• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Natural Law ????

Of course, there are no absolutes. We concede liberty in that we cannot go to the movies naked. I don't understand why you were arguing against an absolute. Your strawman is defeated, gratz.

OK, so you agree that we have conceded some natural rights.

Do you realize how your admission makes it unrealistic to claim that a law or policy is illegitimate/improper/misguided/etc simply because it infringes on a natural right (because it ignores the possibility that it is a right we have conceded)?
 
OK, so you agree that we have conceded some natural rights.

Do you realize how your admission makes it unrealistic to claim that a law or policy is illegitimate/improper/misguided/etc simply because it infringes on a natural right (because it ignores the possibility that it is a right we have conceded)?

A concession of rights is a weighing of rights against each other. That is how they are conceded. Where one right infringes on another will always be a debate.
 
A concession of rights is a weighing of rights against each other. That is how they are conceded. Where one right infringes on another will always be a debate.

According to the philosophers who promote the existence of natural rights, the concession of rights (when forming a society) is not the result of weighing one right against another right; it is the result of weighing the benefits (in added safety and security) of conceding a right against the benefits of maintaining the right.

For example, from Locke's 2nd Treatise:
though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. [emphasis added]
 
I don't buy the "state of nature" routine.

I'd consider property a human (in the case of self), civil (in the case of IPR/voting) and labor (in the case of owning objects) right. Environmental rights protect property by accounting for externalities. Point being, not all property is a natural right.
 
Last edited:
Natural law exists, they rights you are born with. Some countries deny such rights (N. Korea for example). Some Dilute them (Russia). Some embrace them (Switzerland, USA).

Right to pursue success, survive, free will as long as you're not hurting anyone, to defend yourself. Obviously there is more to these natural rights, however those are basic things that all humans should be expected to be born with.
 
The "natural state" is a state where one is unaffected by natural forces?

Or does "outside force" refer to supernatural forces?

It refers to force from others.
 
The only way to remove oneself from outside force is to die, or be made immortal.

It's a thought experiment.

It's like you people don't understand what philosophy is.
 
It sounds like this "natural state" is a fictional one.

It's examination of the base. It's philosophy. Were you somehow under the I.predation that abstract ideals were not function of philosophy? Don't be daft.
 
It's examination of the base. It's philosophy. Were you somehow under the I.predation that abstract ideals were not function of philosophy? Don't be daft.

No, I was under the impression that the concept of natural rights derived from man in the "natural state", as some have stated in this thread, though I have yet to see any clear definition of what this natural state is.
 
No, I was under the impression that the concept of natural rights derived from man in the "natural state", as some have stated in this thread, though I have yet to see any clear definition of what this natural state is.

It's the removal of outside force and examining at heart what any individual has right to.
 
No, I was under the impression that the concept of natural rights derived from man in the "natural state", as some have stated in this thread, though I have yet to see any clear definition of what this natural state is.

That's because you're not looking. I'll link to a definition of natural law from a philosopher.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/182751-natural-law-3.html#post1062755430

Edward Feser said:
The basic idea is really not all that complicated, and can be understood at least to a first approximation by reference to everyday examples. Everyone knows that it is in the nature of grass to require water and sunlight but not too much heat, and that for that reason it is good for grass to be watered and well lit and bad for it to lack water and sunlight or to be exposed to great heat. Everyone knows that is in the nature of a tree to require soil into which it can sink its roots and from which it can draw water and nutrients, and thus that it is good for a tree so to sink them and bad for it if it is somehow prevented from doing so. Everyone knows that it is in the nature of a squirrel to gather nuts and the like and to dart about in a way that will make it difficult for predators to catch it, and thus good for it to do these things and bad for it if for whatever reason it fails to do them. The natures of these things entail certain ends the realization of which constitutes their flourishing as the kinds of things they are.

. . .

Now, none of these examples involves moral goodness or badness, because morality involves intellect and will, which grass, trees, and squirrels all lack. Rational creatures like ourselves are capable of moral goodness or badness precisely because we do have intellects and wills. The will itself has as its natural end the pursuit of the good, and determining what is in fact good is part of the natural end of the intellect. Morally good action thus involves the will to do what is good for us given our nature, while morally bad action involves willing contrary to what is good for us given our nature. And to the extent that the intellect knows what is good for us we are culpable for these good or bad actions. To will to do what is “natural” for us thus means, in classical natural law theory, something like to will to do what tends toward the realization of the ends which, given our nature, define what it is for us to flourish as the kind of things we are. And to will to do what is “unnatural” thus means something like willing to do what tends toward the frustration of the ends which, given our nature, define what it is for us to flourish as the kind of things we are.
 
It's the removal of outside force and examining at heart what any individual has right to.

That's natural rights, not really natural law.
 
That's natural rights, not really natural law.

A reasonable distinction. How do you delineate?

Let's note: rights cannot exist for an individual in isolation, they are a social construct.
 
Yes, but natural law follows natural rights.

Not really. Look at the definition of natural rights that I've posted. That's the philosophical concept of natural law. That is what should be debated.
 
Yes, but natural law follows natural rights.

While I do not accept a social construct existing in isolation (that's contrary to basic logic resulting from context), I wonder where the line is drawn between natural rights and law.
 
That's because you're not looking. I'll link to a definition of natural law from a philosopher.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/182751-natural-law-3.html#post1062755430

I reject that definition because it says "Morally good action thus involves the will to do what is good for us given our nature, while morally bad action involves willing contrary to what is good for us given our nature. "

According to that explanation, it is morally good to kill others if one benefits from committing the murder
 
I reject that definition because it says "Morally good action thus involves the will to do what is good for us given our nature, while morally bad action involves willing contrary to what is good for us given our nature. "

According to that explanation, it is morally good to kill others if one benefits from committing the murder

You misunderstand the phrase "what is good for us given our nature." It is far different from utilitarianism.
 
Back
Top Bottom