• 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

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,668
Reaction score
58,049
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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?
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty well entrenched in the Natural Rights camp. I believe that the understanding of what rights are is innate to our intellect and were in fact discovered through it. I can't really see how rights could be anything but natural. There are privilege and law which we can use the government for, but those things are not rights. Rights exist above the power of the government, rightful government anyway.
 
Using insight into human nature is certainly a good way to help determine what optimal laws should be, but the way I see it is that is simply one method out of many that could be used.

Ikari, why is your method of understanding human nature more valid than any other method? I am not asking this as an attack, but to further the discussion.

Does it take things like modern scientific understanding? Neuropsychology? Regular ole psychology, sociology, history, etc into account? Does scientific or other type of intellectual advancement matter? Could this innate understanding be replaced by anything better? If so, what would it take?
 
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 sit in the natural rights camp.

You have the right to do what is best or worst for yourself.
I believe it to be personal human empowerment.
 
I sit in the natural rights camp.

You have the right to do what is best or worst for yourself.
I believe it to be personal human empowerment.
Yourself being the most important qualifier. Anything that would hurt another person or infringe upon their rights have just become the limit to our rights.
 
Natural rights... with the conditional modifier that these are things you CAN do or have, but they are not guaranteed by the laws of physics. You cannot fly by flapping your arms, no matter how many laws are passed saying you can.... or as Cap'n Jack said, "There's what a man can do, and there's what a man can't do."

For example, the right to life.

Virtually everything that lives desires to go on living, and exercises itself to maintain that goal. Almost all living things will exert themselves as they are able, to avoid being killed; they will run or fight, according to their nature and the circumstances.
Virtually all sane human beings wish not to have their lives cut short by another person's actions. Therefore to kill another human being without substantial justification is an imposition of my will on them, against their will, to their harm.
This is fundamentally wrong. It is not something I would wish others to do to me, therefore it follows that I should protect others' right to life as my own.
It follows that the right to self-defense is also fundamental; the right to prevent, with whatever force is necessary, another person from taking my life without substantial justification.

This does not mean that if you step out in front of a speeding car, that your right to life will protect you from the impact; nor does it mean you won't someday die of natural causes. "Natural rights" does not mean that you are protected from your own stupidity, or from fate; it refers to human/social relations.

Freedom of speech:
To speak is to communicate; for speech to be effective it must be open and honest. When I fear to speak what I think, because I am threatened for so doing, my ability to communicate is impaired. My ability to affect my society, to express my wishes, to protest injustices, is impaired.
If all citizens have their free speech restrained, except for a small elite ruling class, then the citizenry is largely disenfranchised and politically powerless for lack of ability to communicate freely with other citizens.
If you begin from the position that freedom should not be curtailed arbitrarily, but only at the greatest need (ie vs slander), then free speech is seen as a natural right.


(BTW, thanks for the "rootabega" option, lol.)
 
Last edited:
Nope, rights are completely a social construct and have absolutely no meaning outside of social boundaries.
 
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 have the right to do what I wish for myself as long as I don't harm anyone else in the process. I have control and power over MYSELF - so yes, rights are natural.
 
Natural rights exist.

Society is a necessary evil.

Government exists to balance the two.
 
When a right is within the means of the society, it may be natural to have it.:)
 
Nope, rights are completely a social construct and have absolutely no meaning outside of social boundaries.
Not sure I understand what this is suppose to mean.
 
Nope, rights are completely a social construct and have absolutely no meaning outside of social boundaries.
You are completely backwards on that. Laws are creations of the social construct, rights pre-exist society. Need proof? Other creatures on this planet do what they must to preserve their lives and comfort, when we domesticate them they become docile, but in the wild they do as they please, we as humans have differering desires individually , but share the common thread of desiring to fullfill needs and wants, we are born with the right to do so peacefully, until, that is, the wrong people create laws that artificially ban behaviors that those people don't like.
 
Doesnt the very word 'right' imply that the individual would 'have' these things?

I think it is a sense of entitlement...the curse of affluence. We assume that people should have all these rights (disregarding that people had to fight and die to win those rights). But if it is a right...wouldnt it be something we all enjoy? Wouldnt it be something that no one could ever take from us?

As an ideal...human/natural rights is a wonderful concept. That concpet assumes everyone is benevolent, moral, and motivated to provide for the greater good.

yeeeeeeeeeeeah....ummmmmm....no....
 
You are completely backwards on that. Laws are creations of the social construct, rights pre-exist society. Need proof? Other creatures on this planet do what they must to preserve their lives and comfort, when we domesticate them they become docile, but in the wild they do as they please, we as humans have differering desires individually , but share the common thread of desiring to fullfill needs and wants, we are born with the right to do so peacefully, until, that is, the wrong people create laws that artificially ban behaviors that those people don't like.

Wow. that is...just...so NOT reality.
 
Natural rights exist.

Society is a necessary evil.

Government exists to balance the two.

Natural rights...like...the right to food, clean water...shelter...

damn there are sure a lot of people that got in the wrong line...
 
Natural rights...like...the right to food, clean water...shelter...

damn there are sure a lot of people that got in the wrong line...
You have a right to food, you just don't have a right to expect someone else to give it to you.
 
Doesnt the very word 'right' imply that the individual would 'have' these things?

I think it is a sense of entitlement...the curse of affluence. We assume that people should have all these rights (disregarding that people had to fight and die to win those rights). But if it is a right...wouldnt it be something we all enjoy? Wouldnt it be something that no one could ever take from us?

As an ideal...human/natural rights is a wonderful concept. That concpet assumes everyone is benevolent, moral, and motivated to provide for the greater good.

yeeeeeeeeeeeah....ummmmmm....no....
Just because a right is natural doesn't presume that no one will try and control that right.
 
Wow. that is...just...so NOT reality.
People create laws, laws reign in rights, so therefore laws are human creations where rights simply exist. It's really not that difficult of a concept. For instance, Jaywalking, it may not be smart, but without a law preventing it it would be legal correct? Correct. Therefore the right to the action existed before the law corrected it.
 
Just because a right is natural doesn't presume that no one will try and control that right.

Then it CANT POSSIBLY be a right. Its an idea.
 
Rights are natural; the problem lies in enforcing them.
 
People create laws, laws reign in rights, so therefore laws are human creations where rights simply exist. It's really not that difficult of a concept. For instance, Jaywalking, it may not be smart, but without a law preventing it it would be legal correct? Correct. Therefore the right to the action existed before the law corrected it.

Lets get down to it...what do you believe the word 'right' means exactly??? Because I promise you...in america...a land that has known relative affluence for a few centuries...it has a completely different meaning than other places...

So...what does it mean to have these 'rights'? Why did the founders of the country create the constitution if not to set a legal precedence and law to provide FOR these rights?
 
Back
Top Bottom