avoiding the question...same with much of the rest of your argument. You can engage and answer the questions, or you can tap dance around. Your choice.

Click to expand...

Ok. Something is not connecting between us. Because I tried to answer it the best I can. You assert that certain rights are universal, I do not. I think that is our fundamental difference. Applied to slavery, my conclusion is:

My stance is ultimately that the slave decides the extent of their own freedom and they fight to try to accomplish it, they might succeed or fail. The same for the slave owner. Neither person is better or worse since it is up to their own moral framework to decide, but they do it for themselves. Of course we can also judge these two people based on our own moral criteria and come to our own conclusions. He may wish to be free, he may not wish to be free. Supposedly the slave sees some benefit in whatever he chooses.

There is no overall objective framework to decide these things. I don't see how that's avoiding the question other than I am simply not acknowledging your concept of natural rights because I simply do not believe in them and that is an adequate reason for me. (I do believe in something very similar to your concept though, but we disagree on its source.)

but going back to the idea of liberty of the body, a person has liberty of the body as long as conditions allow it. If their spinal cord is severed, they lose that liberty (or at least the moving around aspect of it). If they have brain death, they lose the liberty of consciousness, etc. We only have liberty in things as long as there is a framework for its use by us. It is the same with society. We might disagree, like we might be angry with our body for not doing what we would like it to do, but the only response we can have is to try to change the framework so we get more of what we want. Maybe that poor guy will grow some new nerve cells through therapy or signals will be rerouted. Maybe we will pass a new law that allows or disallows something. Its more or less the same concept applied to different situations.

Perhaps if you restate the question in another form, we can make another attempt.

Ikari said:

What I believe is not a farce. If you want to leave the absurd and go into childish insults, we're done. Good day to you. I won't entertain arguments of children.

Click to expand...

Run away as fast as you can, wouldn't want you to actually ADDRESS the failures of your philosophical system or anything. :roll:

Can't say I'm surprised.

Cephus said:

Run away as fast as you can, wouldn't want you to actually ADDRESS the failures of your philosophical system or anything. :roll:

Can't say I'm surprised.

Click to expand...

It's not running away. But the only way you can arrive to your insulting claims you make in childish ways is the abject rejection of any argument. In which case, there is no more debate. You won't entertain the idea of all humans being equal or having a base set of rights. And in the end, you've resorted to just childish insults, at which point we're done. If you can't respond in an intellectually honest manner, is there really a point to continuing on? I don't think so. Arguing with a child isn't very productive on the whole.

I believe rights are a natural extension of intellectual truths or axioms.

All humans desire to live in accordance with their will. This is a biological or natural inclination, inherent to all humans. This forms the natural basis for rights, which are an intellectual extension of this biological inclination.

Cephus said:

Run away as fast as you can, wouldn't want you to actually ADDRESS the failures of your philosophical system or anything. :roll:

Can't say I'm surprised.

Click to expand...

You're such a snide individual. No one is impressed by you...

megaprogman said:

I will need to come back to #1 and #2 later. My allergy medicine is making me forgetful (and very grouchy) and I think you deserve my full attention. You have #3 and #4 fully addressed in the previous post so I will get to those.

#3, I am saying that both need to be learned. Depending on socialization and instinct. Different animals are different of course. For humans, it is definitely learned.

#4. I disagree. All you are saying is that you place your morals above society's laws. That just means you believe in your morals strongly. I do the same thing, so do most people actually. You just happen to think yours are the only ones worth considering. Most people do that too though. The point is, each person decides this for themselves and they may or may not come to the same conclusions that you did.

I address this more thoroughly in my last post against Ikari. But suffice to say that I completely do not agree with you, even on the most fundamental level, and because they are simply ideas, ultimately it does not matter. We will each do our thing and fight for what we think is right.

Click to expand...

I will say that I don't have a moral imposition in the fight, I'm advocating for the most basic moral structure that is agreeable to most reasonable people. Don't kill, steal, or harm, other than that I would argue as well that to infringe upon rights when necessity is in doubt or based solely on morals is in itself immoral. As for the rest, I will wait for your next response.

Ikari said:

It's not running away. But the only way you can arrive to your insulting claims you make in childish ways is the abject rejection of any argument. In which case, there is no more debate. You won't entertain the idea of all humans being equal or having a base set of rights. And in the end, you've resorted to just childish insults, at which point we're done. If you can't respond in an intellectually honest manner, is there really a point to continuing on? I don't think so. Arguing with a child isn't very productive on the whole.

Click to expand...

You just don't get it, Ikari. Cephus is way smarter than the Founders and the Enlightenment era philosophers that inspired them. They got nothing on him, with his epic blog and whatnot...

megaprogman said:

Ok. Something is not connecting between us. Because I tried to answer it the best I can. You assert that certain rights are universal, I do not. I think that is our fundamental difference. Applied to slavery, my conclusion is:

My stance is ultimately that the slave decides the extent of their own freedom and they fight to try to accomplish it, they might succeed or fail. The same for the slave owner. Neither person is better or worse since it is up to their own moral framework to decide, but they do it for themselves. Of course we can also judge these two people based on our own moral criteria and come to our own conclusions. He may wish to be free, he may not wish to be free. Supposedly the slave sees some benefit in whatever he chooses.

There is no overall objective framework to decide these things. I don't see how that's avoiding the question other than I am simply not acknowledging your concept of natural rights because I simply do not believe in them and that is an adequate reason for me. (I do believe in something very similar to your concept though, but we disagree on its source.)

Perhaps if you restate the question in another form, we can make another attempt.

Click to expand...

The end point is not whether a person feels they're justified. People can feel justified for many things. I'm sure the Kent State person felt justified in their rampage; but that rampage infringed on the base rights of others; notably the right to life. The point is more concrete than that, is the person justified. Do you think they are justified. If someone steals the product of my labor, am I justified in seeking damages? If someone tries to take my life, am I justified to defend it; no matter what the law may say. Is it right? Because in a world of floppy rights, I am beholden to only that which society and law has granted me. There's no right to revolt for instance. If a government acts grievously against my rights, I have no rightful recourse as they would have set the rules to forbid it. I may feel I have rightful recourse, but it doesn't actually exist in a world of purely floppy rights. But my feelings are inconsequential. Does it exist or does it not exist.

The end statement is, are all people fundamentally equal? Is human human, or are we product purely of environmental/societal constructs? We prosper because that was our random chance. People who suffer must accept their suffering because that's their lot. If there are no fundamental rights, then those who suffer must accept and live in it. They have no just reason to fight. If there are fundamental rights, then those who suffer have just reason to fight against that since their rights have been infringed upon.

In the end, I fall fairly well within Immanuel Kant's philosophy that natural rights can be realized through thought. And I think there is great importance in stressing a base set of natural rights.

LaMidRighter said:

I will say that I don't have a moral imposition in the fight, I'm advocating for the most basic moral structure that is agreeable to most reasonable people. Don't kill, steal, or harm, other than that I would argue as well that to infringe upon rights when necessity is in doubt or based solely on morals is in itself immoral. As for the rest, I will wait for your next response.

Click to expand...

I think your morals are pretty good in that they mesh pretty well with mine. but that's as far as each of us can go. If we had a hive mind, the situation would be very different .

Wait! Let me rephrase my definition...

Rights are the intellectual expression of humanity's natural inclination to live in accordance with one's will. They are a moral sentiment arising from nature, so, in that regard, they are natural.

Ethereal said:

Wait! Let me rephrase my definition...

Rights are the intellectual expression of humanity's natural inclination to live in accordance with one's will. They are a moral sentiment arising from nature, so, in that regard, they are natural.

Click to expand...

So they are subjective or objective?

If they are objective then please name an objective right that every single person in history would agree with.

scourge99 said:

So they are subjective or objective?

If they are objective then please name an objective right that every single person in history would agree with.

Click to expand...

The basis of rights is objective and natural, that is, all humans desire to live in accordance with their own will. The theory of individual liberty and natural rights is, however, subjective; it's simply an intellectual extension of a biological axiom.

Ethereal said:

The basis of rights is objective and natural, that is, all humans desire to live in accordance with their own will. The theory of individual liberty and natural rights is, however, subjective; it's simply an intellectual extension of a biological axiom.

Click to expand...

But you can also make an intellectual extension that denies natural rights: Anarchy, asceticism, social darwinism, capitalism to name a few.

The notion of natural rights is a subjective claim on how people "ought" to act in the objective world.

Its nothing more than an opinion. I happen to agree with parts of this opinion because I think the current consequences of it have optimal effects. But I don't delude myself into thinking it is a universal and objective standard.

Ikari said:

The end point is not whether a person feels they're justified. People can feel justified for many things. I'm sure the Kent State person felt justified in their rampage; but that rampage infringed on the base rights of others; notably the right to life. The point is more concrete than that, is the person justified. Do you think they are justified. If someone steals the product of my labor, am I justified in seeking damages? If someone tries to take my life, am I justified to defend it; no matter what the law may say. Is it right? Because in a world of floppy rights, I am beholden to only that which society and law has granted me. There's no right to revolt for instance. If a government acts grievously against my rights, I have no rightful recourse as they would have set the rules to forbid it. I may feel I have rightful recourse, but it doesn't actually exist in a world of purely floppy rights. But my feelings are inconsequential. Does it exist or does it not exist.

Click to expand...

I think the part you don't understand is that you will fight for what you perceive your rights to be because it is your desire.

You keep going on about people having to accept the hand they are dealt if these rights do not exist. I disagree. If they think it is right to change their life in some way, than they will probably perform some actions towards that goal and either be successful or not. However, their belief is all the justification needed.

You are perfectly justified in applying your natural rights, as you see them, because you believe in them and will act on them.

Ikari said:

The end statement is, are all people fundamentally equal?

Click to expand...

I like to think they are equal, but how would we measure it? I hope they are equal, I think its good to treat them as if they were. My religion tells me that I should treat everyone as I wanted to be treated. I don't always do a good job at it, but I try. I don't think the question is answerable though or else I could whip out a spreadsheet or a math program and perform a series of proofs on it.

As a practical and moral matter. Society seems to be more functional when we apply the concept of equality though.

Ikari said:

Is human human, or are we product purely of environmental/societal constructs? We prosper because that was our random chance. People who suffer must accept their suffering because that's their lot. If there are no fundamental rights, then those who suffer must accept and live in it. They have no just reason to fight. If there are fundamental rights, then those who suffer have just reason to fight against that since their rights have been infringed upon.

Click to expand...

We are a product of instinct, brain structure, the environment around us, the physical constraints of physics and chemistry. We prosper sometimes because of random chance, our choices, our birth circumstance, or any other number of reasons.

You mention accepting the hand you are dealt again. Again I state that you only accept that if you believe you must accept it or if you think it is best to accept it. YOUR BELIEFS MATTER, but they only matter for you. Just like mine only matter for me. In fact if we didn't have beliefs, society would have never progressed beyond people standing around next to each other, each person doing their own thing. Its the interaction between our actions, driven by our beliefs, that make society function. So its really the opposite of how you imagine it.

Ikari said:

In the end, I fall fairly well within Immanuel Kant's philosophy that natural rights can be realized through thought. And I think there is great importance in stressing a base set of natural rights.

Click to expand...

If that's what gets you out of bed in the morning, than great. I like to see people happy.

I think we have gone as far as we can with this. It looks like we are simply restating ourselves at this point and have been for the last three posts.

Ikari said:

Just because people live in tyranny and oppression doesn't mean they don't have rights. They most certainly have the same base rights all humans enjoy, even if the exercise of such rights are forcible infringed upon by some outside force.

Click to expand...

Wow...I just cannot fathom the mindset that clings to that notion. We will obviously agree to disagree...

VanceMack said:

Wow...I just cannot fathom the mindset that clings to that notion. We will obviously agree to disagree...

Click to expand...

I can. It is the fear that if there is no standard, there is no reason to do anything, at least thats what I seem to be picking up from Ikari. I can understand, having no flaming road signs means we each have to make our own way and that is indeed a scary thing.