• 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
Ethereal said:
I would recommend they actually sit down and read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, instead of just trying to encapsulate the Founders' entire political philosophy in two sentences.

There! I've refuted all of them! The Founders are but ants before my intellectual prowess! I am an internet God, slaying arcane philosophies at my leisure!!!

:rofl

In your dreams internet warrior...
Click to expand...

The problem is that we aren't arguing with the founders. They are dead, so all we have is you guys.
 
Goshin said:
Allow me to put forward an odd proposition, for those who do not believe in natural rights:

You might want to consider "faking it"... that is, pretending to believe in natural rights, even if you don't.

Do you like having rights? I expect you do.

Are your rights more secure if the vast majority of the population believes them to be abstract constructs of society, or privileges granted by government... or natural and inherent?

If nobody thought the Constitution was important, it wouldn't be. But, in point of fact lots of people believe it is... indeed it is held as all but sacrosanct by many, and so it still has power.

Rights are sorta like that. If most people believe you absodamnlutely have an inborn, inherent, natural right to free speech, then the government will have to tread lightly in infringing on same.

If most people view the right to free speech as an arbitrary social construct granted by government, I think they would be less inclined to see infringements of speech with the same level of outrage and fury.

Give it a moment's thought. Words and concepts have power. Critical thinking is all very well, but if you kick ALL the underpinnings out of a society, what will hold it up?
Click to expand...

Interesting approach. I don't agree, but I applaud the thinking behind it. You are correct in that there are many practical benefits to the Natural Law Philosophy, however I think the approach is too limited in many aspects.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
I don't know what you think this proves. A "right" is just a philosophical construct that is based upon human nature. It cannot protect you from anything, which is why they are said to be "violated" when someone's individual liberty is infringed upon.

People come up with some strange arguments when they're talking about "natural rights".
Click to expand...

Actually...thats preCISEly what I have been saying all along...rights are MERELY PHILOSOPHICAL. As such they are IDEAS...not REAL.
 
VanceMack said:
Actually...thats preCISEly what I have been saying all along...rights are MERELY PHILOSOPHICAL. As such they are IDEAS...not REAL.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think we're aware of that. I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Ikari said:
Well you'll see a lot of people use weird arguments to try to get out of debates on rights. I don't know when abstract ideas became bad, but I think there is a lot of validity to abstract ideals and philosophy.
Click to expand...

oh...my...heck...

seriously?

The CONCEPT of RIGHTS is an IDEA...nothing more. I have said that from the OUTSET. It is absolutely intangible.

and NOW you say...gosh...its just an abstract idea...I dont know why people have such a hard time with it...

I...I...

I give up...
 
megaprogman said:
Interesting approach. I don't agree, but I applaud the thinking behind it. You are correct in that there are many practical benefits to the Natural Law Philosophy, however I think the approach is too limited in many aspects.
Click to expand...

How is individual liberty and sovereignty limited? Do you value your individual sovereignty and liberty? Doesn't every person on the planet? Shouldn't we recognize this inherent quality and endeavor to protect it?

The philosophy of natural rights is not this soundbite you and others are making it out to be. You can't just take the core political philosophy of the Founding Fathers and dismiss it with "it's limited". That's intellectually dishonest and lazy.
 
VanceMack said:
oh...my...heck...

seriously?

The CONCEPT of RIGHTS is an IDEA...nothing more. I have said that from the OUTSET. It is absolutely intangible.

and NOW you say...gosh...its just an abstract idea...I dont know why people have such a hard time with it...

I...I...

I give up...
Click to expand...

Okay!? So you've been arguing against a strawman the whole time. Congratulations on beating up that strawman. It was really impressive.
 
Ethereal said:
Yes, I think we're aware of that. I'm not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...

Im thinking if you read back where rights are asserted by certain others to be real and something people have and deserve based on their nature as 'humans' you will see that my position from the outset has been consistent. If we ALL have these mythical 'rights' then it would stand to reason that it is a UNIVERSAL CONCEPT. However it is also OBVIOUS that it is not now nor has it ever BEEN the case. And if it DOESNT EXIST...then it isnt really a 'right' so much as it is dream...a concept...a fantasy...an 'idea'. WE assert the WORD and MEANING of 'rights'. That CERTAINLY doesnt make it VALID.
 
Ethereal said:
Okay!? So you've been arguing against a strawman the whole time. Congratulations on beating up that strawman. It was really impressive.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on immediately jumping in BED with it. Hope you brought protection...please dont give details...
 
VanceMack said:
Im thinking if you read back where rights are asserted by certain others to be real and something people have and deserve based on their nature as 'humans' you will see that my position from the outset has been consistent. If we ALL have these mythical 'rights' then it would stand to reason that it is a UNIVERSAL CONCEPT. However it is also OBVIOUS that it is not now nor has it ever BEEN the case. And if it DOESNT EXIST...then it isnt really a 'right' so much as it is dream...a concept...a fantasy...an 'idea'. WE assert the WORD and MEANING of 'rights'. That CERTAINLY doesnt make it VALID.
Click to expand...

Rights are based upon a universal concept, that is, human nature. That's why they're called "natural rights". When someone says they "have" a right, they don't mean they physically possess something. It's just an expression of something inherent to humans, i.e., individual sovereignty.

Stop beating up your strawman, he's had enough already....
 
VanceMack said:
Congratulations on immediately jumping in BED with it. Hope you brought protection...please dont give details...
Click to expand...

Uhhhhh, what?


Nevermind, I'm not interested...
 
Natural has become a useless term.
 
mikhail said:
Natural has become a useless term.
Click to expand...

And why is that? Because you say so?

It's flippant comments like this that cheapen the debates around here...
 
Ethereal said:
How is individual liberty and sovereignty limited? Do you value your individual sovereignty and liberty? Doesn't every person on the planet? Shouldn't we recognize this inherent quality and endeavor to protect it?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the practical effects of the philosophy. The interpretation of it that I most often see imposes limitations on society that I think are unnecessary and prevent us from progressing towards what I think would be a more optimal social organization that would help prevent the loss of life, hunger, and other evils. In my view, people are often more important than concepts.

The ideas do have a certain appeal, but in some cases, they appear to do more harm than good. I am less concerned with the logic of it and more concern with what happens in the real world as a result of it.

Ethereal said:
The philosophy of natural rights is not this soundbite you and others are making it out to be. You can't just take the core political philosophy of the Founding Fathers and dismiss it with "it's limited". That's intellectually dishonest and lazy.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you think it is a sound bite or not. I do. There is nothing that prevents me from thinking otherwise. Really that's all that's necessary since it is only an idea or a group of ideas.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I was referring to the practical effects of the philosophy. The interpretation of it that I most often see imposes limitations on society that I think are unnecessary and prevent us from progressing towards what I think would be a more optimal social organization that would help prevent the loss of life, hunger, and other evils.

The ideas do have a certain appeal, but in some cases, they appear to do more harm than good. I am less concerned with the logic of it and more concern with what happens in the real world as a result of it.
Click to expand...



Dude, that is what scares me. Your statement is one step away from "We must give up these concepts of individual rights for the sake of Social Progress and the Common Good."

This has been the rallying cry of many oppressive tyrants and movements. The end results are always ugly.

Boy, that whole free speech thing sure does suck, when it allows some bozo with a microphone to diss your agenda, doesn't it? (/irony)
 
Goshin said:
Dude, that is what scares me. Your statement is one step away from "We must give up these concepts of individual rights for the sake of Social Progress and the Common Good."

This has been the rallying cry of many oppressive tyrants and movements. The end results are always ugly.
Click to expand...

And sometimes the results are good, like socialized health care. The way I see it is that it can be used for both good and bad, like any other ideal. Thats why I am uninterested in logical purity and more interested in results.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
And why is that? Because you say so?

It's flippant comments like this that cheapen the debates around here...
Click to expand...
Because to use a term, you must define it.

And you can't define anything without using another term which can be defined in multiple ways.

The entire system called "logic" is a chain of such things.

Assuming, of course, that I used the universally correct definition of "the", "entire", "system", "called", "logic", "is", "a", "chain", "of", "such", and "things".

Which I couldn't have, except by accident, as no one knows what those definitions are.

*crosses eyes*

:2razz:
 
The Mark said:
Because to use a term, you must define it.

And you can't define anything without using another term which can be defined in multiple ways.

The entire system called "logic" is a chain of such things.

Assuming, of course, that I used the universally correct definition of "the", "entire", "system", "called", "logic", "is", "a", "chain", "of", "such", and "things".

Which I couldn't have, except by accident, as no one knows what those definitions are.

*crosses eyes*

:2razz:
Click to expand...

If we could only network our brains and exchange thought instead of clumsy language :(
 
megaprogman said:
And sometimes the results are good, like socialized health care. The way I see it is that it can be used for both good and bad, like any other ideal. Thats why I am uninterested in logical purity and more interested in results.
Click to expand...


I don't consider socialized healthcare a good, and I speak out against it.

If you were able to stifle the free speech of people like me, it would be far easier to get socialized healthcare passed.

Do you really want to go there? Your logic seems to be pointing in that direction... the direction of "individual rights get in the way of my agenda."
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
And why is that? Because you say so?

It's flippant comments like this that cheapen the debates around here...
Click to expand...

No it isnt my point is what do you mean by "natural" ive seen it used under such a wide definitions.Its hard to know the specific meaning in which someone is using it.

Im just asking you to go a little further.
 
Goshin said:
I don't consider socialized healthcare a good, and I speak out against it.

If you were able to stifle the free speech of people like me, it would be far easier to get socialized healthcare passed.

Do you really want to go there?
Click to expand...

Whether or not we disagree is the subject of another thread and its probably best we stay on subject. And I have no interest in stifling the speech of anyone, my interest is letting our votes do the work for us, which is a legitimate way of settling our disagreements in this society. (Of course that seems to be working less and less well in practice, again, thats another thread).
 
megaprogman said:
Whether or not we disagree is the subject of another thread and its probably best we stay on subject. And I have no interest in stifling the speech of anyone, my interest is letting our votes do the work for us, which is a legitimate way of settling our disagreements in this society.
Click to expand...


So what rights do we have that you think are "limiting our progress" and need to be done away with? You certainly implied that there were such.


Incidentally, if you're mainly intrested in "results" rather than "logical purity" (whatever that means), and think that concepts of rights shouldn't get in the way of progress... well there's that pesky Democracy thing, do away with that and you can get your "results" a lot faster. (/irony)
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I was referring to the practical effects of the philosophy. The interpretation of it that I most often see imposes limitations on society that I think are unnecessary and prevent us from progressing towards what I think would be a more optimal social organization that would help prevent the loss of life, hunger, and other evils. In my view, people are often more important than concepts.
Click to expand...

A society is nothing more than an abstraction, the same as a right. The only difference is that a right is based upon human nature, while the other is nebulous and variable.

You're placing the needs of an abstract social entity over the sovereignty of a real individual. That's socialist tyranny.

The ideas do have a certain appeal, but in some cases, they appear to do more harm than good. I am less concerned with the logic of it and more concern with what happens in the real world as a result of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, rights have always harmed the ability of tyrants to violate the individual.

I don't care if you think it is a sound bite or not. I do. There is nothing that prevents me from thinking otherwise. Really that's all that's necessary since it is only an idea or a group of ideas.
Click to expand...

I never said you couldn't have your own opinion. I'm just saying you should base it on reality. The philosophy of natural rights was the product of hundreds of brilliant minds over hundreds of years. If you want to delude yourself into thinking you've encapsulated it with soundbites I'm not going to stop you; it is your right, after all...
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
So what rights do we have that you think are "limiting our progress" and need to be done away with? You certainly implied that there were such.
Click to expand...

Mostly it involves around the idea that taxes are theft and not legit unless its only used for certain purposes which are very narrowly defined by a the same people who tend to use the "taxes are theft" phrase.

This goes back to socialized medicine.

I have no issues with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, I have no idea what the ninth is referring to but its probably judicial precedent of some sort, and the tenth should have been worded better since it seems to allow for wild differences in interpretation.
 
mikhail said:
No it isnt my point is what do you mean by "natural" ive seen it used under such a wide definitions.Its hard to know the specific meaning in which someone is using it.

Im just asking you to go a little further.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's reasonable. I would simply define it as something arising from nature, and nature is basically everything. You can isolate certain parts of nature, too, like human nature. Human nature would be anything inherent to all humans, just like something "natural" would be anything inherent to the universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom