• 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!

Are Rights Natural?

Are Rights Natural?

  • Total voters
    50
Ikari said:
You think that rights are magical? That acknowledging their existence makes the boogie man go away or all the bad things go away? What sort of childish thought is that? Natural rights doesn't mean that everything will be fair and that people will have their rights recognized. It's a premise for the limitation of government power against the People. We all do have the same base set of innate and inalienable rights all based in life, liberty, and property. Rightful government is constructed to adhere and be restricted by the rights of the individual. Are there ****ty places in the world? Yes. Does that mean that rights don't exist? Of course not, that's not a logical conclusion in the least.
Click to expand...

Not magical...mythical. I think its a flawed idea. A WONDERFUL idea...but flawed.

WE in the US enjoy certain rights NOT because we are endowed by our creator of these rights, but because after thrwoing off an oppressive regime that DIDNT believe in those rights, formed a government with a constitution that DECLARED the rights we now enjoy to be mandated and our rule of law to support those rights.

But make no mistake...what we in the US consider 'rights' are not at all respected...honored or enjoyed in other places.

Here, we have a 'right' to a fair trial. Other places? Not so much. We have a right to adequate representation. There? Forget it.

What makes us different?
 
Ikari said:
That's because not all rights are natural. The natural rights as argued by Locke or Paine would revolve around concepts of life, liberty, and property. The essentials to existence basically. But there are rights which arise from positive law and social contract as well.
Click to expand...

See? We dont disagree after all...
 
American said:
Not sure I understand what this is suppose to mean.
Click to expand...

There are lots of people who seem to think that rights are these magical, ethereal things that just float around waiting to be discovered. Apparently, they transcend social boundaries and apply equally to everyone everywhere, but nobody can explain how that works or why it ought to be true or even how one discovers one of these mystical "rights" in the first place.

Rights are just things that groups of people decide ought to apply within their group, nothing more.
 
Tucker Case said:
I would say that "rights" that come about by positive laws are actually privileges.
Click to expand...

That's another word for them. They sometimes become codified into our concepts of rights, which is why Locke made exception for them. The idea that rights can be drawn from either natural law or positive law had been around for some time. Madison actually was key in bringing about the idea that rights can be born from social contract as well.

I think the difference between the rights is an important one to make.

Tucker Case said:
And no one can take away your right to murder, which is why I consider it a natural right. They can, however, add consequences to the exercise of that right.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say you really have a right to murder, less it was in protection of your own life, liberty, or property. Else you've infringed upon the rights of others, and that's where your rights stop. No one can take away your ability to murder, you have control over your brain and muscles. No one can take that away.
 
SE102 said:
Yeah seriously doesn't he know its having a gun that secures your rights?:doh
Click to expand...

Sometimes you make some of the stupidest most illogical follow on comments on this whole board.

How the hell do you go from 'A' to 'carrot'?
 
American said:
You have a right to food, you just don't have a right to expect someone else to give it to you.
Click to expand...

Says who? Lots of people are making claims, I'd like to see it backed up with evidence or credible reasoning.
 
VanceMack said:
Not magical...mythical. I think its a flawed idea. A WONDERFUL idea...but flawed.

WE in the US enjoy certain rights NOT because we are endowed by our creator of these rights, but because after thrwoing off an oppressive regime that DIDNT believe in those rights, formed a government with a constitution that DECLARED the rights we now enjoy to be mandated and our rule of law to support those rights.

But make no mistake...what we in the US consider 'rights' are not at all respected...honored or enjoyed in other places.

Here, we have a 'right' to a fair trial. Other places? Not so much. We have a right to adequate representation. There? Forget it.

What makes us different?
Click to expand...

Things such as trial by jury would be something Madison would refer to as social right.

Just because some people can't exercise certain rights doesn't mean that they don't have it. It just means they live in tyranny and oppression.
 
VanceMack said:
Sometimes you make some of the stupidest most illogical follow on comments on this whole board.

How the hell do you go from 'A' to 'carrot'?
Click to expand...

Maybe its about carrot and not A? And speaks to a larger points about what I read elsewhere in these forums on a virtual daily basis.
 
VanceMack said:
See? We dont disagree after all...
Click to expand...

Yes we do. For while I acknowledge that rights can be born from different sources (natural law, positive law, social contract), you seem to persist in your statement that natural rights do not exist.
 
Ikari said:
Things such as trial by jury would be something Madison would refer to as social right.

Just because some people can't exercise certain rights doesn't mean that they don't have it. It just means they live in tyranny and oppression.
Click to expand...

and dont have access to 'our' rights? Agreed.
 
Ikari said:
Yes we do. For while I acknowledge that rights can be born from different sources (natural law, positive law, social contract), you seem to persist in your statement that natural rights do not exist.
Click to expand...

OK...we partially agree.
 
VanceMack said:
and dont have access to 'our' rights? Agreed.
Click to expand...

They may not share our social rights, but all humans have the same base natural rights which are founded in life, liberty, and property.
 
SE102 said:
Maybe its about carrot and not A? And speaks to a larger points about what I read elsewhere in these forums on a virtual daily basis.
Click to expand...

So you wade into a conversation and throw your carrot into the concrete hoping to make stew? Brilliant.
 
Ikari said:
They may not share our social rights, but all humans have the same base natural rights which are founded in life, liberty, and property.
Click to expand...

Sigh...

no maam...they dont. try living in some of those places. Or at least visiting.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Nothing silly about the way it sounds. If my speech rights are violated, I fully expect government to step in and enforce said rights. Failure to do so takes rights out of the natural category and places them into the societal construct category.
Click to expand...

They were never in the natural category to begin with. You've never had the right to free speech fully, there are always limitations. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you can't slander people, you can't sell military secrets, etc. Those aren't limitations to your free speech rights, you never had those rights to begin with, society never granted them to you.
 
VanceMack said:
Sigh...

no maam...they dont. try living in some of those places. Or at least visiting.
Click to expand...

Sigh

Yes maam they do. Try abdicating natural rights, you can't. All humans share the same base natural rights.
 
Ikari said:
I wouldn't. Because natural rights revolve around that which cannot be taken. For instance, you have natural ownership of your body. There are rights which come from social contract and rights which come from positive law as well. And these rights are different than natural rights, is how I would put it.
Click to expand...

But, of course, the "natural ownership of your body" can be taken, so it must not be a right. In fact, there isn't a single "natural right" in existence that cannot be taken by some evil regime, or that hasn't been taken by an evil regime of the past.
 
Cephus said:
But, of course, the "natural ownership of your body" can be taken, so it must not be a right. In fact, there isn't a single "natural right" in existence that cannot be taken by some evil regime, or that hasn't been taken by an evil regime of the past.
Click to expand...

You can't take ownership of my body. Try to control my thoughts and muscles.
 
Ikari said:
You can't take ownership of my body. Try to control my thoughts and muscles.
Click to expand...

While thoughts might be more difficult, certainly someone can theoretically hook you up to a machine that would take control of your muscles, or someone can do pretty much anything they want to with your body against your will, presuming no one stops them from doing so. I suppose it's even possible that there could be a drug that would brainwash you and make you think and act in a manner you otherwise wouldn't. So certainly, it is possible, thus doing away with the "cannot be taken away" claim.
 
Ikari said:
They may not share our social rights, but all humans have the same base natural rights which are founded in life, liberty, and property.
Click to expand...

The problem with that statement is that life, liberty, and property are defined by society. (Yes even life is subject to social definition, examples include brain death, when a fetus becomes a life, and viruses). In fact all language is socially defined.

You mentioned that Locke and other philosophers have come to these conclusions by deduction, which is a social phenomenon.

Really, all you seem to be saying is "I prefer this definition of rights, it makes sense to me and I think it will work for me and other people." And really what you are defining as rights is a set of morals that you think people and governments should follow. But all of that leads to it just being a social construct since all of it, the language, the logic, etc, is an invention of the human mind.

Personally, I think those principals are good ideas, but all they are is principals, there is nothing natural about them.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
While thoughts might be more difficult, certainly someone can theoretically hook you up to a machine that would take control of your muscles, or someone can do pretty much anything they want to with your body against your will, presuming no one stops them from doing so. I suppose it's even possible that there could be a drug that would brainwash you and make you think and act in a manner you otherwise wouldn't. So certainly, it is possible, thus doing away with the "cannot be taken away" claim.
Click to expand...

There is no technology currently that detailed to do as you want. If we're allowing for sci-fi, then maybe. Regardless, I cannot transfer ownership of my body, ownership of it is innate to my consciousness.
 
Ikari said:
There is no technology currently that detailed to do as you want. If we're allowing for sci-fi, then maybe. Regardless, I cannot transfer ownership of my body, ownership of it is innate to my consciousness.
Click to expand...

If someone forcibly removes a kidney and transplants it to someone else, does this statement still hold true?
 
megaprogman said:
The problem with that statement is that life, liberty, and property are defined by society. (Yes even life is subject to social definition, examples include brain death and viruses). In fact all language is socially defined.

You mentioned that Locke and other philosophers have come to these conclusions by deduction, which is a social phenomenon.

Really, all you seem to be saying is "I prefer this definition of rights, it makes sense to me and I think it will work for me and other people." And really what you are defining as rights is a set of morals that you think people and governments should follow. But all of that leads to it just being a social construct since all of it, the language, the logic, etc, is an invention of the human mind.
Click to expand...

Lots of things are inventions of the human mind. But that doesn't make them any less worthwhile. In fact, Immanuel Kant would agree in a way that natural rights are product of the human mind. In so much that he asserts that natural rights can be derived through reason alone. Rights are very much a philosophical discussion, so what's wrong with bringing in philosophy?
 
megaprogman said:
If someone forcibly removes a kidney and transplants it to someone else, does this statement still hold true?
Click to expand...

Do you have control of my consciousness? Do you think for me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom