Are Rights Natural?

Ikari said:

I think that you still don't quite understand. Perhaps like your compatriots you are more given to make snide comments than try to understand a premise.

It comes down to this. Do you think murder is unequivocally wrong? Not self-defense or things of that nature. Is one human in cold blood murdering another human always wrong? Regardless of race, regardless of location, regardless of social status. I'm pissy and grumpy, I'm walking down the street, I see some guy...maybe he reminds me of a rude server at Starbucks, I pull out a gun, shoot him in the back of the head. Is that act always wrong?

The answer to that question will tell you what side of this debate you are on. If you believe that it is always wrong to outright murder people in cold blood, the question becomes why? If social and legal "right" is all we have, those can be changed. You can have a society say were murder is encouraged. But if you think that murder is always wrong, then there has to exist something outside of legal and social "right", something that is inherent to all humans and makes cold blooded murder against humans always wrong. That would be natural rights.

If the answer to the question is no, then you'll never accept the concept of natural rights. If you think it personally ok under some circumstance for me to have shot that guy in the back of the head for no reason; you won't accept natural rights. It doesn't mean that maybe you can't understand the arguments for them (unlike others who would rather blatantly engage in nothing but insult instead of debate), but you're not going to accept it as valid. Morality is in essence completely subjective.

I'm of course in the natural rights club. I am never justified to murder someone who has done nothing to me in the least. I do not have the right to take his life.

Click to expand...

Here's the fallacy of your example, Ikari, and why rights are NOT natural. Even if I agree that it is always bad to murder someone in cold blood, unless everyone that ever lived feels the same way, the right is not natural. It is a construct instilled in each of us, either through social learning or through societal culture. Further, even IF every person who ever lived felt that way, then it would be an instinct, not a right.

And I STILL haven't seen a viable definition of "rights". Everything the pro-natural rights crowd are discussing are desires or instincts.

Yes, but then you turn to aggregated effects and away from the natural environment to make some of those arguments. Which is were the concept of legal and social rights come into play. The pondering of natural rights extends from treatment of the natural environment free from government/societal pressures and observing the base of human nature. Aggregated over the whole you may find "broken" people who through lack of empathy or a variety of other reasons may think it's ok to just shoot someone. But that doesn't mean there aren't base rights. It just shows that on an aggregated level you'll realize situations which may not be present in the natural state or which may not manifest themselves less in the aggregated state. But the base of natural rights comes from consideration of people free from government force and thus leads to natural rights which is a restriction on the natural evolution of government against the rights of the people.

Cephus said:

Nope, just to point out where you're wrong and to watch you wallow in your wrongness. But hey, if you don't like it, stop responding to me, I don't mind. I'll just keep on pointing out where you're wrong, nothing says you have to pay attention.

Click to expand...

I mean, if you had actually pointed out where I was wrong, I suppose that would have been one thing. But you didn't. You merely carte blanche ignored any argument or reference to philosopher and deemed me wrong without any consideration. As I said, it is now clear you skills of debate and integrity.

I have been wondering.

How can anyone know what "natural rights" would be, given that no human ever recorded has lived in a environment that is not influenced by other forces...thus eliminating any baseline for the "natural" part.

If that were the case, would it then follow that "rights" which were developed through the interaction of multiple humans with each other were the "natural rights"?

Or could it be that "natural" for humans is to be interacting with other humans?

I don't see how you can really determine which method of deciding what "rights" are "natural" is correct.

So, really, all "rights" thought up by humans could be "natural", or perhaps no "rights" are "natural".

Personally, however, I think the former is more reasonable.

My reasons are as follows:

• Only a small percentage of humans choose to live by themselves. Further, these are in most cases humans who had previously lived in a state of interaction with other humans, but for one reason or another chose to leave and live without said interaction. Lastly, those who choose to live a solitary existence are, from one perspective, "interacting" with other humans - if only through the act of avoiding interaction.
  
• Thus, it seems "natural" that the majority of humans would live in a state of interaction with other humans. Exchanging ideas, thoughts, opinions...
  
• It would then seem to follow that humans, in their natural state, would generate "rights" that they would (or, depending, would not) then hold others too.
  
• So...Does that mean that any rights generated by human thought are "natural rights"?

Heh.

*crosses eyes*

Other: If it's human rights than it's natural.

Ikari said:

I mean, if you had actually pointed out where I was wrong, I suppose that would have been one thing. But you didn't. You merely carte blanche ignored any argument or reference to philosopher and deemed me wrong without any consideration. As I said, it is now clear you skills of debate and integrity.

Click to expand...

I've pointed out that you're just making assertions without providing a shred of evidence that said assertions are factually correct, logical, well-reasoned or defensible. You're pulling "natural rights" out of thin air without any evidence that they actually exist. You haven't demonstrated that these rights actually exist as anything more than a figment of your imagination, that there is a criteria for determining what is a "natural right" and what is not, and why your criteria is factually correct, etc. These are questions that need answering and questions you are not answering.

But instead of actually coming up with answers, you instead decided to attack me and claim that I had somehow missed your answers. If that were the case, you should have been able to point to your answers with direct links and I could have gone to look at them. Instead, you started calling names and you're still doing it. Color me unimpressed.

jr602az said:

Other: If it's human rights than it's natural.

Click to expand...

Please expand on your statement.

Cephus said:

Yes, you keep saying that, now let's see you DEMONSTRATE it. You know, back it up with evidence? :doh

Click to expand...

How do you "provide evidence" of something that is self-evident?

I have ownership over myself, and I endeavor to obey myself. This is true of all humans; it is "self", what is most inherent to our being. It belongs entirely to YOU and no one else. No one can ever "have" that part of you.

You're just wallowing in pure nihlism with your silly argument. You can't "prove" yourself; it simply is.

Ethereal said:

How do you "provide evidence" of something that is self-evident?

I have ownership over myself, and I endeavor to obey myself. This is true of all humans; it is "self", what is most inherent to our being. It belongs entirely to YOU and no one else. No one can ever "have" that part of you.

You're just wallowing in pure nihlism with your silly argument. You can't "prove" yourself; it simply is.

Click to expand...

Apparently it's not self-evident, otherwise everyone would have the same view. It might be evident to you, but you haven't demonstrated how or why you came to that conclusion, you just keep repeating it as if that somehow makes it true.

Repeating the same unsupported claim doesn't make it any better supported.

I think people often get the 'right to pursue' while being protected by the government mixed up with a 'requirement for the government to provide the right.'

You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, switch and bait) which means you can pursue it if you like - not thta the government must provide it for you.

Are rights natural?

Of course.

But let's define a right. A right is something you do for yourself. You have a right to live your own life, practice your own lifestyle, and to earn a living. You have a right to own, build, protect, and manage your property, to voice your opinion, to exercise or not exercise a religion, to educate yourself and your children as you see fit, to travel, etc.

You do NOT have a right to force others to provide things for you--education, food, housing, health care, etc.

You do NOT have a right to force others to live or manage their properties in manners they do not approve.

Ikari said:

I'm pretty well entrenched in the Natural Rights camp. I believe that the understanding of what rights are is innate to our intellect and were in fact discovered through it. I can't really see how rights could be anything but natural. There are privilege and law which we can use the government for, but those things are not rights. Rights exist above the power of the government, rightful government anyway.

Click to expand...

The only NATURAL right is the right to kill or beat those that are weaker than you and get killed or beaten by those stronger than you. Anything beyond that is CREATED/CIVILIZED rights.

ronpaulvoter said:

But let's define a right. A right is something you do for yourself. You have a right to live your own life, practice your own lifestyle, and to earn a living. You have a right to own, build, protect, and manage your property, to voice your opinion, to exercise or not exercise a religion, to educate yourself and your children as you see fit, to travel, etc.

Click to expand...

But that's blatantly untrue. You do not have a right to have a lifestyle eating babies or beating old people with a stick. You do not have a right to earn a living by stealing. You do not have a right to build property that falls outside of local ordnances or building codes, nor can you manage your property in a manner that violates local rules. You cannot voice your opinion if said opinion slanders another, or if it reveals military secrets to the enemy. Depending on where you live, you may not have a right to exercise, or not exercise a religion, just ask the people in Iran. Further, in those places, if you're female, you may not have a right to educate yourself or your female children.

Amazing how these so-called "rights" fall apart under even the most cursory of evaluation.

Of course not. Natural rights would even recognize that because of their nature. Your logic would say that if society was ok with baby eating or old man beating, that you have a right to do so. Natural rights would say that's always wrong as you are infringing upon the natural rights of others. Then there are other things such as building codes, etc. which come in through a form of social contract. Then there are legal "rights" as well. Just because this other stuff exists doesn't mean natural rights don't. It seems to be the crux of the argument for some of the more zealous of the anti-rights folk. Natural rights are found from considering the natural state. The exercise of these rights can be suppressed with force, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist. Social contract and legal law can apply force too, adding more rules or clarifying existing ones. Again, doesn't mean the natural right doesn't exist.

So I guess it's not so blatantly untrue and that it doesn't quite fall apart as well as you may have hoped.

Ikari said:

So I guess it's not so blatantly untrue and that it doesn't quite fall apart as well as you may have hoped.

Click to expand...

I just want to comment on the bold part. I would love it f it if I could convince myself that these things were absolutely true, as it would relieve me of a lot of responsibility, but I do not find the arguments to be compelling enough to override my skepticism. Its not about what I want, but what I find to be true according to my observations.

In fact, the more I look into this philosophy, the less I am satisfied of its completeness and accuracy.

As it is, I find them to be partially true, but not a complete description of this aspect of the human condition as they do not take everything into account.

Again, it would be great if it were true, but I do not find evidence to support its claims.

The types of arguments and debates necessary to truly start to discuss the philosophical question of rights is a bit beyond that which can be accomplished on an internet politics board. There is a lot of background and research to be done in order to being to understand the question.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/6_3/6_3_5.pdf
This is a paper, it's ok. It has decent citation so as to point in a better direction. But in this paper, they ask can natural rights exist. It's not a question into which natural rights exist; but a fundamental, can they exist. It's interesting enough. You should give it a read.

Regardless, your comments have nothing to do with the bolded portion of that quote of mine.

Thanks. I will give it a read.

The point of my response is that it sounded like you were making an accusation of people basing their beliefs off the emotional appeal of one stance or another. I think if people do that and than make policy based on what they prefer instead of what they observe, the results could be a disaster (of course logic based stances are not immune to that problem as well). Also, I like to think I am more honest than that (even though it wasn't directed at me). That's all.

I was not saying that of the whole, I was saying it of the few.

Ikari said:

Of course not. Natural rights would even recognize that because of their nature. Your logic would say that if society was ok with baby eating or old man beating, that you have a right to do so. Natural rights would say that's always wrong as you are infringing upon the natural rights of others. Then there are other things such as building codes, etc. which come in through a form of social contract. Then there are legal "rights" as well. Just because this other stuff exists doesn't mean natural rights don't. It seems to be the crux of the argument for some of the more zealous of the anti-rights folk. Natural rights are found from considering the natural state. The exercise of these rights can be suppressed with force, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist. Social contract and legal law can apply force too, adding more rules or clarifying existing ones. Again, doesn't mean the natural right doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

If society did determine that eating babies was fine, then you would, in fact, have a right to do so. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily "right" in the philosophical sense, the concept of "right and wrong" is entirely subjective. There are people who believe that their religion gives them the right to do some pretty awful things and in some countries, they're right. It doesn't fly in countries that don't grant that right however.

Ultimately, you're constructing a set of standards which have no basis in reality. It's philosophical wishful thinking. You accept it because, for whatever reason, you want it to be true. You have done nothing to demonstrate that it actually is true beyond your own wants and desires. You keep asserting "this exists", we ask you how you know and you just repeat "this exists". It's like the religious person above asserting that he has a right to beat his wife, his religion tells him so. Great, that and a $5 bill will get you a cup of coffee. By the same token, a woman in a country where wife beating is legal can stand up and demand her "rights" all she wants, she's still going to get beaten.

In the end, you're just standing on your little soapbox screaming "I have a right to fly but evolution has failed me!" You might wish these rights existed but you've done nothing to demonstrate that they actually do outside of your own head and wishful thinking. Until you can prove that they have some actual application, they're pointless. You still can't answer how you know they exist, all you can do is assert that they do.

There may be places which use the force of government or even religion to suppress the exercise of rights. But the rights still exist. The woman living in a country which oppresses women has the same rights as any other human would. She is justified in her rage against those whom do her harm and the government which has failed to protect her rights. Revolt is justified. In the end, rights in general are philosophical in nature and one has to turn to philosophical arguments to define and understand the concepts at hand. But just because something is philosophical doesn't mean that it has no merit or weight. Fortunately, humans are quite capable of understanding and using abstract ideas.

In the end, either you think that on some level all humans are equal or all humans are innately unequal with some whom are better and more deserving than others based on nothing more than chance. Being king doesn't make one great, any man can be king if serendipity shines upon them. As such, I have not seen sufficient argument to show that fundamentally humans are different.

"However, to borrow another characteristic concept from Kant, "as legislating members of the Kingdom of Ends," as creatures prescribing laws to apply to all such creatures, creatures adopting and pursuing ends for themselves, we ourselves can lay it down that all rational agents are to be respected in their pursuit of their own chosen ends; or, in the favorite words of a more recent generation, their doings of their own things. Indeed, if we are committed to prescribing principles to apply equally to all such beings, principles which as ourselves such beings we could will to become universal law, then it would seem that we can scarcely fail to prescribe: both that all individuals must have the right to pursue their own ends, save in so far as this pursuit violates the equal rights of others; and that everyone must be under the reciprocal and corresponding obligation to respect those equal rights of everyone else.

The notions of equality and of reciprocity enter here because no one can
consistently claim such universal human rights for themselves save in so far as
they concede to others the same rights, the same liberties. The content of such rights cannot but in consequence be the same for all. An agreeably unhackneyed statement is provided by the 1945 constitution of Kemalist Turkey: "Every Turk is born free and lives free. He has liberty to do anything which does not harm other persons. The natural right of the individual to liberty is limited only by the liberties enjoyed by his fellow citizens." The practice presents every kind of problem. The principle is luminous."

You two sound like an old married couple.

megaprogman said:

You two sound like an old married couple.

Click to expand...

It's debating with a fanatic, someone who is so mired in their philosophy that they can't even comprehend that it could be wrong. There's only so much that you can debate with someone who claims the sky is purple polka-dotted and ignores all evidence and argument to the contrary before it becomes a complete waste of time. :roll:

Cephus said:

It's debating with a fanatic, someone who is so mired in their philosophy that they can't even comprehend that it could be wrong. There's only so much that you can debate with someone who claims the sky is purple polka-dotted and ignores all evidence and argument to the contrary before it becomes a complete waste of time. :roll:

Click to expand...

Indeed, I am debating against such a person. So mired in your hate of libertarians and desire to put them down whenever possible, you've avoided debate and refuse to even hear the argument. People can post philosophers whom developed the theory, books or even papers, but it's all for not. So encrusted in their hatred, these people will not debate. They will merely gleefully claim that the other is a fool or living in fantasy without so much as offering any intelligent thought to the matter. So consumed are they by their bigotry that they cannot help themselves. They wish to stand on high upon their soap box and declare all whom they despise as ignorant, or believing in fantasy.

Poor, hateful beings. Perhaps one day they'll grow up, become an actual adult, behave like one, and participate in debate in some meaningful manner other than running into a thread spreading insults against groups of people they hate. Those people already have a home, it's called XBox Live.

My point is made.

You both should calm down or stop because nothing is being accomplished.

megaprogman said:

My point is made.

You both should calm down or stop because nothing is being accomplished.

Click to expand...

I'm not angry, I was just pointing out the obstructionist behavior of one of the more anti-libertarian people on the board...maybe the second most so.

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

ZING!