• 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!

Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 41.4%
  • No

    Votes: 51 58.6%

  • Total voters
    87
I get that we don't do that sort of thing here, but that is because we have laws based upon the concept of innate, individual rights. The problem is, the governing authority in Mosul Iraq has declared that throwing gays from tall buildings is a just and proper act. Why are they wrong? Or aren't they?

The concept you are failing to understand here is that we see it as wrong, the vast majority of the people here in the western world because that is what we are raised to believe, what we have developed a conscious to believe.

Do you think WBC views such things as "wrong", as immoral? I doubt it. They probably view Muslims throwing gays off buildings as God's retribution. They have different morals than I do, and likely than you do and many others on this board do. Everyone on Earth has different moral beliefs than every single other person in some way or another. They may have many things that their morals are the same about, but then can find that one thing that they disagree on whether it is wrong or right to do.
 
There are many English dictionaries. I checked Merriam-Webster, and you definition is not listed under "natural right." Which are you reading that states "A Natural Right is any Human Right which cannot be forcibly denied by any means whatsoever"? Please provide a quote.

Again, your distinction is one you have created yourself. You made up a definition of natural rights, rendering your argument semantic nonsense with no basis in how the term has been or is used and understood.
Already linked and quoted.

A natural right is inalienable, inalienable means it can't be taken away or given up, QED any right that can be taken away or given up is not a natural right.

We can down a list of rights and test them. Your right to life can be taken away through murder, homicide, suicide, injury or illness, therefore Life is not a natural right. Your right to free speech, peaceably assemble, freedom of the press and redress grievences can be taken away with martial law, so those aren't natural rights. You're right to 'bodily sovereignty' can be taken away through simple assult, rape, incarceration, prohibition of a medical procedure, slavery, etc, so you have no natural right to bodily sovereignty, either.

You don't even have inalienable rights in a strictly legal context since Due Process can strip you of everything. If you actually had an inalienable right to, say, liberty, then you could walk right out of prison at-will exactly like Hancock, ripping doors asside, jumping over fences, bullets bouncing off your magical 'right to liberty' forcfield.
 
Last edited:
The concept you are failing to understand here is that we see it as wrong, the vast majority of the people here in the western world because that is what we are raised to believe, what we have developed a conscious to believe.

People tend to be reasonable. That's why you can find a version of the Golden Rule on every corner of the planet going back to the ancients.

Versions of the Golden Rule

Throwing people off of buildings because they're gay doesn't uphold that rule.
 
Then why does ISIS not see it as immoral do you think? I guarantee that in their eyes, they are not doing something immoral, wrong.

They also think if a woman kills them they won't make it to heaven where 72 virgins are waiting for them. It doesn't mean they're right. Really, they just haven't thought things through very carefully. It's possible that if people start chucking them of off buildings for being brutish douchebags they'll have a change of heart.
 
That doesn't make any sense. Dictators rule without the consent of the governed. Thats what makes them dictators. They come to power by force and remain in power by force. Not consent.

One person cannot dictate millions of people singlehandedly, no matter how dictatorial they may be. It takes many consenting people to enforce the wishes of one person. The president of the United States has no more power than any other person on earth if the population ignores their claim to power.
 
Of course he can. All he has to do is make it seem like no one stands a chance against him.
In your scenario, the dictator would be either:

1) giving the illusion of consenting support sufficient to back his claims.
2) in possession of consenting support sufficient to back his claims.

In all reality, the first option is entirely unrealistic. People don't have the ability to convince a nation of their power without some significant access to power. They can exaggerate claims, certainly, but can't falsify it entirely.
 
That's great, but you still didn't answer the question.
Assuming that collective human prosperity and stability is the goal for humans, general mayhem is counter to that goal.
 
Nope. Power creates "rights." Rights are just shorthand for power distribution.

Um, no. it doesn't, unless you rape the concept of a "right":

THE strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will — at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?

Suppose for a moment that this so-called "right" exists. I maintain that the sole result is a mass of inexplicable nonsense. For, if force creates right, the effect changes with the cause: every force that is greater than the first succeeds to its right. As soon as it is possible to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so as to become the strongest. But what kind of right is that which perishes when force fails? If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so. Clearly, the word "right" adds nothing to force: in this connection, it means absolutely nothing.

Rousseau: Social Contract: Book I
 
One person cannot dictate millions of people singlehandedly, no matter how dictatorial they may be. It takes many consenting people to enforce the wishes of one person.

Sure, he'll need an army to suppress the population, but as long as he buys the generals off with privilege, wealth, or a good story that's not a problem. A strong internal security service that keeps doubters in line is also a good idea.
 
None of this matters a single iota because our Constitution does not prevent in any way any part, including the Bill of Rights, from being repealed. But more than that, the Constitution itself could simply be completely thrown out the window in the future for a number of different reasons.

:lamo..so what your telling me is,you cannot rebut this so you cast it aside and ignore it.

as i stated to you before you have nothing, IN AMERICA OR AMERICAN LAW WHICH PROVES YOUR POINT.

because your concepts defy the founding principles of the united states of america.

rights cannot be repealed, because they are not granted by the constitution.

question.....how can you repeal the "right to privacy" since it is not enumerated at all.

rights are recognized by u.s. law, and the congress has never created a right.

rights are unwritten law , like the right to privacy


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.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law


for those who say unwritten law does not exist

USlegal.com

Unwritten Law Law & Legal Definition

Unwritten law refers to the law based upon custom, usage, and judicial decisions. It is distinguished from the enactments of a legislature, orders or decrees in writing. Although an unwritten law is not enacted in the form of statute or ordinance, it has got legal sanction. An unwritten law need not be expressly evidenced in court decisions, but may be collected, gathered or implied there from under statute.
 
Last edited:
No. The two are different. Rights exist regardless of ability.
That is the claim of "natural rights." I see all rights being products of power and cannot see how any bypass to power for manifestation.
 
Um, no. it doesn't, unless you rape the concept of a "right":
Collective force is still force. Redistribution of rights still is determined by force. All those "Rights" written down on handsomely signed papers only exist because there is a collective force strong enough to declare them, distribute them, and enforce them.
 
Sure, he'll need an army to suppress the population, but as long as he buys the generals off with privilege, wealth, or a good story that's not a problem. A strong internal security service that keeps doubters in line is also a good idea.
A general is still a single human being. The general will need consent of his troops.
 
People are not rational just because we are people. There are plenty of irrational people out there. So this whole "by virtue of being a rational animal" thing is an excuse. It is you trying to justify why you believe we have "natural" rights, but animals don't.
That we are rational animals is not a debatable point. It is a fact. Humans possess the faculty of rational thought. That does not, however, mean that we will always act rationally. As humans, we have a will of our own. We can decide to follow reason or not, but we cannot avoid the consequences of that decision.
Animals have more "natural" rights to associate with whichever animals of either sex they wish than we do because other animals are not likely to purposely "punish" them for developing an intimate relationship with another animal of the same sex.
??? That's a silly analogy. Animals act on instinct, not rational thought. There is no right or wrong action for a bear. There is, however, a right and wrong action for a human because we posses the ability to reason. Since we are born with reason, depend upon it for our survival and are born with a will of our own, it is right for man to use that reason and to follow that will. That is what is meant by natural rights.

And that is what rights ultimately come down to. Punishment. Can someone or something prevent you from doing something through force or punishment? If so, then that is what we are talking about with "rights". Even thinking and emotions of another person can be controlled, at least to a degree, with enough knowledge about psychology and the ability to manipulate the person.
What you are describing is not rights but how one goes about violating the rights of others.

And there are plenty of people who will tell you that people do not in fact have a "right" to mate with whomever they wish. Do people have a natural "right" to mate with a child? Why or why not? What exactly constitutes a child and does the age of the person trying to mate with the "child" make a difference to whether the right exists (what about another child?)?
If you understand that everyone possesses the same rights, and understand that children lack the mental abilities to make rational choices--which is why they have parents or guardians of those rights--you will get why mating with a child would almost certrainly be a violation of that childs rights.
 
Then why does ISIS not see it as immoral do you think?
Because like you, they don't believe in innate rights. Like you, they believe rights are determined by who holds the gun (if they believe in the concept of rights at all).
I guarantee that in their eyes, they are not doing something immoral, wrong.
And since you, like them, don't believe that a man has rights by virtue of his nature, you cannot make an argument that what they are doing is immoral. You, like them, believe that morality is subjective. There is nothing that is objectively wrong, so your own ideology disarms you when confronting their evil. Actually, since you, like them, believe evil is subjective, you cant even call their actions evil. They are just doing things you don't like.

Is abortion immoral, wrong? Do you think the girl having the abortion thinks so or the doctor providing the abortion?
Quite honestly, the pro-life position is the moral one since what is being discussed is the termination of a human life. Liberals, unable to make moral judgments because they lack a moral foundation, simply support abortion because they want consequence free action.
You have your beliefs about why things are immoral, wrong, or "evil", but that doesn't make them objective, even if the vast majority of people share those beliefs. It simply makes it a consensus of subjective beliefs about the immorality of something. That doesn't mean that people cannot use that consensus or some other power in fact to force their morality on others. Personally I hope that this is fair and just for as many as possible (almost impossible for any set of laws to be viewed as "fair" or "just" by everyone), but that still doesn't make it objective. The only part that would be objective is saying that something is the law, is or is not against the law to do, or in the case of rights, that something violates a person's rights, rights that are recognized by the collective.
So killing you would be a crime. Explain why it would be immoral.
 
In fact, all of this is just a desire by some people to avoid having to actually intellectually discuss the issue. They declare these rights to exist without having shown they exist so they can then proclaim victory without having to do the actual legwork. The same thing happens with religion. It's not impressive in either case.

The truth is, the ones not willing to intellectually address the issue of morality are those whose intellectual laziness brings them to the amoral conclusion that morality is subjective.
 
nice try....you do alway make me happy when you behave this way...

Then its your lucky day EB and you can wear your white flag of surrender as a Memorial Day uniform.
 
rights are recognized by u.s. law, and the congress has never created a right.
He's guilty of imprecise speach, not a faulty point. He's saying the parts of the Constitution which protect those rights can be repealed, and then your rights can be legaly alienated from you.

If said rights were natural rights then they would be inalienable and it wouldn't matter who's constitution said what because not even a super masive black hole could deprive you of them.
 
He's guilty of imprecise speach, not a faulty point. He's saying the parts of the Constitution which protect those rights can be repealed, and then your rights can be legaly alienated from you.

If said rights were natural rights then they would be inalienable and it wouldn't matter who's constitution said what because not even a super masive black hole could deprive you of them.

well if the amendment were repealed yes you could make a law, which restricted speech, however it would go before the court and the court has already recognized free speech as well as many other rights, is the USSC going to reverse themselves and say free speech now does not exist.

right to privacy is not an enumerated right per the constitution ..... how is it secured?....its recognized by law.
 
Back
Top Bottom