• 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.

Are rights objectively real?

Mr Person

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
64,222
Reaction score
62,571
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm going to bounce off someone else's comment in a more politically oriented forum to launch this, because what I was going to say doesn't really belong to the thread that started it. However, it does have some relation to politics because it is an oft-asserted claim regarding the constitution.

Master PO said:
the constitution does not bestow rights, it only recognizes rights of the people.
Click to expand...

I have heard this said by many people. I see three categorical possibilities with regard to the existence of "human rights" or "natural rights", whatever you wish to call them:

1. They are not objectively real. To the extent they are real, they exist only because human beings agree as a group to act as if they are real. In the context of governments, this is the age-old proposition of "social contract" theory. (Locke, etc). The constitution is the embodiment of such a contract; we agree that in this country, we will act as if the right to "due process of the law" is a real thing. (In contrast to countries like North Korea, where there is no agreement that such a right should be respected and it is therefore not).

2. They are objectively real (non-religious). This proposes that rights are actually part of reality and that whether or not human beings respect them has no relation to whether or not they are in fact real. Therefore, something like the constitution notes the existence of those rights, but does not create them. Despite the objective reality of rights, the rights may be violated with impunity unless stopped by force. (ie, North Korea can starve millions to death for political reasons and "rights" cannot stop them...only an invasion and deposition of its government could).

3. They are objectively real (religious). This proposes that there exists a deity that has commanded that certain things must not happen to persons. These rights exist without regard to whether they are violated, and presumably violations will be punished in the afterlife (unless there is divine intervention).

I do not purport to discuss 3 because religious doctrine where there is an all-powerful deity by definition puts itself beyond proof or disproof.



Another post incoming.
 
Last edited:
The position that they are objectively real is inherently illogical



A. Immunity to empirical proof or disproof

To believe the above, one must necessarily believe that "rights" are objectively real, just like carbon atoms are objectively real. They would have to be either physical laws or describable and subject to the physical laws of the universe. That means they would have to be empirically detectable and provable. These are the hallmarks of things that are objectively real. (Note, even things like the thoughts in your mind correspond to objectively real measurable things, even if we have no idea how the connection works. You listen to music and we can observe more blood flow and electrical activity in specific portions of your brain, for example).

Well, that's the fundamental problem with the position that they are objectively real and therefore"recognized by a constitution rather than created by it.

Nobody has predicted or detected a "rights" particle or a "rights" wave. Nobody has built a machine that can test for and identify rights. If there are objectively real rights, they are made up of nothing known to or remotely predicted by physics as we know it. They cannot be considered objectively real absent prediction and proof.


B. Logical implications

For rights to be objectively real, their existence would necessarily be independent of human observers. Meaning that at some point after the three large spatial and one temporal dimension came into existence, so too did "rights". Again, just like everything else considered to be objectively real.

Ponder on that for a moment. What sense does it make to suppose that "rights" or at least their objectively real building blocks came into existence 13,000,000,000 years ago? What sense does it make for "rights" to exist without any human being to which they might connect? That an "objectively real" thing was destined for something that would not exist for another thirteen billion years?

Ponder further: what sense does it to make to suppose that the rights which preceded human existence were destined to be enjoyed by and ONLY buy human beings? What physical law explains why "rights" are enjoyed only by human beings, rather than my wonderful cat or a cow, part of whom I ate last night?

Ponder yet further: how is it that an objectively real thing destined for humans could be violated with impunity around the world? How is it that the only way an objectively real thing like "rights" appear to exist is if human beings use force to stop other human beings from said violations?

How can my right to "due process of the law" be objectively real, but only impact me if a defense lawyer convinces a judge to make decisions that protect that right? How can it be objectively real if i do not enjoy it if I step outside the bounds of the country whose constitution says it exists?




I could keep going on, but I think you get the point. The notion that they are "objectively real" makes a mockery of physics and makes precisely zero logical sense.

#2 is even less coherent than #3, because #3 at least ties the supposed existence of "objectively real" rights to a concept. However, #3 cannot be debated because that concept - deity - is itself beyond empirical proof or disproof. But at least #3 accounts logically for the supposed existence of the rights. It also provides an explanation for why we may violate them with impunity: the deity has decided that the violations will be punished in the afterlife, so as to allow its creation to enjoy free will.

That leaves #1 as the only candidate for empirical debate. It also makes a hell of a lot more sense.

I also prefer #1 as it relates to the human experience. This is the best outcome. It is yet another example of how a self-conscious creature can rise above the objective reality from which it sprung: the more we enforce our agreement to act as if certain rights are real, the closer we come to calling them into existence (metaphorically speaking, of course). How great is that?
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
I'm going to bounce off someone else's comment in a more politically oriented forum to launch this, because what I was going to say doesn't really belong to the thread that started it.



I have heard this said by many people. I see three categorical possibilities with regard to the existence of "human rights" or "natural rights", whatever you wish to call them:

1. They are not objectively real. To the extent they are real, they exist only because human beings agree as a group to act as if they are real. In the context of governments, this is the age-old proposition of "social contract" theory. (Locke, etc). The constitution is the embodiment of such a contract; we agree that in this country, we will act as if the right to "due process of the law" is a real thing. (In contrast to countries like North Korea, where there is no agreement that such a right should be respected and it is therefore not).

2. They are objectively real (non-religious). This proposes that rights are actually part of reality and that whether or not human beings respect them has no relation to whether or not they are in fact real. Therefore, something like the constitution notes the existence of those rights, but does not create them. Despite the objective reality of rights, the rights may be violated with impunity unless stopped by force. (ie, North Korea can starve millions to death for political reasons and "rights" cannot stop them...only an invasion and deposition of its government could).

3. They are objectively real (religious). This proposes that there exists a deity that has commanded that certain things must not happen to persons. These rights exist without regard to whether they are violated, and presumably violations will be punished in the afterlife (unless there is divine intervention).

I do not purport to discuss 3 because religious doctrine where there is an all-powerful deity by definition puts itself beyond proof or disproof.

Another post incoming.
Click to expand...

Rights are only real, when they are robustly and generally enforced. Otherwise they are a dreamy waste of time or worse.
 
This has been discussed to death. Anyway, if rights are simply up to government decree then they are nothing but an opinion imposed on the population. In that case no one has any reason whatsoever to treat them as anything special.
 
'Rights' are an ideological construct. There is this idea of what SHOULD be and then there is reality. If you live in a country that has a Constitution (or other governing document) that is enforced and respected by the government then you have an expectation of rights...but still no guarantee that those rights wont be violated. What you do have is legal redress and consequence for the violation of rights.

Talking to people in Cuba or North Korea about their 'rights' would be a rather futile exchange. They would look at you as if you were right bonkers. And they would be correct.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm going to bounce off someone else's comment in a more politically oriented forum to launch this, because what I was going to say doesn't really belong to the thread that started it. However, it does have some relation to politics because it is an oft-asserted claim regarding the constitution.



I have heard this said by many people. I see three categorical possibilities with regard to the existence of "human rights" or "natural rights", whatever you wish to call them:

1. They are not objectively real. To the extent they are real, they exist only because human beings agree as a group to act as if they are real. In the context of governments, this is the age-old proposition of "social contract" theory. (Locke, etc). The constitution is the embodiment of such a contract; we agree that in this country, we will act as if the right to "due process of the law" is a real thing. (In contrast to countries like North Korea, where there is no agreement that such a right should be respected and it is therefore not).

2. They are objectively real (non-religious). This proposes that rights are actually part of reality and that whether or not human beings respect them has no relation to whether or not they are in fact real. Therefore, something like the constitution notes the existence of those rights, but does not create them. Despite the objective reality of rights, the rights may be violated with impunity unless stopped by force. (ie, North Korea can starve millions to death for political reasons and "rights" cannot stop them...only an invasion and deposition of its government could).

3. They are objectively real (religious). This proposes that there exists a deity that has commanded that certain things must not happen to persons. These rights exist without regard to whether they are violated, and presumably violations will be punished in the afterlife (unless there is divine intervention).

I do not purport to discuss 3 because religious doctrine where there is an all-powerful deity by definition puts itself beyond proof or disproof.



Another post incoming.
Click to expand...

The answer is #2. I suspect you wont read the following link, but if you are truly interested in a reason based case for individual rights, you might give it a gander.
Ayn Rand ? Man's Rights | Genius
 
VanceMack said:
'Rights' are an ideological construct. There is this idea of what SHOULD be and then there is reality. If you live in a country that has a Constitution (or other governing document) that is enforced and respected by the government then you have an expectation of rights...but still no guarantee that those rights wont be violated. What you do have is legal redress and consequence for the violation of rights.

Talking to people in Cuba or North Korea about their 'rights' would be a rather futile exchange. They would look at you as if you were right bonkers. And they would be correct.
Click to expand...

No, they would be wrong, but such a reaction would explain why they wont see the rights that they have respected any time soon.
 
Carbon atoms are objectively real?
 
Rights are only as real as human beings assert them to be. A similar question is whether psychology or sociology is a real science. If there are no normal or accepted human rights/behaviors then all bets are off.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm going to bounce off someone else's comment in a more politically oriented forum to launch this, because what I was going to say doesn't really belong to the thread that started it. However, it does have some relation to politics because it is an oft-asserted claim regarding the constitution.

<snipped for brevity>
Click to expand...
Master PO and I have discussed this many times. He and I agree on many things Constitutionally, but he and I diverge on this topic. Anyway...

The ONLY rights that a person has, natural or otherwise, are those rights which other people bigger and stronger than you allow you to have. In a realistic sense.

Now, I will sometimes say that a person has a "basic human right" to defend them self when talking gun control or whatever, but to be honest I'm talking more concept or idealism than actuality. In actuality, if someone can impose their will and take your gun away, then you never really had the right... though you should.

Sometimes we confuse having a right with the ability to exercise a right. Maybe that's more the issue. :shrug:
 
Mr Person said:
To believe the above, one must necessarily believe that "rights" are objectively real, just like carbon atoms are objectively real. They would have to be either physical laws or describable and subject to the physical laws of the universe. That means they would have to be empirically detectable and provable. These are the hallmarks of things that are objectively real.
Click to expand...

Well, no, that's not what objective means in this context. Ethical claims are by definition not empirical - they are not claims about what is the case, they are claims about what ought to be. We make empirical observations of what is the case. Ethical claims actually make no prediction about what is existent, about what can be observed. This is why science has essentially nothing to say on the matter.

And to head this off now, I'm not saying this isn't a problem for ethics being objective. There are indeed problems. Epistemological problems. How do we access ethical facts if not by observation, etc.
 
radcen said:
The ONLY rights that a person has, natural or otherwise, are those rights which other people bigger and stronger than you allow you to have. In a realistic sense.
Click to expand...

That would be called a privilege, not a right. If I have a gun pointed at your head but choose not to pull the trigger, you have not somehow been granted a right to life by me. I have simply granted you the privilege of living until I change my mind.
 
Fletch said:
That would be called a privilege, not a right. If I have a gun pointed at your head but choose not to pull the trigger, you have not somehow been granted a right to life by me. I have simply granted you the privilege of living until I change my mind.
Click to expand...
Meh. Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.
 
Fletch said:
No, they would be wrong, but such a reaction would explain why they wont see the rights that they have respected any time soon.
Click to expand...
And which 'rights' do you suggest they have?
 
VanceMack said:
And which 'rights' do you suggest they have?
Click to expand...

The same ones you do. The same ones I do. What they lack is a means to secure those rights. That you live under tyranny does not mean you lack rights. It means that men with guns prevent you from exercising them
 
Fletch said:
The same ones you do. The same ones I do. What they lack is a means to secure those rights. That you live under tyranny does not mean you lack rights. It means that men with guns prevent you from exercising them
Click to expand...
You are being silly. Reread what you just posted. Spay special attention to this part. "That you live under tyranny does not mean you lack rights." If you still havent figured it out I will give you a hint. Thats PRECISELY what that means.
 
VanceMack said:
You are being silly. Reread what you just posted. Spay special attention to this part. "That you live under tyranny does not mean you lack rights." If you still havent figured it out I will give you a hint. Thats PRECISELY what that means.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt. It means exactly what I wrote. Let me walk you through this with a few words you should be familiar with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," What you call 'silly' are truths that were, in a more enlightened time, self-evident. Did you notice the part that says this applies to 'all men?' It should also be pointed out that the men who wrote these words lived under tyranny at the time. Rights, properly understood, refer to things that are innate, or natural to man. What you and other liberals typically do is use the word rights when you should use the word privileges--rights are this that belong to you by virtue of your nature as man; privileges are simply those things those with guns allow you to do.
 
Fletch said:
No it doesnt. It means exactly what I wrote. Let me walk you through this with a few words you should be familiar with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," What you call 'silly' are truths that were, in a more enlightened time, self-evident. Did you notice the part that says this applies to 'all men?' It should also be pointed out that the men who wrote these words lived under tyranny at the time. Rights, properly understood, refer to things that are innate, or natural to man. What you and other liberals typically do is use the word rights when you should use the word privileges--rights are this that belong to you by virtue of your nature as man; privileges are simply those things those with guns allow you to do.
Click to expand...
Thats a wonderful sentiment. It has absolutely no bearing in reality, but it is a wonderful sentiment.

What does the word 'unalienable' mean to you?
 
#1 is the only position that makes any sense.

We only have the rights that we negotiate for with one another through social organizations.

Natural rights, like Plato's forms, might be an interesting thought experiment, but no one can seriously assert the objective existence of natural rights so defined. The mere concept is absurd.

However; there is another kind of option that i've heard before: that the concept of natural rights represents how the human need for freedom will be served, one way or another. In other words, if we don't give people their natural rights, people will naturally fight for them. That may mean protests, violence, or it may simply mean that people break the law to do what they want. The problem (?) with this definition is that it still fits under #1. Different cultures may value different freedoms, for example, many other nations do not share the United States' right to bear arms, so the specific rights, themselves, are not objective in any meaningful way. It still, essentially, boils down to the idea that the only rights we have are the ones we choose to recognize.
 
You only have the rights you can afford to pay for.

Ask anyone who has ever been in jail.
 
If someone can take your rights away, then no, they are not objectively real.

The same can be said for nation-states, if someone can take over part or all of your nation-state, then it was never objectively real to begin with.
The same can be said for the ever-fluid and changing U.S. government.
The CIA.
Legislature.
Congress.
Laws.
Politicians.
Democrats.
Republicans.
Americans.
Russians.
Christians.
Islam.
The ECONOMY.
CLASSES.
Etc.
These things are not objectively real, they are a collective psychosis intent on divide-and-conquer tactics imposed by an either sociopathic, idiotic, or passive-aggressive elite.

Ergo, we circle back around to the OP(s). No, rights are not objectively real...

...nor is political power.

You the people exist.

You the people are the powers that be.
 
Last edited:
No objective morality, no objective rights, the world is what we make it or allow it to be made into.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm going to bounce off someone else's comment in a more politically oriented forum to launch this, because what I was going to say doesn't really belong to the thread that started it. However, it does have some relation to politics because it is an oft-asserted claim regarding the constitution.



I have heard this said by many people. I see three categorical possibilities with regard to the existence of "human rights" or "natural rights", whatever you wish to call them:





Another post incoming.
Click to expand...

rights are from a higher power, whether that be god or not, the founders knew government did not grant them.

they existed before the constitution was ever written, even the romans knew of them.

our rights are unwritten law, which is only recognized by the constitution, and secured by it.

Unwritten Law
Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.
Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct that the government has recognized and enforced.
Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.
Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.
In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.
 
radcen said:
Master PO and I have discussed this many times. He and I agree on many things Constitutionally, but he and I diverge on this topic. Anyway...

The ONLY rights that a person has, natural or otherwise, are those rights which other people bigger and stronger than you allow you to have. In a realistic sense.

Now, I will sometimes say that a person has a "basic human right" to defend them self when talking gun control or whatever, but to be honest I'm talking more concept or idealism than actuality. In actuality, if someone can impose their will and take your gun away, then you never really had the right... though you should.

Sometimes we confuse having a right with the ability to exercise a right. Maybe that's more the issue. :shrug:
unwritten law

unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.
Most laws in america are written. The u.s. Code, the code of federal regulations, and the federal rules of civil procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct that the government has recognized and enforced.



unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.
Much of international law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the rules of war governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the united nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.


in the united states, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. in constitutional law the supreme court has ruled that the due process clause of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the u.s. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the constitution. in commercial law the uniform commercial code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of common law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.
Click to expand...

rights are only recognized by the constitution and a right is the ability to do, without the aid of an other.


Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
rights are recognized -- and secured by government which is the sole purpose of government


Equity and Natural Law

Unwritten Law legal definition of Unwritten Law
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Law of nature, or natural law; in its most extended sense, refers to certain principles inspired only by nature that are common to men and to animals: on this law are based the union of male and female, the procreation of children and concern for their education, the love of liberty, the conservation of one's own person, and the effort each man makes to defend himself when attacked by others.
But it is an abuse of the term natural law to use it to refer to the impulses that govern the behavior of animals; for they have not the use of reason and are therefore incapable of perceiving any law or justice.


More frequently, we mean by natural law certain rules of justice and equity, which natural reason alone has established among men, or to put it better, which God has engraved in our hearts.
Such are the fundamental precepts of law and of all justice: to live honestly, to offend no one, and to render unto every man what belongs to him. From these general precepts are derived many other particular rules, which nature alone, that is to say reason and equity, suggests to men.
This natural law , based as it is on such essential principles, is perpetual and unvarying: neither law nor custom can contravene it, nor dispense a man from its obligations; in this way it differs from positive law, that is to say those rules which exist only because they were established by formal laws. Since this positive law is subject to alteration by the same authority that established it, private persons may even contravene it by an express agreement, as long as the law does not prohibit it.


Some mistakenly confuse the natural law with the law of peoples: the latter is also composed in part of rules which right reason has established among all men; but it also includes certain practices against the natural order that men have agreed on, war, for example, or different kinds of slavery: whereas the natural law allows nothing but what is consistent with right reason and equity.
The principles of the natural law are thus included in the law of peoples, and especially in that part of it which is oldest; they are also included in public and private law: for the precepts of natural law listed above are the purest source, and the foundation, of the greatest part of both public and private law. But public and private law include other rules based on positive laws.

Law of Nature, or Natural Law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom