Do natural rights exist?[W:811:1629]

[matchlight]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

And your abject worship of a document, rather than just acknowledging reality, is downright pathetic.

What you imagine is pathetic does not interest me. As a lawyer, I have an obligation to take the Constitution seriously. And I understand exactly why statists and others who resent most things American resent that Constitution.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

The belief that rights are not natural, but are instead granted and guaranteed by government, comes from the observation that government can oppress or support such rights more effectively than the individual can themseleves. That group action is usually more effective than individual action. That it does no good to claim a right to life when the government can kill you, a right to free expression when the government can muzzle you, or a right to free association when the government can imprison you. It therefore follows that the only rights an individual can have are those rights granted and protected by government.

Yet if every government on the planet ceased to exist, one would still have natural rights amply demonstrated by individual existence in a state of nature. This is why Jefferson wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence.

An individual's right to life is not a right not to die. It is demonstrated by the individual struggle to maintain existence. The individual's capability to succeed does not matter; the simple fact that every living thing acts in self-defense is the proof.

An individual's right to free expression is not limited by the ability to speak. It is evidenced by any ability to express onseself even if one's tounge were cut out or one's hands were cut off. This is also amply demonstrated by just about every living thing in a state of nature.

Some people have argued that these are merely abilities, claiming that the exercise of abilities has nothing to do with innate rights. But it is the choice in use of such abilities that exemplifies rights, the choice to speak rather than not; whether to fight, to run, or to sacrifice oneself or not; the choice to oppose oppression and stand up for oneself whether successful or not.

None of this depends on the power of government, which is the power of the group used for or against the individual. It all depends on the will of the individual himself.

The idea of rights is only needed in an organized society. Existence does not prove there is a right to exist. All living things exist. Do all living things have rights?

 

[Cephus]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

What you imagine is pathetic does not interest me. As a lawyer, I have an obligation to take the Constitution seriously. And I understand exactly why statists and others who resent most things American resent that Constitution.

You have an obligation to take the Constitution seriously in court, certainly. This forum is not a courtroom. But by all means, keep whining that everyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically evil. Don't actually do anything to demonstrate that your beliefs are factually true.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

The idea of rights is only needed in an organized society. Existence does not prove there is a right to exist. All living things exist. Do all living things have rights?

Yes, although most are not sentient enough to recognize this.

Whether "endowed by their creator" or simply a fact of life, everything that struggles to survive or expresses itself exemplifies the right to life or expression.

Again, using the two examples above, rights are not negated by the fact that everything (we know of at least) eventually ceases to exist regardless of the struggle. It is the struggle itself that exemplifies natural rights.

 

[Fletch]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

No, that's completely subjective. Right and wrong are subjective. What you might think is right, someone else might think is wrong and there isn't any way to determine factual correctness between the two sides.

Sure there is. You recognize that humans have certain rights due to their nature as humans. Your moral blindness is due to your unwillingness to recognize that fact.

All the way through this, you're just making assertions. Here's what man is, here's what man likes, but really, you're just giving your personal opinion and assuming that your opinion is factually true.

Not true. Asserting that man is a rational and volitional creature is not opinion. Its fact.

No, they'll just get something you don't like. That doesn't make it bad, it just makes it something you don't like. There is a difference. But instead of acknowledging that we live in a nation of ideas and the most popular ideas win, for the most part, I see libertarians playing this like it's some weird conspiracy theory, that people are brainwashed to do things other than the clearly superior and absolutely correct libertarian ideas. Instead of just saying "we have ideas, those ideas are not popular and therefore those ideas are unlikely to make it into law", I see libertarians pretending that their ideas are magically correct and true and anyone who doesn't follow them has something wrong with them.

I didn't introduce magic into this. There are certain facts of reality that everyone has to deal with. That rights exist due to mans nature is one of those facts.

And there are no "moral crimes". There are just crimes. Murder is illegal because the majority of people within society deem it to be an unacceptable action and therefore our laws reflect said social disapproval.

Thank you. That was my point. You cant argue that murder is a moral crime because you have disarmed yourself. You have made murder illegal, but not wrong in any objective way. So when a member of ISIS throws a homosexual from the top of a building, you have no moral argument against him. You just don't like it. You cant tell him why its wrong because you have just declared that it is not. People wonder why evil thrives, its because the good has disarmed itself. You've just shown how.

But what a lot of people want are rules that never change, that never need to be thought about because they are automatically right or automatically wrong regardless. This is an unrealistic way of looking at reality. There are no unchanging standards.

Of course there are. What you are doing is simply supplanting majority for morality. If a given society decides murder or rape or slavery is just then it is just. Why? Because they say so. And you have no argument against them. Lets try a little experiment. I am a member of ISIS and I am about to slice the head off an infidel. You agree with me that the man bound and kneeling before me has no rights and murder is not a moral crime, so tell me, why should I not separate the mans head from his shoulders?

There are no imaginary men in the sky that hand down moral precepts. Things change. History proves unerringly that this is true. Just because it doesn't make you feel good to think that things change over time doesn't stop reality from working that way. You can play the "I'm right, so there!" game all you want, you can hold your breath until you turn blue, but reality always wins out in the end and reality doesn't give a damn if you're happy about it or not.

And reality tells me that man is a rational, volitional and moral being. As such there is a right way for man to live as man--an objective, unchanging, timeless way and reality doesn't give a damn if youre happy about it or not.

 

[Pozessed]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Yet if every government on the planet ceased to exist, one would still have natural rights amply demonstrated by individual existence in a state of nature.

Everything you said is probably true. But realistically speaking this argument could never happen. So long as 2 people form a community and they choose to abide by each others rules, a law of government is formed.
Considering rights to be a human construct that benefits humans and whichever other thing we humans want to give rights to is not a bad thing. It's important to realize this. Soon we may be questioning whether robots have rights if enough people create an emotional connection to them. Granted this may be 50 years down the road, but it is worth considering, and it is realistic.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Everything you said is probably true. But realistically speaking this argument could never happen. So long as 2 people form a community and they choose to abide by each others rules, a law of government is formed.
Considering rights to be a human construct that benefits humans and whichever other thing we humans want to give rights to is not a bad thing. It's important to realize this. Soon we may be questioning whether robots have rights if enough people create an emotional connection to them. Granted this may be 50 years down the road, but it is worth considering, and it is realistic.

This position has already been addressed. Government does not grant rights. Government's are formed by people to protect rights. That's why whenever any form of government fails in this responsibility the People can act to change it.

That's what people who argue there are no natural rights seem to miss.

The biggest confusion seems to be the failure to recognize the difference between civil/legal rights and natural rights. Civil/legal rights are actually privileges of citizenship that the People agree should be extended to all citizens in order to assist in the protection of natural rights. Examples include voting, and right to legal counsel.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Sure there is. You recognize that humans have certain rights due to their nature as humans. Your moral blindness is due to your unwillingness to recognize that fact.

No I don't. Why do you insist on telling me what I recognize, even though I say, quite clearly, that it isn't true?

Not true. Asserting that man is a rational and volitional creature is not opinion. Its fact.

I might argue the rational part, considering some of the idiotic things that people around here openly believe.

I didn't introduce magic into this. There are certain facts of reality that everyone has to deal with. That rights exist due to mans nature is one of those facts.

No, that's an assertion. Facts are actually demonstrable via objective evidence. Let us know when you come up with some.

Thank you. That was my point. You cant argue that murder is a moral crime because you have disarmed yourself. You have made murder illegal, but not wrong in any objective way. So when a member of ISIS throws a homosexual from the top of a building, you have no moral argument against him. You just don't like it. You cant tell him why its wrong because you have just declared that it is not. People wonder why evil thrives, its because the good has disarmed itself. You've just shown how.

I said specifically that morality has nothing at all to do with the crime of murder, or any other crime. You keep claiming that people agree with you when they absolutely do not. You can't even imagine being wrong. I don't have a moral argument against ISIS. I have a personal disagreement with ISIS. I personally think that what they're doing is wrong and they personally think that what they're doing is right. Neither of us can prove that we're right or that the other is wrong because there is no objective means to examine morality. We can argue demonstrable effects on society and make a case that one produces better results than the other, but "right" and "wrong" are entirely subjective.

Of course there are. What you are doing is simply supplanting majority for morality. If a given society decides murder or rape or slavery is just then it is just. Why? Because they say so. And you have no argument against them. Lets try a little experiment. I am a member of ISIS and I am about to slice the head off an infidel. You agree with me that the man bound and kneeling before me has no rights and murder is not a moral crime, so tell me, why should I not separate the mans head from his shoulders?

Because society has determined that if you do so, you will be punished. You're looking for a standard above the level of society, but no such standard exists. You and I agree that murder and rape and slavery isn't just because we grew up in a society where it is not seen as just. But if you grew up in the Middle East under Sharia Law, your views would be different. All you're doing is claiming that your views are right because you grew up in a place where they are prevalent. If you're a member of ISIS and you hack the head off an infidel, it depends on where you are. If you're in the middle of a radical Muslim controlled area, you'll probably be held up as a hero. If you do it in the middle of New York City, you'll be arrested and put on trial for murder. There is no single standard.

And reality tells me that man is a rational, volitional and moral being. As such there is a right way for man to live as man--an objective, unchanging, timeless way and reality doesn't give a damn if youre happy about it or not.

You don't pay much attention to reality then. Sure, man has the ability to be rational, but in practice, most are not. Man has the ability to be moral, whatever your personal opinion of what is moral, but if everyone was moral, we would have no jails because nobody would ever break the law. Clearly these things are not true in reality. Potential is not actual. I accept reality as it actually is, you want reality to be whatever your ideological fantasy world demands. One is real, one is not. Guess which one.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

This position has already been addressed. Government does not grant rights. Government's are formed by people to protect rights. That's why whenever any form of government fails in this responsibility the People can act to change it.

That's what people who argue there are no natural rights seem to miss.

The biggest confusion seems to be the failure to recognize the difference between civil/legal rights and natural rights. Civil/legal rights are actually privileges of citizenship that the People agree should be extended to all citizens in order to assist in the protection of natural rights. Examples include voting, and right to legal counsel.

You're half-right. Governments are formed by people to protect rights, but those rights don't come from nature, they come from the people themselves. Whatever rights the people decide collectively to exist, the government exists to protect those rights for all. People who reject natural rights don't miss a thing, we just recognize the real place that rights come from.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

You're half-right. Governments are formed by people to protect rights, but those rights don't come from nature, they come from the people themselves. Whatever rights the people decide collectively to exist, the government exists to protect those rights for all. People who reject natural rights don't miss a thing, we just recognize the real place that rights come from.

Incorrect.

No one grants me any rights other then those privileges of citizenship mislabeled civil and legal "rights."

I enforce my natural rights by the exercise of my own free will and to the fullest extent of my ability. Feel free to test this fact out with me anytime.

 

[German guy]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

I can't grasp the logic behind the concept of natural rights. I can understand it from a theological perspective, that God has endowed each human being with certain rights... but I'm an atheist, so that doesn't quite work for me. What makes sense to me is that our rights come from our laws. We granted each individual a set of rights when we formed the government. There's nothing natural about the concept, it's entirely human-made.

IMO, both is true.

There are philosophies that "prove" natural rights, be they based on the divine or on observing nature (not all advocates of natural rights are religious).

BUT just the fact that natural rights exist, doesn't mean this fact has any consequence whatsoever in our world, unless most people, or at least the people in crucial positions, believe in this philosophy. What's your natural right worth, when the government doesn't believe in it and thus violates it, and you cannot sue it, because no judge believes in it either?

At any rate, the world would be a much better place, if a maximum of people believed in natural rights. Which is why I choose to believe they exist.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

A natural right isn't necessarily about God. A natural right is something that every free society must have if it is to be a free society. For example: You do not have free society if you cannot speak out against the government. You do not have a free society if you cannot defend yourself by the best means available against anyone that means to do you harm. You do not have a free society if the government can go through your things willy nilly. Take away even ONE of these things and society is no longer free.

It's easy to dismiss natural rights when you frame it as something that is only granted by God. I've often found that those that want peoples free speech suppressed via "consequences", wants guns to be had only by government officials, and uses the words "if you have nothing to hide then...." are also the ones normally against the concept of natural rights. Note: That doesn't apply to everyone, but certainly most that I have dealt with.

Yes but calling them 'natural' implies that they are an inherent component of Homo sapiens.

All rights are a man-made concept. It should at least be clarified that it has a philosophical foundation if it's going to be labelled that.

Often when people refer to 'natural' rights, they are using it as an end-run around a religious definition for it, because they know that cannot be legally accepted. But by any description I've seen, it still requires acknowlegement of a higher authority. Because if it's not inherent....where else can it come from? Either man or a 'higher power' directing things.

If it's 'natural,' why dont other animals have 'natural' rights?

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Yet if every government on the planet ceased to exist, one would still have natural rights amply demonstrated by individual existence in a state of nature. This is why Jefferson wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence.

An individual's right to life is not a right not to die. It is demonstrated by the individual struggle to maintain existence. The individual's capability to succeed does not matter; the simple fact that every living thing acts in self-defense is the proof.

Every single organism has this 'right' then. So then why set it up as some ideal? We sure have no problem taking the right to life from every other species.

And it's still not accurate....the physiology of life, of living, is a biological process. The individual had no control over that birth or initiation of life and for most life forms, there is zero protection over that life beyond the physical...more biological processes: a physical ability to find food, shelter, reproduce, defend life, etc. Not one single of those things is protected by anything but sheer physical biological abilities.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Every single organism has this 'right' then. So then why set it up as some ideal? We sure have no problem taking the right to life from every other species.

And it's still not accurate....the physiology of life, of living, is a biological process. The individual had no control over that birth or initiation of life and for most life forms, there is zero protection over that life beyond the physical...more biological processes: a physical ability to find food, shelter, reproduce, defend life, etc. Not one single of those things is protected by anything but sheer physical biological abilities.

Did you miss my prior answer to this? Check back up the thread.

Hint: posts 85 and 89.

Your agreement is not required. :shrug:

Edit: Sorry I meant 79 and 89.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

There is no prerequisite that natural rights come from God. In fact, the term refers to rights which are not dependent on a granting authority (other than God, if one also believes in Creation).

In his natural state man has the basic rights of life (and defense of his life), liberty (the right to exercise his own free will), and property (the right to possess and control that which he creates for himself). These rights are due solely to his existence and can not be granted by other people (government). The preservation of these rights is the essence of the "social contract" and the basis for government.

Who says? Do only humans have these rights? If so, why only humans? What makes us 'special?'

Since I guess all animals have these same rights the way you describe them (property=resources, territory?) what makes these rights special and why can we just violate them with regards to all other animal species?

They way you describe them, reproducing is also a right, as is eating.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Generally speaking, the social contract is constructed for the purpose of preserving natural rights. For example, it's easier to assert your right to life if, as a society, you organize groups to hunt mammoth, gather grain and defend the village from barbarians. Maintaining an equitable distribution of labor and resolving disputes related to that distribution result in government as a means to accomplish that task. Government then establishes laws and civil rights which grant privilege and/or institute penalties for abuses of natural rights. In extreme cases a government may decide that recognizing natural rights makes managing the individual interests of the citizens too complex. When that happens they often choose to suppress those rights in favor of a wholly managed society. Since natural rights still exist people tend to resist that suppression and, in the interests of managing of their society, government then exercises force against the "dissidents".

The 'social contract' is man conceiving of rights and codifying them into laws to protect them.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Did you miss my prior answer to this? Check back up the thread.

Hint: posts 85 and 89.

Your agreement is not required. :shrug:

Edit: Sorry I meant 79 and 89.

I guess I'll get there when I get there but since you cannot prove, factually, your position, you cant really fault me for not agreeing.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Incorrect.

No one grants me any rights other then those privileges of citizenship mislabeled civil and legal "rights."

I enforce my natural rights by the exercise of my own free will and to the fullest extent of my ability. Feel free to test this fact out with me anytime.

He didnt write 'grants' anywhere. He wrote 'recognize.' There's a difference.

And even in your death or absence, you have rights that would be protected and upheld and the violators punished.

Huh, funny, that's sure not happening in 'nature.'

 

[Cephus]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Incorrect.

No one grants me any rights other then those privileges of citizenship mislabeled civil and legal "rights."

I enforce my natural rights by the exercise of my own free will and to the fullest extent of my ability. Feel free to test this fact out with me anytime.

That's a complete fantasy. You can "enforce" whatever you want, you are still answerable to society's standards, no matter how many "natural rights" you think that you have.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Humans seem to be born with a set of values. That's nature for you.

Really? Let's see the scientific or sociological sources for that claim.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

This may be the most bizarre thing I've ever read.

How so? Please be specific.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

The Constitution is the highest law in this country. It is based on the concept of natural rights. Whether those facts peeve you is irrelevant. I am glad to see you make your disdain for the Constitution so clear.

No problem. Rights are a man-made concept. THe foundation of our nation on the concept of the philosophy of 'natural' rights does not make it less valid or important or strong. Locke was a philosopher, not a scientist.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

He didnt write 'grants' anywhere. He wrote 'recognize.' There's a difference.

And even in your death or absence, you have rights that would be protected and upheld and the violators punished.

Huh, funny, that's sure not happening in 'nature.'

I don't retain any "rights" after my death. I am dead and beyond the need.

What you describe are privileges enforced on my behalf by government if those privileges have been listed as civil or legal "rights."

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

That's a complete fantasy. You can "enforce" whatever you want, you are still answerable to society's standards, no matter how many "natural rights" you think that you have.

Only to the extent I agree to. Certainly society can act to inhibit my rights, or kill me and end my need to exercise any.

But as stated, natural rights do not guarantee anyone life, or freedom, or expression.

However, as long as I can exercise my free will and enforce my rights to the best of my ability, the fact that I can be killed, incarcerated, or muzzled is meaningless.

So, try to impose your will on me. I will exercise my free will and choose to fight, flee, or temporarily submit until I can act to fight, flee, or choose death to submission.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Yes, although most are not sentient enough to recognize this.

"Recognize" them? So other humans in societies that dont recognize liberty or other rights arent 'sentient?' Some other societies dont even recognize the rights of other human ethnicities. :doh If rights were 'natural,' wouldnt they? Ask some Iraqis how much they recognize a right to life for Kurds.

Come ON, give me a break with this, "other animals have rights, they just dont have the sentience to recognize them?" Then 'rights' are meaningless. If we are 'sentient enough' to recognize this, then why dont WE recognize and protect the rights of all other animals? We protect the rights of humans that are unable or to weak to protect their own rights, dont we? Even the ones...kids, senile, mentally ill, in comas... not capable of 'recognizing they have rights?"

Why are the natural rights of humans more important than those of other animals? Sorry, you just wrote yourself into a corner...we're back to that higher authority.