• 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
megaprogman said:
I think the part you don't understand is that you will fight for what you perceive your rights to be because it is your desire.

You keep going on about people having to accept the hand they are dealt if these rights do not exist. I disagree. If they think it is right to change their life in some way, than they will probably perform some actions towards that goal and either be successful or not. However, their belief is all the justification needed.

What you don't seem to understand is that floppy rights means that one is not justified, no matter what their personal feelings are (you keep trying to bring that up, but that's merely a sidestep) in fighting back against the inequities and oppression they face. Since all rights under that circumstance are given by government, you have no rightful means by which to fight back. You have to accept it. If you think that people do have that right to fight back against oppression, even in the face of law and society, you are saying there is a set of rights which is inherent to us all; those would be natural rights.

You are perfectly justified in applying your natural rights, as you see them, because you believe in them and will act on them.
Click to expand...

My desires are inconsequential for the sake of this argument. You claim that people are right in their fight to improve their lot. That suggests a set of rights which are inalienable.

megaprogman said:
I like to think they are equal, but how would we measure it? I hope they are equal, I think its good to treat them as if they were. My religion tells me that I should treat everyone as I wanted to be treated. I don't always do a good job at it, but I try. I don't think the question is objectively answerable though or else I could whip out a spreadsheet or a math program and perform a series of proofs on it.

As a practical and moral matter. Society seems to be more functional when we apply the concept of equality though.
Click to expand...

It's not a measurement, it's a statement. Either humans are all equal or they are not. If we're all equal, then there is a set base of rights which is common to us all. That means there are natural rights which exist merely on the basis of our humanity.
 
VanceMack said:
Wow...I just cannot fathom the mindset that clings to that notion. We will obviously agree to disagree...
Click to expand...

I cannot fathom the mindset of one who believes rights are merely privilege granted by government. Even further, I cannot fathom anyone subscribing to libertarian political philosophy who doesn't subscribe at least in part to Hobbes or Locke or Kant.
 
megaprogman said:
I can. It is the fear that if there is no standard, there is no reason to do anything, at least thats what I seem to be picking up from Ikari. I can understand, having no flaming road signs means we each have to make our own way and that is indeed a scary thing.
Click to expand...

It's not that. It's the basis of humanity and our ability to protect ourselves against treason and tyranny. It's the very basis of this country in fact. Without natural rights, we have no justification to revolt, we have no basis to assert fundamentals such as press, religion, speech, association, etc. Natural rights are limitations to government, legal and social rights are constructs of the government and society. If that's all that exists, there's no justification to fight against it should the need arise.
 
Ikari said:
I cannot fathom the mindset of one who believes rights are merely privilege granted by government. Even further, I cannot fathom anyone subscribing to libertarian political philosophy who doesn't subscribe at least in part to Hobbes or Locke or Kant.
Click to expand...

Thats OK...the libertarian party leadership didnt like it when I recommended they drop the legalize drugs notions on the national party platform. this may come as a shock, but libertarians are no different from democrats or republicans when it comes to zombielike adherence to party ideology.

I dont buy into the 'natural' rights or 'human' rights idea because we simply have too many global examples where it isnt in play. We have examples in North American history where it wasnt employed.

its a WONDERFUL notion. truly. Its not based on ANYTHING other than feel good ideas of morality...but it IS a wonderful thought...that people...all people...should have rights to freedom...property...liberty. The practical application fails.
 
Ikari said:
It's not that. It's the basis of humanity and our ability to protect ourselves against treason and tyranny. It's the very basis of this country in fact. Without natural rights, we have no justification to revolt, we have no basis to assert fundamentals such as press, religion, speech, association, etc. Natural rights are limitations to government, legal and social rights are constructs of the government and society. If that's all that exists, there's no justification to fight against it should the need arise.
Click to expand...

You have listed all subjective desires. Evidence that your position is subjective and value based, not objective and universal.
 
All people do have the right to life, liberty, and property. Just because it isn't fully realized everywhere doesn't mean the rights do not exist. The exercise of rights can be infringed upon by outside force, it happens more often than it should. People can be dicks, it's why anarchy doesn't work as a viable form of "government". But the use of force doesn't negate the right, the right exists and it's important to stress that point. People are justified in their rise against treason and tyranny because they have the right to secure for themselves a form of government which will abide by their innate and inalienable rights.

The idea of natural rights is corner to libertarian philosophy. While many parties can have varying aspects and room for debate; there are cornerstones to the philosophy itself. And if you don't heed the cornerstone, you can hardly be called a practitioner of the philosophy. I've see a rise of poser libertarians lately, those who are essentially Republican but either don't want to admit it or are slightly dissatisfied with the current incarnation of the GOP. They aren't real libertarians because they don't understand our fundamental political philosophy and platform. They like to call themselves libertarian, but have done no research into our goals, our ideals, and our convictions.
 
Ikari said:
My desires are inconsequential for the sake of this argument. You claim that people are right in their fight to improve their lot. That suggests a set of rights which are inalienable.
Click to expand...

We desire something and often we act on that desire. If we are hungry, we attempt to secure food and eat. If we are horny, we attempt to have sex. If we are unsatisfied with our range of choices in life, we attempt to be more free.

Any intellectual framework we put on top of that is just an intellectual framework. Sometimes we do things because of that intellectual framework, sometimes it is biological imperative, sometimes it is other things. But its really just nature doing what nature does. It is the same as the lion and the gazelle. We are just smart enough to create a structure around us called society where these things are abstracted and complex than that of the typical lion. It is because of that abstraction that we create for ourselves that we even made up the concept of rights. If you strip it away though, people will still be attempting to address their needs and wants.

Ikari said:
It's not a measurement, it's a statement. Either humans are all equal or they are not. If we're all equal, then there is a set base of rights which is common to us all. That means there are natural rights which exist merely on the basis of our humanity.
Click to expand...

I don't think the question is answerable because there is no criteria to measure it. Like I said. We each have our own criteria, but there is no universal criteria, unless every single human agrees to it. Even then it would only be universal until 1 person disagrees.
 
scourge99 said:
You have listed all subjective desires. Evidence that your position is subjective and value based, not objective and universal.
Click to expand...

Those all do with a person. My speech is my own, you can't control it. Who I want to hang out with is my own, you can't control that either. There is a universal to all humans, in the end human is human. We all share a common set of rights based in life, liberty, and property.
 
megaprogman said:
We desire something and often we act on that desire. If we are hungry, we attempt to secure food and eat. If we are horny, we attempt to have sex. If we are unsatisfied with our range of choices in life, we attempt to be more free.

Any intellectual framework we put on top of that is just an intellectual framework. Sometimes we do things because of that intellectual framework, sometimes it is biological imperative, sometimes it is other things. But its really just nature doing what nature does. It is the same as the lion and the gazelle. We are just smart enough to create a structure around us called society where these things are abstracted and complex than that of the typical lion. It is because of that abstraction that we create for ourselves that we even made up the concept of rights. If you strip it away though, people will still be attempting to address their needs and wants.
Click to expand...

Humans create society because we are fundamentally social creatures. We then have to remedy that with the natural state, which is where the concept of natural rights come in. While we are good with abstract thought (more so than any other creature), reason alone can lead us to the understanding of natural rights. We can comprehend things normally not seen in the animal kingdom. We can build past it too and construct social contract and legal right; but those are floppy definitions and can change depending on circumstance. Natural rights are the rights in the natural state and are inherent to all humans.

megaprogman said:
I don't think the question is answerable because there is no criteria to measure it. Like I said. We each have our own criteria, but there is no universal criteria, unless every single human agrees to it. Even then it would only be universal until 1 person disagrees.
Click to expand...

It's not as easy as say gravity, that's for sure. But one person disagreeing doesn't mean that there isn't a universal set of rights for all humans. You're always going to get some disagreement because some people are jerks and want to oppose the rights of the individual to better seek their position. Which is why the concept of natural rights becomes so important. We can conclude this through reason alone, and because that is our species forte we are able to understand the concept of natural rights and how they occur.
 
Ikari said:
All people do have the right to life, liberty, and property. Just because it isn't fully realized everywhere doesn't mean the rights do not exist. The exercise of rights can be infringed upon by outside force, it happens more often than it should. People can be dicks, it's why anarchy doesn't work as a viable form of "government". But the use of force doesn't negate the right, the right exists and it's important to stress that point. People are justified in their rise against treason and tyranny because they have the right to secure for themselves a form of government which will abide by their innate and inalienable rights.

The idea of natural rights is corner to libertarian philosophy. While many parties can have varying aspects and room for debate; there are cornerstones to the philosophy itself. And if you don't heed the cornerstone, you can hardly be called a practitioner of the philosophy. I've see a rise of poser libertarians lately, those who are essentially Republican but either don't want to admit it or are slightly dissatisfied with the current incarnation of the GOP. They aren't real libertarians because they don't understand our fundamental political philosophy and platform. They like to call themselves libertarian, but have done no research into our goals, our ideals, and our convictions.
Click to expand...

Based on WHAT???

I love being 'schooled' on being a 'real' libertarian. Gee...now...if I just adopt the mindles libertarian party principles I can enjoy the same role in politics as do all the rest of the elected libertarians. Never mind...I'll stick with MY libertarian beliefs...smaller federal government based on constitutional requirements. Individual first, state second, federal third.

Its the constitution that provides for us those rights and freedoms we enjoy.

In THIS COUNTRY...we have rights...fought for...bled for...some people died to preserve them. The framers of the constitution built a system of government that provides for those rights. Without that framework, they are just ideas.
 
Ikari said:
Humans create society because we are fundamentally social creatures. We then have to remedy that with the natural state, which is where the concept of natural rights come in. While we are good with abstract thought (more so than any other creature), reason alone can lead us to the understanding of natural rights. We can comprehend things normally not seen in the animal kingdom. We can build past it too and construct social contract and legal right; but those are floppy definitions and can change depending on circumstance. Natural rights are the rights in the natural state and are inherent to all humans.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so these natural rights bridge the gap between the animal world and society. That's great, but we really can fill that gap with anything we wish, since society is the collective contribution of all people in it. I see no reason why this concept should be preferred over any other.

Ikari said:
It's not as easy as say gravity, that's for sure. But one person disagreeing doesn't mean that there isn't a universal set of rights for all humans. You're always going to get some disagreement because some people are jerks and want to oppose the rights of the individual to better seek their position. Which is why the concept of natural rights becomes so important. We can conclude this through reason alone, and because that is our species forte we are able to understand the concept of natural rights and how they occur.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. If something is universal, it means we have no choice but to comply to it since it would be written into the very universe. We would not be able to break it any more than we could travel 10x the speed of light. But we can and we do it every day.

You have made very good practical arguments for its use as a concept to base society on. And I think it mostly is. It is a bit absolutist for my taste, but any concept can be taken to absurdity, so that's no big deal.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Those all do with a person. My speech is my own, you can't control it. Who I want to hang out with is my own, you can't control that either. There is a universal to all humans, in the end human is human. We all share a common set of rights based in life, liberty, and property.
Click to expand...

I don't even understand your definition and use of the word "rights".

If you mean, like Ethereal said, that we all have a will and desires then I agree that everyone has that. But I don't know why you would equivocate that with "rights".

We all share commonality in biology. But not everyone desires liberty, freedom, and other things you desire. You need to understand these are SUBJECTIVE desires and values. Not objective desires and values. That is the greatest aspect and most horrible flaw of self-awareness. It makes us capable of desiring and valueing everything to nothing and everything inbetween.
 
VanceMack said:
Based on WHAT???
Click to expand...

Based on being human.

And the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it merely lists some of our rights. And you seem to have an interesting definition of "individual first" when you deny that the individual has rights.
 
scourge99 said:
But you can also make an intellectual extension that denies natural rights: Anarchy, asceticism, social darwinism, capitalism to name a few.

The notion of natural rights is a subjective claim on how people "ought" to act in the objective world.

Its nothing more than an opinion. I happen to agree with parts of this opinion because I think the current consequences of it have optimal effects. But I don't delude myself into thinking it is a universal and objective standard.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. The basis of natural rights is objective, that is, all humans desire to live in accordance with their will; this is the inherent quality upon which the morality (subjective) of individual negative liberty is based. Some may deny the logic or validty of that subjective extension, and that's perfectly reasonable, but they cannot deny the objective basis upon which it is founded.

Agree?
 
scourge99 said:
I don't even understand your definition and use of the word "rights".

If you mean, like Ethereal said, that we all have a will and desires then I agree that everyone has that. But I don't know why you would equivocate that with "rights".

We all share commonality in biology. But not everyone desires liberty, freedom, and other things you desire. You need to understand these are SUBJECTIVE desires and values. Not objective desires and values. That is the greatest aspect and most horrible flaw of self-awareness. It makes us capable of desiring and valueing everything to nothing and everything inbetween.
Click to expand...

People can in fact desire a wide range of things. And it can be complicated by aggregated effects of society as well. I'm not saying people have to accept my version of liberty. But I will say that all people are entitled to stand up for it, to demand it, and to fight for it should the government or other outside forces act against it.
 
megaprogman said:
Actually it does. If something is universal, it means we have no choice but to comply to it since it would be written into the very universe. We would not be able to break it any more than we could travel 10x the speed of light. But we can.
Click to expand...

Something universal means that it's possessed by all. Exercise of rights can be infringed upon by outside force. But people possess the right to fight that force if they so choose. And since that right would exist outside the societal and legal rights, it is then a natural right.

You are almost right, instead of saying "it means we have no choice but to comply..." I would say "it means rightful government has no choice but to comply".
 
Ethereal said:
I agree with all of this. The basis of natural rights is objective, that is, all humans desire to live in accordance with their will; this is the inherent quality upon which the morality (subjective) of individual negative liberty is based. Some may deny the logic or validty of that subjective extension, and that's perfectly reasonable, but they cannot deny the objective basis upon which it is founded.

Agree?
Click to expand...

I think so. Yes.
 
Ikari said:
Based on being human.

And the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it merely lists some of our rights. And you seem to have an interesting definition of "individual first" when you deny that the individual has rights.
Click to expand...

The individual simply 'is'. In our system of government (as it was established) the inidividual had rights enumerated.

I'll ask it again...if you find yourself in the middle of the desert with no food water or shelter...will you be just fine because you have the 'right' to food water and shelter? What the hell does that even MEAN? Is it somehow UNFAIR if HUMANS who around the WORLD die every day...sometimes by the thousands...because of starvation? Because of disease? How the hell is that even POSSIBLE? After all...they have the RIGHT to eat...to drink...to own property...to live in a nice home...to have medical care. Good lord...do you not begin to see how INANE this notion of 'rights' is?
 
Ikari said:
Something universal means that it's possessed by all. Exercise of rights can be infringed upon by outside force. But people possess the right to fight that force if they so choose. And since that right would exist outside the societal and legal rights, it is then a natural right.

You are almost right, instead of saying "it means we have no choice but to comply..." I would say "it means rightful government has no choice but to comply".
Click to expand...

They don't possess the right. The entire concept of rights is kind of useless now that I think about it. At least in the objective sense, which is the framework from which we are arguing. (if you catch me using the word in the future, it might be from a different perspective). They possess the opportunity as a function of time, space, and circumstance. They possess the power with the ATP in the muscle cells and the nerve impulses to transmit mental signals, they possess the reason because of their beliefs and their ideological framework.

The concept of rightful government is invalid. They possess the same things the people possess since the government is people.

On the universal level, even the concept of government is not valid since it simply an idea and ideas cannot exist outside of brains. They do not float around and cause things to happen. They can be obeyed or disobeyed at our choosing.

All of it is ideas and all ideas are subjective. That's the only thing they can be since the human brain is a subject device. Even math and science are subjective when you get down to it, but at least we can measure those things against objective reality (at least the hard sciences).
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
The individual simply 'is'. In our system of government (as it was established) the inidividual had rights enumerated.

I'll ask it again...if you find yourself in the middle of the desert with no food water or shelter...will you be just fine because you have the 'right' to food water and shelter? What the hell does that even MEAN? Is it somehow UNFAIR if HUMANS who around the WORLD die every day...sometimes by the thousands...because of starvation? Because of disease? How the hell is that even POSSIBLE? After all...they have the RIGHT to eat...to drink...to own property...to live in a nice home...to have medical care. Good lord...do you not begin to see how INANE this notion of 'rights' is?
Click to expand...

A right is not a guarantee. This seems to be your stumbling block. You seem to envision rights as a magical cure all. If we have the right to property, then we all somehow magically have property. If we have the right to food, we somehow magically have food appear in front of us. But that's not a right, a right is a limitation upon the authority. We have the right to property, thus government should not be allowed to merely come and take our land at their own leisure. We have the right to life, thus the government cannot kill us at their whim. We have the right to liberty, thus government cannot deprive us of it rightfully by their own wishes and rules.

Maybe if you stop living in fantasy land where magic and alchemy apparently exist, and come to the real world we can have a proper discussion. But if you want to think of rights as magic, then we're going to disagree fundamentally on what a right actually is.
 
megaprogman said:
They don't possess the right. The entire concept of rights is kind of useless now that I think about it. At least in the objective sense, which is the framework from which we are arguing. (if you catch me using the word in the future, it might be from a different perspective). They possess the opportunity as a function of time, space, and circumstance. They possess the power with the ATP in the muscle cells and the nerve impulses to transmit mental signals, they possess the reason because of their beliefs and their ideological framework.

The concept of rightful government is invalid. They possess the same things the people possess since the government is people.

On the universal level, even the concept of government is not valid since it simply an idea and ideas cannot exist outside of brains. They do not float around and cause things to happen. They can be obeyed or disobeyed at our choosing.

All of it is ideas and all ideas are subjective. That's the only thing they can be since the human brain is a subject device.
Click to expand...

Government is an organization created by people, but the government itself is not people. Government also does not possess rights, groups cannot possess rights. Rights are held by the individual alone. I don't believe the concepts of rights are useless, in fact they are rather powerful. Is it all subjective in the end? Well it's not a hard science like physics and there is much political philosophy involved. But I do believe that rights are an important concept and that we can understand natural rights by considering the natural state which is free from outside forces.

In the end, I think what you have here in this post is basically the zero solution. It satisfies the equations, yes; but no real information is given about the system.
 
Ikari said:
I'm not saying people have to accept my version of liberty. But I will say that all people are entitled to stand up for it, to demand it, and to fight for it should the government or other outside forces act against it.
Click to expand...
You assume people are entitled to liberty. That is your subjective values speaking. Not something universally held or objective.

You assume that liberty is the fundamental desire. I disagree. I believe desire/value is fundamental.
 
Rights are just moral sentiments or affirmations based upon the concept of individual sovereignty. You're free to disagree with the notion of individual sovereignty, but that would make you sound like an authoritarian fool.

It's my body and my life, therefore, I affirm my sovereignty over them. You can deny my sovereignty but you will do so at the peril of civilized humanity.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
You assume people are entitled to liberty. That is your subjective values speaking. Not something universally held or objective.

You assume that liberty is the fundamental desire. I disagree. I believe desire/value is fundamental.
Click to expand...

I assume people are entitled to fight for liberty if they choose. Rights in the end are not magical, they can't just poof something into existence. But they tell you what you can rightfully fight for, what you can exert over outside forces such as government. Are people entitled to liberty? Yes of course. Does that mean it will automatically exist? Not really, outside force can suppress the exercise of a right. But you are then justified to fight that outside force. I think that Ethereal is better at explaining the concept of natural rights than I am at this point.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
You assume people are entitled to liberty.
Click to expand...

Of course. To assume otherwise is to destroy peace and humanity. We might as well be beasts, bashing one another's skulls in for scraps of meat in the gutter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom