• 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
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.

Something like Ghost in the Shell like? In using reason to probe the natural rights of humans, one usually starts by considering the natural environment. That is, one in which the individual exists in an environment free from external pressure and force; and from there you can derive the natural rights. What you are talking about is almost a merging of consciousness into maybe some super being. You start to get into differing philosophies at that point. Cassirer theorized that under such circumstance you would cease being human; thus human rights which are essentially what we talk about when talking of natural rights, would cease to apply.

"There is, at least, one right that cannot be ceded or abandoned: the right to personality...They charged the great logician [Hobbes] with a contradiction in terms. If a man could give up his personality he would cease being a moral being. ... There is no pactum subjectionis, no act of submission by which man can give up the state of free agent and enslave himself. For by such an act of renunciation he would give up that very character which constitutes his nature and essence: he would lose his humanity." - Cassirer

Does that mean that the rights of the individual, such as life, liberty, and property cease to exist? It's an interesting consideration because under such a circumstance the "individual" ceases to exist and instead everyone is part of a greater consciousness. Perhaps that consciousness is given the rights and the pieces of the whole are considered just building blocks to that consciousness.

"The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them." - Hegel

If you're really serious about wanting to learn more about natural rights and the philosophy behind them, I'd suggest picking up some works by Hobbes, Locke, or Paine.
 
Last edited:
Something like Ghost in the Shell like? In using reason to probe the natural rights of humans, one usually starts by considering the natural environment. That is, one in which the individual exists in an environment free from external pressure and force; and from there you can derive the natural rights. What you are talking about is almost a merging of consciousness into maybe some super being. You start to get into differing philosophies at that point. Cassirer theorized that under such circumstance you would cease being human; thus human rights which are essentially what we talk about when talking of natural rights, would cease to apply.

"There is, at least, one right that cannot be ceded or abandoned: the right to personality...They charged the great logician [Hobbes] with a contradiction in terms. If a man could give up his personality he would cease being a moral being. ... There is no pactum subjectionis, no act of submission by which man can give up the state of free agent and enslave himself. For by such an act of renunciation he would give up that very character which constitutes his nature and essence: he would lose his humanity." - Cassirer

Does that mean that the rights of the individual, such as life, liberty, and property cease to exist? It's an interesting consideration because under such a circumstance the "individual" ceases to exist and instead everyone is part of a greater consciousness. Perhaps that consciousness is given the rights and the pieces of the whole are considered just building blocks to that consciousness.

"The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them." - Hegel

If you're really serious about wanting to learn more about natural rights and the philosophy behind them, I'd suggest picking up some works by Hobbes, Locke, or Paine.

Thanks for the offer. Either way, interesting answer.

I do find one thing curious. You state:

one usually starts by considering the natural environment. That is, one in which the individual exists in an environment free from external pressure and force

Does it matter if the environment itself exerts pressure and force or is this philosophy ignore those? From what I can tell, all environments exert these things simply because there is no such thing as an ideal environment.
 
Does it matter if the environment itself exerts pressure and force or is this philosophy ignore those? From what I can tell, all environments exert these things simply because there is no such thing as an ideal environment.

It's discussed in terms of government

State of nature (natural state) is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state's foundation. In a broader sense, the state of nature is the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being, thus being a synonym of anarchy. The idea of the state of nature was a part of a classical republicanism theory as a hypothetical reason of entering a state of society by establishing a government.

In some versions of social contract theory, there are no rights in the state of nature, only freedoms, and it is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In other versions the opposite occurs: the contract imposes restrictions upon individuals that curtail their natural rights.
 
LOL! Have you been blogging about us, Cephus?



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...

Well some "debate" by ignoring arguments and just throwing out insults. It's an entirely cheap way of "debating" and only serves to bolster one's own preconceived notions and biases. But I suppose whatever floats their boat. It takes a certain amount of intellectual honesty and integrity to participate in debates. Some have it, some don't. Que sera sera
 
It's discussed in terms of government

State of nature (natural state) is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state's foundation. In a broader sense, the state of nature is the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being, thus being a synonym of anarchy. The idea of the state of nature was a part of a classical republicanism theory as a hypothetical reason of entering a state of society by establishing a government.

In some versions of social contract theory, there are no rights in the state of nature, only freedoms, and it is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In other versions the opposite occurs: the contract imposes restrictions upon individuals that curtail their natural rights.

I can't see when a state like that has ever happened. A person has to be a part of society if they ever hope to reproduce (unless there's rape) and even the most primitive tribal societies impose obligations among its members. Whether that means a member has to get a tattoo, participate in the gathering of food (which is almost always communal), religious rituals, coming of age rituals, the expectation of marriage and children, whatever. In fact, most primitive societies can be downright brutal because survival is hard work. Especially in South America. They often have a primitive government with elders, chiefs, spiritual leaders, etc and there tend to be severe punishments for going against that society's ways.

But as far as I can tell, every society from the simplest to the most complex, impose obligations among its members and often these obligations are for the good of the society and its members, not just for a single individual. This would be tyranny and socialism.

So, given that, is it only possible to live a truely libertarian existance alone?
 
Last edited:
I can't see when a state like that has ever happened.

Ugh! It hasn't happened. As was made clear by Ikari, it's a hypothetical state of humanity from which we are able to derive certain truths.

Try reading A Theory of Justice by John Rawls if you want a better understanding of these kinds of philosophical hypotheticals.
 
You guy's replies on this forum are provide me with the information I need. My time is precious to me and chasing fairy tales is not a good use of it.

Ok. So I tried looking at it from Ikari's perspective and I came to this conclusion:

One one side, you have the philosophy of the mind, which is libertarianism. On the other, you have the philosophy of the body, which is communism.

Here's what I mean.

Mind:
The entire concern is about freedoms. Life, Liberty, Property, The Pursuit of happiness. It all boils down to saying a person has a right to try to acquire these things. It says a man is rightful in pursuing or attempting to secure these concepts. If a man loses any of these things, he is free to pursue them again (except life of course, you only get one shot at that). It ignores the world around it, which is its flaw. If a man has no life or means of life, the other pursuits lose meaning.

Body:
The entire concern is around things like food, shelter, works. The practicals of life. However, in order to be fully implemented, a man would have to give up his libertarian freedoms to become a part of the system that provides those practical necessities. Its flaw is that it goes against human nature. Humans are pretty much going to try to do their own thing.

So, yeah it truly looks like the mirror image of communism and with pretty much anything else in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, the question becomes, how can we achieve the optimal state for the needs of both the mind and the body. This pretty much explains while successful societies are the ones who can find this middle ground, such as the US, Europe, China is moving in that direction, Singapore, etc. They all have elements of both philosophies, as dictated by necessity.

Ultimately though, this pretty much leads me back to my original point, but maybe a bit modified with this new information. Rights have to be socially constructed since they have to mediate and exist in a gray area between these two extremes.

So yeah, socialism or any ism can be good, given the right context.

Thanks for the debate guys.

Looks like I got what I came here for, new information.

I hope Libertarians never become fully in charge, because without the concerns about the practical matters of living, I foresee a lot of death and misery. Of course they will always be able to deflect blame because if they only had more faith and the libertarianism was more pure it would be better! Which is the same claim communists make. Hopefully it will never get beyond arguments on forums and to the point where we have a libertarian version of stalin. And yes I completely mean this. It may make me a bad person in your eyes, but I am ok with that.
 
Last edited:
In short, do you believe the traditional rights, recognized by the US Constitution bill of rights to be natural or not?

My personal view is that the only natural right is the right to try and accomplish your goals, either by using force or by not using force. In essence might makes right. This is evident in how nature operates and it seems to be how society operates when government is removed.

Anything beyond that, such as free speech, the right to own a gun, etc are legal constructs that we, as a society, largely agree to. While these things are a good idea, there is nothing inherent about them.

What is your view?

I think rights originate from and serve biological imperatives, so as biological imperatives are natural, rights must also be natural.
 
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.

Then maybe rights are natural.

Depends on the type of government though.
 
Someone please define "rights" in the context that we are discussing. What I see is a lot of talk about instincts and desires... at least how I see it.
 
Someone please define "rights" in the context that we are discussing. What I see is a lot of talk about instincts and desires... at least how I see it.
Right - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

5 : straight <a right line>

See also [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_angle]Right angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

trig.jpg


This thread is about Right triangles and how you interact with them everyday.

Please note that to illustrate a point, this post is being Obtuse:

14276_97_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Someone please define "rights" in the context that we are discussing. What I see is a lot of talk about instincts and desires... at least how I see it.

Yep...and inane fantasies about what life would be like in some ideal world. But NOTHING pertaining to 'rights' as a reachable and valid version of reality.
 
All humans desire to live in accordance with their will. That's human nature.

Yes, you keep saying that, now let's see you DEMONSTRATE it. You know, back it up with evidence? :doh
 
So yes, just outright rejection. Thanks for showing you're not intellectually honest enough to actually engage.

I cannot reject what has not been presented and your refusal to demonstrate that you have presented it in the past, or to present it now, only proves that you've never done so.

What you're really saying is "holy crap, he's asking me to back up my nonsense and I can't do it so I'll wave my arms wildly and pretend I did it and make excuses why nobody has ever seen me do it!"
 
Yes, you keep saying that, now let's see you DEMONSTRATE it. You know, back it up with evidence? :doh

They do things like make countries with various rules, local organizations with company policies, private homes have individual house rules...some people like to earn a living by taking from others, and some of those others disagree, hence war...
 
Then maybe rights are natural.

Only if it can be backed up that way, but so far, nobody has been able to (or even attempted for that matter) to demonstrate it. If they want to argue that rights come from nature (as Jerry seems to) then they need to draw a causal link from the natural state to a demonstrable set of rights based on that state that are defensible for all animals that fall within that natural state. So far... no go.
 
They do things like make countries with various rules, local organizations with company policies, private homes have individual house rules...some people like to earn a living by taking from others, and some of those others disagree, hence war...

Under some situations, not under others. How does any of this demonstrate that a "right" comes from "nature"?
 
Under some situations, not under others. How does any of this demonstrate that a "right" comes from "nature"?

It doesn't, nor was it meant to.

You disagreed with "all humans desire to live in accordance with their will"...you weren't even talking about rights in any context.

People generally want what they want...how this relates to rights, I have no idea, it's Etherial's argument so I'll let him make the connection.
 
You guy's replies on this forum are provide me with the information I need. My time is precious to me and chasing fairy tales is not a good use of it.

Ok. So I tried looking at it from Ikari's perspective and I came to this conclusion:

One one side, you have the philosophy of the mind, which is libertarianism. On the other, you have the philosophy of the body, which is communism.

Here's what I mean.

Mind:
The entire concern is about freedoms. Life, Liberty, Property, The Pursuit of happiness. It all boils down to saying a person has a right to try to acquire these things. It says a man is rightful in pursuing or attempting to secure these concepts. If a man loses any of these things, he is free to pursue them again (except life of course, you only get one shot at that). It ignores the world around it, which is its flaw. If a man has no life or means of life, the other pursuits lose meaning.

Body:
The entire concern is around things like food, shelter, works. The practicals of life. However, in order to be fully implemented, a man would have to give up his libertarian freedoms to become a part of the system that provides those practical necessities. Its flaw is that it goes against human nature. Humans are pretty much going to try to do their own thing.

So, yeah it truly looks like the mirror image of communism and with pretty much anything else in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, the question becomes, how can we achieve the optimal state for the needs of both the mind and the body. This pretty much explains while successful societies are the ones who can find this middle ground, such as the US, Europe, China is moving in that direction, Singapore, etc. They all have elements of both philosophies, as dictated by necessity.

Ultimately though, this pretty much leads me back to my original point, but maybe a bit modified with this new information. Rights have to be socially constructed since they have to mediate and exist in a gray area between these two extremes.

So yeah, socialism or any ism can be good, given the right context.

Thanks for the debate guys.

Looks like I got what I came here for, new information.

I hope Libertarians never become fully in charge, because without the concerns about the practical matters of living, I foresee a lot of death and misery. Of course they will always be able to deflect blame because if they only had more faith and the libertarianism was more pure it would be better! Which is the same claim communists make. Hopefully it will never get beyond arguments on forums and to the point where we have a libertarian version of stalin. And yes I completely mean this. It may make me a bad person in your eyes, but I am ok with that.

I think that you still don't quite understand. Perhaps like your compatriots you are more given to make snide comments than try to understand a premise.

It comes down to this. Do you think murder is unequivocally wrong? Not self-defense or things of that nature. Is one human in cold blood murdering another human always wrong? Regardless of race, regardless of location, regardless of social status. I'm pissy and grumpy, I'm walking down the street, I see some guy...maybe he reminds me of a rude server at Starbucks, I pull out a gun, shoot him in the back of the head. Is that act always wrong?

The answer to that question will tell you what side of this debate you are on. If you believe that it is always wrong to outright murder people in cold blood, the question becomes why? If social and legal "right" is all we have, those can be changed. You can have a society say were murder is encouraged. But if you think that murder is always wrong, then there has to exist something outside of legal and social "right", something that is inherent to all humans and makes cold blooded murder against humans always wrong. That would be natural rights.

If the answer to the question is no, then you'll never accept the concept of natural rights. If you think it personally ok under some circumstance for me to have shot that guy in the back of the head for no reason; you won't accept natural rights. It doesn't mean that maybe you can't understand the arguments for them (unlike others who would rather blatantly engage in nothing but insult instead of debate), but you're not going to accept it as valid. Morality is in essence completely subjective.

I'm of course in the natural rights club. I am never justified to murder someone who has done nothing to me in the least. I do not have the right to take his life.
 
I cannot reject what has not been presented and your refusal to demonstrate that you have presented it in the past, or to present it now, only proves that you've never done so.

What you're really saying is "holy crap, he's asking me to back up my nonsense and I can't do it so I'll wave my arms wildly and pretend I did it and make excuses why nobody has ever seen me do it!"

Wrong again. In fact, I had summarized some of my arguments in my previous post to you and have expanded on concepts in posts to mega. But keep pretending if you want. You've already shown yourself so intellectually dishonest that you can't properly and productively engage in the debate; so your lies no longer really even matter.
 
I think that you still don't quite understand. Perhaps like your compatriots you are more given to make snide comments than try to understand a premise.

It comes down to this. Do you think murder is unequivocally wrong? Not self-defense or things of that nature. Is one human in cold blood murdering another human always wrong? Regardless of race, regardless of location, regardless of social status. I'm pissy and grumpy, I'm walking down the street, I see some guy...maybe he reminds me of a rude server at Starbucks, I pull out a gun, shoot him in the back of the head. Is that act always wrong?

The answer to that question will tell you what side of this debate you are on. If you believe that it is always wrong to outright murder people in cold blood, the question becomes why? If social and legal "right" is all we have, those can be changed. You can have a society say were murder is encouraged. But if you think that murder is always wrong, then there has to exist something outside of legal and social "right", something that is inherent to all humans and makes cold blooded murder against humans always wrong. That would be natural rights.

If the answer to the question is no, then you'll never accept the concept of natural rights. If you think it personally ok under some circumstance for me to have shot that guy in the back of the head for no reason; you won't accept natural rights. It doesn't mean that maybe you can't understand the arguments for them (unlike others who would rather blatantly engage in nothing but insult instead of debate), but you're not going to accept it as valid. Morality is in essence completely subjective.

I'm of course in the natural rights club. I am never justified to murder someone who has done nothing to me in the least. I do not have the right to take his life.

I personally believe murder is wrong under all circumstances. I feel life is precious because I love humanity and that love encourages me to promote my fellow human. Before I became religious, the source of that love was the observation that if I love humanity, it will return the favor, it was entirely a pragmatic thing. And I would feel pissed off if that love was not returned. To me it was almost an economic exchange, I pay love and therefore should receive love in return, so that I might benefit. (Wow, you are causing me to bring up from old memories of decisions I made when I was 11 and 12.) I feel differently now that I am religious, but its still not based on any concept of rights, only love, except now I don't care if it isn't returned.

I guess I am pragmatic to my very soul now that I think about it. But again when I decided to find the source of morality when I was a young person, I found that it did not exist except for what I built. So I built one because I decided that if I ever wanted to be happy, I had to find a way to be around other people and get along with them because I, like any human, am a social creature and have certain emotional needs. Pragmaticism is the tool I used I guess because it was the only tool there was when I was a hardcore atheist.

My snide comment was meant to get back at Ethereal for his snide comment, it was wrong and I apologize.
 
Last edited:
I personally believe murder is wrong under all circumstances. I feel life is precious because I love humanity and that love encourages me to promote my fellow human. Before I became religious, the source of that love was the observation that if I love humanity, it will return the favor, it was entirely a pragmatic thing. And I would feel pissed off if that love was not returned. To me it was almost an economic exchange, I pay love and therefore should receive love in return, so that I might benefit. (Wow, you are causing me to bring up from old memories of decisions I made when I was 11 and 12.) I feel differently now that I am religious, but its still not based on any concept of rights, only love.

I guess I am pragmatic to my very soul now that I think about it. But again when I decided to find the source of morality when I was a young person, I found that it did not exist except for what I built. So I built one because I decided that if I ever wanted to be happy, I had to find a way to be around other people and get along with them because I, like any human, am a social creature and have certain emotional needs. Pragmaticism is the tool I used I guess because it was the only tool there was when I was a hardcore atheist.

My snide comment was meant to get back at Ethereal for his snide comment, it was wrong and I apologize.

To be honest, I really think you should go read a bit on natural rights and the philosophy behind it. I don't think you're far away from at least understanding it a lot better, if not acknowledging it. The philosophers whom have written on the subject can do a much better job than I or any other random person on the internet is likely to do to convey the complex nature of this philosophical discussion. But unlike others, you have at least engaged openly enough to hear the arguments being made instead of just ignoring and rejecting them completely from the start as others have done. So for that I thank you.
 
Wrong again. In fact, I had summarized some of my arguments in my previous post to you and have expanded on concepts in posts to mega. But keep pretending if you want. You've already shown yourself so intellectually dishonest that you can't properly and productively engage in the debate; so your lies no longer really even matter.

*yawn* Okay, whatever you say. Funny, I never saw anything even remotely close to an answer to the questions I asked, just your standard drivel and wishful thinking nonsense.

I guess that's the best you can do. Can't expect better.
 
*yawn* Okay, whatever you say. Funny, I never saw anything even remotely close to an answer to the questions I asked, just your standard drivel and wishful thinking nonsense.

I guess that's the best you can do. Can't expect better.

You're lies aside, I've had a reasonable discussion with another in this thread. Which shows that what you're saying is a lie. But it's how you debate this topic is all, I've come to realize that now. You're behavior towards libertarians is to call them names, ignore all the arguments, and keep pretending you've done something otherwise. It's fine, I just know the status of your debate skills and integrity now is all.
 
You're lies aside, I've had a reasonable discussion with another in this thread. Which shows that what you're saying is a lie. But it's how you debate this topic is all, I've come to realize that now. You're behavior towards libertarians is to call them names, ignore all the arguments, and keep pretending you've done something otherwise. It's fine, I just know the status of your debate skills and integrity now is all.

Nope, just to point out where you're wrong and to watch you wallow in your wrongness. But hey, if you don't like it, stop responding to me, I don't mind. I'll just keep on pointing out where you're wrong, nothing says you have to pay attention.
 
Back
Top Bottom