Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Thrilla · May 16, 2015

Paschendale said:
Because in this country, you have every possible right unless there's a constitutionally sound reason to restrict it. That's what the ninth amendment is for.

it's interesting how many people believe rights didn't exist before 1776.
on what basis do you believe you have every right possible unless there's a constitutionally sound reason to restrict it?... what makes you believe this to be true?

You're not talking about principles. You're talking about feeling entitled. I think you ought to refine your definitions.

oy vey... I didn't know i actually had to explain what a right is to you.. i would have assumed you already had an understanding.:roll:
a right is a just claim to something... a just claim is the same as being entitled.
in this discussion, we''re talking about having just claims to something by virtue of our nature...we're entitled to something by virtue of nature.

Of course rights exist. We're talking about whether or not they're a human construct or if they're intrinsic to nature. You are asserting the latter while I am demonstrating good reason why it's the former.

well, this is generally where the meat and potatoes of the discussion comes in ... are these rights created by man.. or are they discovered and developed by man?
if they are created, who are the creators? and on what basis did these creations take hold?... personally, I can't fathom an accidental creation of such a thing that just so happens to coincidence perfectly with natural human reason and behavior... but then again, i'm not a big believer in magic or incredible coincidence that just so happens to be as valid today as it was 2500 years ago... or 2000 years ago.. or 200 years ago.

You should try to be more clear when you speak then, so people can understand you.

sure thing.. i'll try not to use simple english words from now on :roll:

Yes, they are about human interaction. They are therefore a creation of humans

again.. creation or discovery?..... feel free to provide an argument as to why they are a creation as opposed to a discovery.

Hard Truth · May 17, 2015

Goshin said:
Perhaps. It would be hard to argue against the concept of natural rights as a collective good, though, given that they spring from the very needs and character of the human condition, and are things virtually all of us want.

And as I've argued before.... even if you believe they ARE a social construct, are those rights more secure if the general populace believes them "Natural Law" or ordained by God... or if everyone just says "oh well they're just social constructs..." (and therefore subject to change or discarding...)

I'd prefer they be viewed as sacrosanct in some manner... seems more secure to me.

The concept of natural rights has mostly been used for good. On the negative side, I have seen it used as an argument for selfishness rather than a concern for the community and for opposing newly recognized rights because they weren't considered by the founding fathers.

I don't think the general public needs to think that their rights are god given for those rights to be valued, they just need a reasonably good knowledge of history.

Hard Truth · May 17, 2015

Paschendale said:
Of course rights exist. We're talking about whether or not they're a human construct or if they're intrinsic to nature...Rights are about human interaction. They are therefore a creation of humans....The [founding fathers] weren't equating rights to physical laws or anything like that. They were saying that rights don't come from kings. They were advocating a better society, not magic.

The concept of natural rights is an incredibly imprecise method for determining what should be protected. There is no way to demonstrate nature's stance on anything to do with rights.

Rights are not "just" social constructs. We create them, and we can improve them. They aren't handed down by anyone, and so they aren't static. Leaving rights up to a god would mean that we'd still have slavery. In 1789, the concept of natural rights meant that we had rights that kings couldn't take away. In 2015, it's just an excuse to say that everything was perfect in 1789 and we shouldn't progress beyond that.

Rights should be viewed as extremely flimsy and easily disposed of. That obliges us to continually act to protect them and not allow ourselves to get complacent. Complacency about our rights has lead us to allow incredible injustices.

This quote is edited from two posts by Paschendale with the word 'rights' substituted for 'they' a couple of times for clarity. I did this to summarize his excellent arguments concisely. I hope I did not change his intended message.

Cephus · May 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
I don't consider philosophy to be "magic" whatsoever..... and ,well, these mere "claims" have stood the test of time.
none of this stuff was invented in 1776... we've been building our understanding of these things since..well.. since the founding of philosophy itself.
it's a rare thing that human would reverse course on their understanding ... but that seems to be the basic theme when it comes to natural rights/natural law.... lots of laymen are doing just that

And that's yet another logical fallacy, the argument from tradition. It doesn't matter how long the belief has been around, it doesn't matter how many people believe it, it only matters if it's actually defensible and demonstrable in reality. All the hand waving in the world isn't going to change that.

what really intrigues me about all of this is not the specific arguments.. but why people choose to disavow the existence of natural rights.

I thought that would be obvious by now, because they haven't been actually demonstrated to exist in the real world. It's the same reason people disavow the existence of gods and unicorns and leprechauns. No proof=no belief.

it's interesting that people will go to lengths to disavow something that is ultimately beneficial to each and every one of us and consist of nothing harmful to any of us....my guess is that it completely surrounds political expedience/bias.
it seems to me that more than one person around here disavows their existence merely on the grounds that libertarians believe in them... and i think that's born out fairly well by simply looking at their responses ( even yours)

Whether or not a position is beneficial is irrelevant if the position isn't actually real. It doesn't matter how a fantasy makes you feel, you don't get to use that emotional comfort as a means of arguing that the fantasy is actually true. That's the whole problem here, you have libertarians (among others) who are claiming that natural rights are real when they cannot demonstrate that they are. It's the exact same thing as the religious right claiming that their imaginary friends in the sky are real. No proof=no belief.

Henrin · May 17, 2015

Hard Truth said:
The concept of natural rights has mostly been used for good. On the negative side, I have seen it used as an argument for selfishness rather than a concern for the community and for opposing newly recognized rights because they weren't considered by the founding fathers.

I don't think the general public needs to think that their rights are god given for those rights to be valued, they just need a reasonably good knowledge of history.

That's because natural rights are negative. Anyone that finds merit in natural rights must oppose postive rights.

Ahlevah · May 17, 2015

Unrepresented said:
Rights are whatever you can defend, be it through individual strength or collective teamwork.

If I walk down a street and someone plugs me with a .38 you're saying I don't have a right to life? Bullcrap! My right to live is completely independent of whether or not I can defend it.

joG · May 17, 2015

Sherman123 said:
This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".

Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.

I have wondered about this from time to time and think it might depend on what one means, when one uses the word "rights".

One way to interpret the word is that rights are what actually can do. In this sense they are, what society around you define And allow. These rights would be relativistic not only in reality but in theory with the Karamazov consequences.

An other interpretation would be some general set of higher rights independent of the present legal system of the society one happens to be looking at. In this view rights would transcend the individual settings of a given society. This might at least find some support in a small number of rights general to most cultures.

Yet another approach is to look at what people think are human rights. One finds that there seems to be a set of moral images in the human mind probably from birth. These moral images allow certain stuctures of right be defined that people generally believe to be categorical. A pity they are not consistent and sometimes contradict each other, as the work on the Fat Man Paradox seems to show.

There is another approach to rights as the structure of rules that optimize the welfare of a society.

These and other approaches are not all exclusive and overlap.

Cephus · May 17, 2015

Ahlevah said:
If I walk down a street and someone plugs me with a .38 you're saying I don't have a right to life? Bullcrap! My right to live is completely independent of whether or not I can defend it.

Your right to life comes from the society in which you live, nowhere else.

Paschendale · May 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
it's interesting how many people believe rights didn't exist before 1776.

No one thinks that. There were rights in lots of previous societies. That's one way we know that rights are secured by people and don't come from nature. Every civilization has had a different take on them.

on what basis do you believe you have every right possible unless there's a constitutionally sound reason to restrict it?... what makes you believe this to be true?

Because we have a general liberty interest and any law that restricts what we can do has to pass scrutiny in order to be enacted. It must at least be rationally related to a legitimate interest. No laws can restrict our liberty if they are merely arbitrary or capricious. You don't need a law saying that you have the right to put sugar in your coffee. And any law that says you can't would need to be based on a good reason to stop you. You have a right to do whatever you like unless there is a reason to prohibit it. That's how American law works. I don't "believe" that, that's how it works.

oy vey... I didn't know i actually had to explain what a right is to you.. i would have assumed you already had an understanding.:roll:
a right is a just claim to something... a just claim is the same as being entitled.

You keep changing your words. You shouldn't do that. And you said nothing about being entitled to anything. You were talking about FEELING entitled.

in this discussion, we''re talking about having just claims to something by virtue of our nature...we're entitled to something by virtue of nature.

Again, you're using vague terms. What does "by virtue of our nature" even mean?

well, this is generally where the meat and potatoes of the discussion comes in ... are these rights created by man.. or are they discovered and developed by man?
if they are created, who are the creators? and on what basis did these creations take hold?... personally, I can't fathom an accidental creation of such a thing that just so happens to coincidence perfectly with natural human reason and behavior... but then again, i'm not a big believer in magic or incredible coincidence that just so happens to be as valid today as it was 2500 years ago... or 2000 years ago.. or 200 years ago.

Rights are created by everyone. Every human civilization has had its own concept of rights. We didn't stumble onto the idea, as you seem to be suggesting. It's an integral part of every human society. Rights are simply a part of having rules to govern our interaction. And again, every group of people has had rules to govern their societies.

again.. creation or discovery?..... feel free to provide an argument as to why they are a creation as opposed to a discovery.

There's nothing to discover. Rights aren't a physical law. They're not even a psychological law. They're part of human interaction. We create them when we decide how we want our societies to function.

Why don't you provide an argument? You haven't yet done that. All you've done is throw increasingly vague terms at me and pretend that this means something.

Ahlevah said:
If I walk down a street and someone plugs me with a .38 you're saying I don't have a right to life? Bullcrap! My right to live is completely independent of whether or not I can defend it.

You don't have the right to live if you are in a society that doesn't act to secure it. If you were a slave in this country, you did not have the right to live. There was no force whatsoever on your owner that would prevent him from killing you. There was no determination by society that he couldn't kill you whenever he wanted. Rights exist only when a society decides they do. We'd better make sure that our society decides well.

Ahlevah · May 17, 2015

Cephus said:
Your right to life comes from the society in which you live, nowhere else.

The right to get plugged in the brain with a a bullet renders the concept of a right meaningless. I mean, if society said "2 + 2 = 6. Why? Because we ****ing said so" would that make it true?

Ahlevah · May 17, 2015

Unrepresented said:
You're able to own yourself so long as those stronger do not wish to own you more.

No one can ever own his right to live, even if that person blows his brains out. Force is a physical power, not a right. You can't kill a concept with a gun.

Gardener · May 17, 2015

I find it interesting how people who claim various other political philosophies can turn into raging anarchists when discussing issues such as this.

I don't call it "natural rights", but the sense of self SHOULD lead people inexorably towards developing a sense of others. If it doesn't, then the person in question is a sociopath. Sociopathy masquerading as a political philosophy simply doesn't cut it for me.

The so-called "golden rule" is a notion that has arisen independently in so many cultures that any thinking person should question its origins.

Ahlevah · May 17, 2015

Gardener said:
I don't call it "natural rights", but the sense of self SHOULD lead people inexorably towards developing a sense of others. If it doesn't, then the person in question is a sociopath. Sociopathy masquerading as a political philosophy simply doesn't cut it for me.

You're onto something here. One question we need to ask first is, "What is a society?" Does a family qualify as a society? How about an extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins, etc? Is a "tribe" then a form of society? Is it natural? Are humans naturally social creatures, or do they tend to be independent and solitary? Do people, especially those who are related, feel a natural affinity towards one another? Because if they do, this affinity can form the basis for the concept of a right.

haymarket · May 17, 2015

AlbqOwl said:
Is it? Did man think up the ability to breathe? To think? To hope? To aspire? To defend oneself and/or survive? To do what makes us happy or grateful or satisfied? Or are we born with such traits/ability as human beings without anybody willing that it be so?

You are badly confusing two different things - one bing abilities one has because of biology - the other being legal rights.

KevinKohler · May 17, 2015

No. We have ABILITIES imparted to us by nature. Our ABILITY to fight, speak, etc.

Gardener · May 17, 2015

Ahlevah said:
You're onto something here. One question we need to ask first is, "What is a society?" Does a family qualify as a society? How about an extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins, etc? Is a "tribe" then a form of society? Is it natural? Are humans naturally social creatures, or do they tend to be independent and solitary? Do people, especially those who are related, feel a natural affinity towards one another? Because if they do, this affinity can form the basis for the concept of a right.

I would answer yes to all of your questions. We are inherently a social animal as we are slow footed, soft bodied things lacking natural armament or defense. We have thin skin, useless claws, teeth designed for grinding rather than ripping, and are non toxic to other animals. Our success as a species is entirely dependent on our ability to work as a group. As such, our survival is predicated upon various principles that guide our behavior. These principles can be called "rights" if one wishes, and they now exist in written form in addition to natural assumptions, but I find it silly and sophomoric when people argue that there are none. It is just mental masturbation that acts as if humans are an entirely different species than what they actually are.

haymarket · May 17, 2015

Far too many today either never learned or they have forgotten that the evolution of the theory of natural rights came about as a way to get away from the divine right of kings. People wanted to neutralize and go beyond the power of the king and had to find some groundwork to lay to make it possible and natural rights theory was the result. It was merely a construct to bridge mankind to self rule of the people. As such, it served a very useful purpose several centuries ago but we have advanced far beyond the need for such mythology.

Rights are hard fought for and had won. They involve blood and lives and lots and lots of hard work and sacrifice. It demeans the very idea of rights to pretend that we have them because mythical gods in the sky gave us our rights like so much Halloween candy being dispensed to costumed toddlers in October. Rights come about from a very simple process: people want a certain behavior as a right and they then exert enough power or influence of force upon government to get that behavior protected as a right.

People can believe anything they want to believe and religion and faith prove that in spades. But reality dictates that rights do not come from gods racing their glorious chariots across the heavens and feeling generous to us who worship them.

Ahlevah · May 17, 2015

Gardener said:
These principles can be called "rights" if one wishes, and they now exist in written form in addition to natural assumptions, but I find it silly and sophomoric when people argue that there are none. It is just mental masturbation that acts as if humans are an entirely different species than what they actually are.

Agreed. People who readily accept a concept that represents a physical or empirical thing can't compute when the thing in nature can't be quantified, such as a feeling or emotion.

Ahlevah · May 17, 2015

haymarket said:
Far too many today either never learned or they have forgotten that the evolution of the theory of natural rights came about as a way to get away from the divine right of kings. People wanted to neutralize and go beyond the power of the king and had to find some groundwork to lay to make it possible and natural rights theory was the result. It was merely a construct to bridge mankind to self rule of the people. As such, it served a very useful purpose several centuries ago but we have advanced far beyond the need for such mythology. :shock:

Don't be naive. It wasn't that long ago that South Africa ended apartheid and freed Nelson Mandela. If one follows your line of reasoning, there was nothing wrong with apartheid because the white people in power in that society said so.

Taylor · May 17, 2015

Sherman123 said:
Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others.

That is not at all Hobbes' position. In his view, there is no "only" - there is no limitation at all on natural rights. In his view, you have the "right to every thing, even to one anothers body". In Hobbes' view, natural rights are limitless.

If you don't believe in natural rights, then you don't at all agree with Hobbes.

haymarket · May 17, 2015

Ahlevah said:
Don't be naive. It wasn't that long ago that South Africa ended apartheid and freed Nelson Mandela. If one follows your line of reasoning, there was nothing wrong with apartheid because the white people in power in that society said so.

The introduction of RIGHT and WRONG in terms of evaluative judgments was NOT part of my explanation. It is entirely of your own introduction.

Master PO · May 17, 2015

James Otis The Rights of the British Colonies

1763

Every British Subject born on the continent of America, or in any other of the British dominions, is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of parliament, (exclusive of all charters from the crown) entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great- Britain......

The end of government being the good of mankind, points out its great duties: It is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet, and happy enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. There is no one act which a government can have a right to make, that does not tend to the advancement of the security, tranquility and prosperity of the people.

The Rights of the Colonists

November 20, 1772

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

The Declaration Independence of the thirteen united States of America July 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Amendment V

December 1791

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Master PO · May 17, 2015

Ahlevah said:
Don't be naive. It wasn't that long ago that South Africa ended apartheid and freed Nelson Mandela. If one follows your line of reasoning, there was nothing wrong with apartheid because the white people in power in that society said so.

you see it too in his reasoning don't you...

Cephus · May 17, 2015

Ahlevah said:
The right to get plugged in the brain with a a bullet renders the concept of a right meaningless. I mean, if society said "2 + 2 = 6. Why? Because we ****ing said so" would that make it true?

Exactly where did you get the "right to get plugged in the brain" from? You're just pulling this stuff out of your ass and thinking people are going to take you seriously? Think again.

haymarket · May 17, 2015

ernst barkmann said:
James Otis The Rights of the British Colonies

1763

Every British Subject born on the continent of America, or in any other of the British dominions, is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of parliament, (exclusive of all charters from the crown) entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great- Britain......

The end of government being the good of mankind, points out its great duties: It is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet, and happy enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. There is no one act which a government can have a right to make, that does not tend to the advancement of the security, tranquility and prosperity of the people.

The Rights of the Colonists

November 20, 1772

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

The Declaration Independence of the thirteen united States of America July 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Amendment V

December 1791

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Not one thing in that quote dump negates the reality that a belief in natural rights is just that - an unprovable belief held by a believer because they want to believe it.

Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

Yes

No

More options

Thrilla

Hard Truth

Hard Truth

Cephus

Henrin

Ahlevah

joG

Cephus

Paschendale

Uncanny

Ahlevah

Ahlevah

Gardener

free market communist

Ahlevah

haymarket

KevinKohler

Gardener

free market communist

haymarket

Ahlevah

Ahlevah

Taylor

haymarket

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Cephus

haymarket