• 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
Cephus said:
I'm not here to be impressive, but to get to actual, defensible answers and demonstrable truths. Funny how most people don't have either.
Click to expand...

We've provided both. You're just too busy beating up a strawman to notice.

A right is just a philosophical construct based upon human nature. It's not a magic forcefield that protects people from harm, but if you want to keep pretending that's what we think it is, I'm not going to stop you from sounding like a fool.
 
Cephus said:
See, that's exactly the question I keep asking. What are these rights based on? Where do they come from? On what authority do they exist? How do they know they exist? How were they discovered? How do they figure out which ones are rights and which ones are wishful thinking? These are questions that never get answered and, when pressed, the questioner gets called names.

Ultimately, "natural rights" looks more like a religion than a well-reasoned, critically-examined credible position. Maybe that's what Ikari is afraid people are going to find out.
Click to expand...

All these questions are just extensions of your lame strawman. The fact that you're so impressed with your strawman is a testament to your arrogance...
 
megaprogman said:
Harry hits the nail on the head. Any right exists because you believe it. I'm glad one of the libertarians seem to get it.
Click to expand...

:doh

No, rights do not "exist". The only people who think this are the three morons in this thread beating up their lame strawman.

Rights are just philosophical constructs. They are based upon human nature and the desire of each human to exercise sovereignty over their own person. A right is simply an expression of human nature, a moral sentiment that affirms our sovereignty over life and property. No one thinks a "right" can protect you or keep you from harm.

So, please, refrain from making your snide little comments about someone getting "it". Because "it" is nothing more than a stupid strawman that you and others have erected in attempt to bolster your own absurd positions.
 
Ethereal said:
:doh

No, rights do not "exist". The only people who think this are the three morons in this thread beating up their lame strawman.

Rights are just philosophical constructs. They are based upon human nature and the desire of each human to exercise sovereignty over their own person. A right is simply an expression of human nature, a moral sentiment that affirms our sovereignty over life and property. No one thinks a "right" can protect you or keep you from harm.

So, please, refrain from making your snide little comments about someone getting "it". Because "it" is nothing more than a stupid strawman that you and others have erected in attempt to bolster your own absurd positions.
Click to expand...

What does Locke say?
 
Cephus said:
Exactly, they're subjective which is what I've been saying all along. They exist because you and the society in which you live want them to exist, not for any other reason.

Now if only you could convince some of the other libertarians.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Rights don't physically exist. They're just abstract concepts with an objective basis in human nature. We all understand that people can and will reject such concepts, mostly because they're tyrants, and do not want to recognize the innate desire of all humans to exercise sovereignty over their person and property.

But keep beating up that strawman, Cephus....
 
Ikari said:
Why? You rejected it the first time through, why should I now expect you to accept arguments of Locke or Kant now? Go back if you want the information, but you've not shown a penchant for honest engagement in the discussion of natural rights. I've argued the basis of what natural rights can be, the difference between natural rights, legal rights, and social contract. I've put forth argument that rights are a check upon government power, and the necessities of rights. People seem to be caught up in the ideas of abstract. That because rights can be discovered through reason and because they are an abstract ideal that somehow they are worthless and can't exist in the least. But humans can understand and use the abstract and the notion of rights is incredibly useful, powerful, and necessary. But you're not interested, you get caught up on "abstract". And from that point on you reject all argument. You can go back and find where I made these arguments, but I doubt your readiness to try to engage on an intellectually honest level.
Click to expand...

Just what I thought, you didn't really answer any of those questions. No surprise there.
 
reefedjib said:
What does Locke say?
Click to expand...

He basically says that people are by nature born free, and that certain moral truths can be derived from the "state of nature" into which humans are born, i.e., all people desire and endeavor to live in accordance with their will. This is the universal concept upon which "natural rights" are based.
 
Ethereal said:
We've provided both. You're just too busy beating up a strawman to notice.
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem posting a direct link to where you've provided any of it.

A right is just a philosophical construct based upon human nature. It's not a magic forcefield that protects people from harm, but if you want to keep pretending that's what we think it is, I'm not going to stop you from sounding like a fool.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate that it is based on human nature then. Let's see you do the sociological and anthropological homework required to make such a claim.

How long should we wait?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think some kinds of societies require rights in order for it to exist.
Click to expand...

I would say all societies require some sort of rights and restrictions on behavior in order to exist at all, unless you're talking about pure anarchism and that's not a viable, long-term social structure to begin with. Every society out there has their own social rules, things you can do and things you cannot. The idea that there is a single set of rules that applies to everyone, everywhere, is ridiculous on the face of it.
 
Cephus said:
Just what I thought, you didn't really answer any of those questions. No surprise there.
Click to expand...

So yes, just outright rejection. Thanks for showing you're not intellectually honest enough to actually engage.
 
Ethereal said:
He basically says that people are by nature born free, and that certain moral truths can be derived from the "state of nature" into which humans are born, i.e., all people desire and endeavor to live in accordance with their will. This is the universal concept upon which "natural rights" are based.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I can see that point of view. Does he say that restrictions to those "natural rights" come from others imposing their will upon us and restricting our natural will?

What is the counter argument to "natural rights"?
 
reefedjib said:
Thanks. I can see that point of view. Does he say that restrictions to those "natural rights" come from others imposing their will upon us and restricting our natural will?
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson articulates what he feels are the rightful limits to our natural will:

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

Personally, I think Jefferson summed up almost everything we need to know about how to govern and act in the previous statement; it's basically a reincarnation of the golden rule.

What is the counter argument to "natural rights"?
Click to expand...

Tyranny and socialism.
 
LOL! Have you been blogging about us, Cephus?

Once again, I’ve been a part of a debate about “rights” with those nutjobs, the libertarians. And once again, the inherent irrationality of their position has been pointed out to them and they’ve entirely failed to comprehend it. This is certainly not the first time I’ve posted about libertarians and their bizarre concept of “rights”, I think some of it bears repeating however.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, we're unable to comprehend your argument, oh brilliant one. That must be it...:rofl

You've invested too much in your strawman to go back now. You've reached the point of no return...
 
Cephus said:
See, that's exactly the question I keep asking. What are these rights based on? Where do they come from? On what authority do they exist? How do they know they exist? How were they discovered? How do they figure out which ones are rights and which ones are wishful thinking? These are questions that never get answered and, when pressed, the questioner gets called names.

Ultimately, "natural rights" looks more like a religion than a well-reasoned, critically-examined credible position. Maybe that's what Ikari is afraid people are going to find out.
Click to expand...

Feelings...nothing more than feelings...

Damn...that should be in a song...
 
reefedjib said:
What is the counter argument to "natural rights"?
Click to expand...

I think the other side of the coin is to argue from pure practical application of "rights". But outside of natural rights, what we would call "legal rights" or "social contract" are not truly rights as they are malleable and dependent upon the current incarnation of government or society. I think these are more rightfully deemed "privilege". Thus I believe that if you deny natural rights, you are in fact denying the existence of rights themselves. This, IMO, is incredibly dangerous as the concept of natural rights emerged and was promoted in varying political philosophies to exist as a natural limit on government power over the People. I believe this to be the true power of acknowledging natural rights.
 
Ikari said:
I think the other side of the coin is to argue from pure practical application of "rights". But outside of natural rights, what we would call "legal rights" or "social contract" are not truly rights as they are malleable and dependent upon the current incarnation of government or society. I think these are more rightfully deemed "privilege". Thus I believe that if you deny natural rights, you are in fact denying the existence of rights themselves. This, IMO, is incredibly dangerous as the concept of natural rights emerged and was promoted in varying political philosophies to exist as a natural limit on government power over the People. I believe this to be the true power of acknowledging natural rights.
Click to expand...

Basically on one side, you have some rights that are eternal and natural, but the violation of them means nothing because there is no inherent action behind them. Ultimately making it a logical construct that has no inherent value because it accomplishes nothing.

On the other side, you have rights that are formed by social consensus and could be anything, really, as long as society is supported by it.

Thats how I see it at least.

A person's liberty means nothing if they have no food or water in which to support themselves or they are dead, except that it can maybe make them feel good.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Basically on one side, you have some rights that are eternal and natural, but the violation of them means nothing. Ultimately making it a logical construct that has no inherent value because it accomplishes nothing.

On the other side, you have rights that are formed by social consensus and could be anything, really, as long as society is supported by it.

Both seem to have their advantages and disadvantages.
Click to expand...

Not quite. The violation of the natural rights does not mean nothing. It's a violation of rights and gives the people legitimacy to revolt or change in the government. I think there is plenty of value to understanding and acknowledging the existence of natural rights. While the exercise of the rights can be infringed upon by outside force, because natural rights are possessed by all it makes that force unjust towards the people and lends legitimacy to action against the government. This is because the government cannot define these rights to not exist. The exist in all humans and the government cannot take them. This is one of the main powers of natural rights.
 
Ikari said:
Not quite. The violation of the natural rights does not mean nothing. It's a violation of rights and gives the people legitimacy to revolt or change in the government. I think there is plenty of value to understanding and acknowledging the existence of natural rights. While the exercise of the rights can be infringed upon by outside force, because natural rights are possessed by all it makes that force unjust towards the people and lends legitimacy to action against the government. This is because the government cannot define these rights to not exist. The exist in all humans and the government cannot take them. This is one of the main powers of natural rights.
Click to expand...

There is no need for legitimacy. If a person feels they have sufficient moral reason to fight for whatever they think they rights are and they will supply their own legitimacy since it is an internal and societal function. Its all they need since that is what they will act on.

All you are doing is pointing out one possible execution of this larger and more inclusive principal.

Its like the Hindu that accepts a Christian's claim at full value and still being able to be fully Hindu. Your view is simply a subset of mine and that's all it can ever be.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
There is no need for legitimacy. If a person feels they have sufficient moral reason to fight for whatever they think they rights are and they will supply their own legitimacy since it is an internal and societal function. Its all they need since that is what they will act on.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But then it becomes a lot more floppy. I can think I have sufficient moral reason to revolt; but can document no such violation of my rights on such level as to warrant it. Under your assumptions, I still have legitimacy to my claim of revolt. Under my assumptions, I do not have the legitimacy since I cannot show violation of my natural rights.
 
Ikari said:
Perhaps. But then it becomes a lot more floppy. I can think I have sufficient moral reason to revolt; but can document no such violation of my rights on such level as to warrant it. Under your assumptions, I still have legitimacy to my claim of revolt. Under my assumptions, I do not have the legitimacy since I cannot show violation of my natural rights.
Click to expand...

That assessment seems completely accurate.

Is floppy a common libertarian term? Because it keeps making me think of fat people, and 1.4MB disks.
 
Last edited:
No, I use floppy a lot to designate dynamics which are extremely malleable and subject to rapid change/interpretation.
 
Ikari said:
No, I use floppy a lot to designate dynamics which are extremely malleable and subject to rapid change/interpretation.
Click to expand...

Is that a bad thing? I am curious of your personal assessment, not necessarily the libertarian mainstream thought of the matter.
 
Last edited:
The term isn't necessarily negative. I just use it to describe the stability of the system. Some things you may want to be floppy, other things maybe not so much. When it comes to natural rights specifically, I think you want to stay away from floppy.
 
Ikari said:
The term isn't necessarily negative. I just use it to describe the stability of the system. Some things you may want to be floppy, other things maybe not so much. When it comes to natural rights specifically, I think you want to stay away from floppy.
Click to expand...

Do you think these natural rights, as they are divined by insights into human nature, are subject to change if, for instance, human nature changes because of something like genetic engineering that changes our core mental structure or if we install networked communications into our brains and start merging thoughts with one another?

I know its hypothetical, but I am probing the philosophy to see its rigidity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom