NationStates Jolt Archive

So what is NSG's views on natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights)? Do you believe that natural rights exist as an aspect of reality or as a moral truth? Or do you believe that rights are totally contingent on an administrative framework, and do not exist when this is absent, as in there is nothing about the universe which contains in it inherent rights for humans (and perhaps animals)?

Poll coming.

I would have to say no, the only reasons I can think of behind rights are ones that are anthropocentric and based on human society rather than any firm universal laws. I think you only need to look a the sheer variety of morality to see that there are no universal constants.

You raise an interesting poser. It's not something the human mind can easily comprehend.

Interestingly this is one of few political/ethical issues that is disputed across such a large section of the political spectrum, barring fascists/authoritarians.

Rights only exist because of civilization.

The natural world has few, if any, rights.

Interestingly this is one of few political/ethical issues that is disputed across such a large section of the political spectrum, barring fascists/authoritarians.

Because it is so hard to understand - everyone has their own stance on the question.

What?

Interestingly this is one of few political/ethical issues that is disputed across such a large section of the political spectrum, barring fascists/authoritarians.

Indeed it's almost refreshing to see that there are few ideological lines being drawn over this issue.

I think you only need to look a the sheer variety of morality to see that there are no universal constants.

Life?

Rights are contingent on the appropriate administrative framework, and whatever particular moral 'truth' that framework is based on or those within it subscribe too. So contingent, unless someone can prove the absolute moral truth of something (roll up! roll up!).

I can't see how you can extricate 'rights' from the power to enforce. I think they make a good basis to social order, but practically speaking those who can exercise power will exercise control over which 'rights' people within their power are allowed. So I suppose I am with Jonathan Wallace on that one, according to Wiki!

And the idea that people have a right to be happy, is just laughable. Should everything that people want be a right?

I say yes because everyone is equal and should have those rights.

I will ponder this thread on the way home and I'll give my view as soon as I get to my laptop.

Life?

Of whom? its has been according to various cultures acceptable to kill convicts, enemy prisoners, jews, human sacrafices, innocents to make a point (modern terrorism for example), i could go on but you get the point.

Studied this in philosophy last year.. I couldn't make my mind up in the end, but leaning towards yes. Having said that I wasn't particularly drawn to social contract theories, so hmm.

I say yes because everyone is equal and should have those rights.

People are not born equal, with the same capabilities, the same chance at life, the same possibilities open to them.

It would be nice if they were, and the idea of rights tries to address the issue, but being considered equal is a right that is given (e.g. anti-discrimination laws) - not a reason for rights being given.

Of whom? its has been according to various cultures acceptable to kill convicts, enemy prisoners, jews, human sacrafices, innocents to make a point (modern terrorism for example), i could go on but you get the point.

Well, every country that exists in today's modern world has signed this (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) so yeh, I'd go with a "universal" agreement on life.

Unless this thread is one based in "what if" scenarios, or "historical cases" - in which case we can forget the above any go back to pondering morality and crap for another 300 pages.

Well, every country that exists in today's modern world has signed this (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) so yeh, I'd go with a "universal" agreement on life.
.

The fact we have agreement is only because society has decided it's correct, not due to any 'natural' right. agreement between humans does not create natural laws.

Also the question is raised, if there are no natural rights, then what should determine what rights the government allows?

Nobody is born with a right to anything. Rights are an artificial construct. Without a structure to support them, they disappear.

That said, the philosophical concept of rights is probably one of the single greatest ideas that mankind has developed. This concept, more than the opposing thumb, more than speech, more than religion, is what separates us from animals. What it means is that we no longer are thinking in terms of "I" and are thinking in terms of "we."

Yes, actually, there are.

I believe there are rights that every single human possesses, simply by virtue of being human. This doesn't mean that those rights are always respected in the law, or by society at large, but they still should be.

Were I to have to enumerate them, something like this:

The right to one's own life
The right to self-development
The right to equal treatment by society

Would be the main ones, but by no means definitive.

Also the question is raised, if there are no natural rights, then what should determine what rights the government allows?

The people, who do so in the form of elections. (in most places)

Of whom? its has been according to various cultures acceptable to kill convicts, enemy prisoners, jews, human sacrafices, innocents to make a point (modern terrorism for example), i could go on but you get the point.

Indeed, through the course of human history we have seen societies where the right to life is universal, to those that it is conditional, and finally to those where such a right seems to hardly exist at all.

The fact we have agreement is only because society has decided it's correct, not due to any 'natural' right. agreement between humans does not create natural laws.

Do you see that that argument is circular?

Do you see that that argument is circular?

I do not... do enlighten me.

Were I to have to enumerate them, something like this:

The right to one's own life
The right to self-development
The right to equal treatment by society


But how is the idea that we should have these rights a universal truth?

Also, I've just realised, this is really ultimately a debate over whether there is objective morality or not.

The people, who do so in the form of elections. (in most places)

Do you view this as a universal truth? And if you do, then doesn't that mean that you view the right to vote or participate in democracy a natural right?

Law and order was pretty much born at the dawn of society out of nessesity... the question is, would you call that natural or man-made?

I do not... do enlighten me.

Ok. Society merely put on paper what was already custom knowledge. It's like saying, stealing something isn't wrong until it is written down. Custom dictates it to be so.

Just because some value certain types of life higher than others, doesn't mean at the very base of their society no life at all is sacred - in every society somewhere along the line, some right of life - even on a basic level - exists.

Do you view this as a universal truth? And if you do, then doesn't that mean that you view the right to vote or participate in democracy a natural right?

No, I believe It's what should usually happen (bar the mentally unstable etc), that doesn't mean it's a natural right, its a human constructed ideal, there's nothing about being a human that demands it.

Ok. Society merely put on paper what was already custom knowledge. It's like saying, stealing something isn't wrong until it is written down. Custom dictates it to be so.

Just because some value certain types of life higher than others, doesn't mean at the very base of their society no life at all is sacred - in every society somewhere along the line, some right of life - even on a basic level - exists.

Right, but universal isn't quite the same as natural or objective.

Law and order was pretty much born at the dawn of society out of nessesity... the question is, would you call that natural or man-made?

Given the great variety of laws and opinions about what constitutes a good law and given the variety in means and reasons for enforcement. Also given the fact that when laws are made, they generally go against individual instinct, I'd say they're not natural.

Ok. Society merely put on paper what was already custom knowledge. It's like saying, stealing something isn't wrong until it is written down. Custom dictates it to be so.

Just because some value certain types of life higher than others, doesn't mean at the very base of their society no life at all is sacred - in every society somewhere along the line, some right of life - even on a basic level - exists.

If it doesn't apply to all humans, how can it be a natural right? Its constructed, and in particuarly abhorrent places, constructed to omit certain people.

Given the great variety of laws and opinions about what constitutes a good law and given the variety in means and reasons for enforcement. Also given the fact that when laws are made, they generally go against individual instinct, I'd say they're not natural.

Sound reasoning.

Debates on whether morality is objective or not last for agggggges.

Nobody is born with a right to anything. Rights are an artificial construct. Without a structure to support them, they disappear.

That's like saying my computer disappears during a black out. Just because a thing can not function doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But how is the idea that we should have these rights a universal truth?

Also, I've just realised, this is really ultimately a debate over whether there is objective morality or not.

Indeed. That's why I'm not a huge fan of my own position here.

Would you agree that there are certain rights every human should possess, and if a government infringes on them, it has overstepped its bounds?

Debates on whether morality is objective or not last for agggggges.

Which is why we do it - the bigger the thread, the better. :)

That's like saying my computer disappears during a black out. Just because a thing can not function doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Apples and oranges. The computer is a physical thing, rights aren't.

Right, but universal isn't quite the same as natural or objective.
Right so I was correct when I said this thread was going to be about objective morality and talking crap for the next 300 pages.


If it doesn't apply to all humans, how can it be a natural right? Its constructed, and in particuarly abhorrent places, constructed to omit certain people.
Because man doesn't claim to be perfect.

Hell, why stop at humans then? Why not extend it to all species?

Would you agree that there are certain rights every human should possess, and if a government infringes on them, it has overstepped its bounds?

That is my personal feeling towards what humans should have, but I don't view this opinion as objectively correct, which is a little confusing.

Claiming that natural rights don't exist is as silly as claiming that earth doesn't exist.

Right so I was correct when I said this thread was going to be about objective morality and talking crap for the next 300 pages.


Probably. Should have thought this one through.

Claiming that natural rights don't exist is as silly as claiming that earth doesn't exist.

It's there, it's just made of pickles. *Nod*

<_<

>_>

Claiming that natural rights don't exist is as silly as claiming that earth doesn't exist.

What makes you think that natural rights are so evident?

Because man doesn't claim to be perfect.

Hell, why stop at humans then? Why not extend it to all species?

I'm not entirely sure what your point is...

Right so I was correct when I said this thread was going to be about objective morality and talking crap for the next 300 pages.

Reminds me of when a morality lecture last year got hijacked by 4-5 people who had an argument on this exact point.... Lecturer just walked out after 10minutes. It's interesting for the first few points, then there's not much else to it.

But how is the idea that we should have these rights a universal truth?

Also, I've just realised, this is really ultimately a debate over whether there is objective morality or not.

To be fair, at least it's a bit more specific! At least we only have to consider a limited number of moral statements, and also more of secular origin than religious which makes the whole thing less ugly....

Reminds me of when a morality lecture last year got hijacked by 4-5 people who had an argument on this exact point.... Lecturer just walked out after 10minutes. It's interesting for the first few points, then there's not much else to it.

Yes! I had that exact same thing! The ultimate comeback to any philosophy class:

"But it's all subjective, innit?" :rolleyes:

Likely true, but somewhat impedes the learning process if you give up there....

I'm not entirely sure what your point is...
My overall point was pretty much my first post:

There is a fundamental and universal set of rights that every society on earth had signed up to - thereby agreeing that at the very base level, there is some commonality that binds us, reaffirming on paper what was common knowledge.

Because people still die, doesn't detract from this pact because man doesn't claim to be perfect - man doesn't set out to eliminate all forms of death in this sense, only that we recognise there are rights (like life) which bind us.

I don't know a more encompassing or natrual right like life.

Now, by all means - go back and start arguing in circles about objective morality. See you in 300 pages. For me, and the majority of people today natural rights are fundamental. And fundamental rights are universal. Which leads me back to my original link.

My overall point was pretty much my first post:

There is a fundamental and universal set of rights that every society on earth had signed up to - thereby agreeing that at the very base level, there is some commonality that binds us, reaffirming on paper what was common knowledge.

That doesn't mean much,

Because people still die, doesn't detract from this pact because man doesn't claim to be perfect - man doesn't set out to eliminate all forms of death in this sense, only that we recognise there are rights (like life) which bind us.

I don't know a more encompassing or natrual right like life.

Now, by all means - go back and start arguing in circles about objective morality. See you in 300 pages. For me, and the majority of people today natural rights are fundamental. And fundamental rights are universal. Which leads me back to my original link.

But you haven't actually provided an argument for this at all, yet you seem to be treating the fact that every society agrees that life is a natural right as an argument that it therefore is a natural right.

But you haven't actually provided an argument for this at all, yet you seem to be treating the fact that every society agrees that life is a natural right as an argument that it therefore is a natural right.

Yeh I did. The link in this was my argument.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14194836&postcount=16

I had to vote other, because I am not sure, but not leaning either way.

But, still, there are natural laws...

That is my personal feeling towards what humans should have, but I don't view this opinion as objectively correct, which is a little confusing.

Aye, I know the feeling.

Now, surely if a human should have these rights, we could consider them their natural rights? Just because they aren't recognised, or are socially discriminated against, does not mean that the right itself is flawed.

I should, I suppose, make it clear that I'm distinguishing between two forms of rights. One is practical rights, such as the right to vote. These aren't universal, and change their form regularly. Basically, what the law of the country one resides in says. But I also believe there are such things as natural rights, which everyone should have. Where the laws infringe on one's natural rights, then the laws should be changed, but merely having that illegal does not make the concept of it being a natural right nonsensical.

To pull an example out of practice, we are (I expect) in agreement that humans should be treated equally by society, and not discriminated against based on (for example) the colour of their skin. This could be considered (and indeed I consider it to be) a natural right for all humans. Now, this definitely has not been universally recognised by society, as the civil rights struggle shows. But society as a whole is now generally agreed that laws institutionalising this discrimination are unjust, and infringed on a person's rights. We likely (and hopefully) see the same thing now with gay marriage, just at a much earlier stage.

So to quickly sum up. I believe there are such things as natural rights, for example the right to equal treatment. While the laws of the state, and the attitudes of society, are sometimes at odds with these, the law is generally then percieved as unjust. Agreement slowly builds that they should possess those rights in the law, as well as inherently, leading to a situation where civil rights match natural rights (in this little area). Simply because African Americans did not have the right to use the same water fountains, or sit in the same area of the restaurant, does not mean that they did not have the natural right to equal treatment, just that this was not recognised in the law.

(Argh, this isn't my best work. I'm out for an hour to do some politics homework and think, then I'll be back to renew the debate)

Yeh I did. The link in this was my argument.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14194836&postcount=16

But that isn't an argument, just because everyone agrees that a is b, doesn't mean a is actually b.

But that isn't an argument, just because everyone agrees that a is b, doesn't mean a is actually b.

Kinda does in the real world.

"Hey everybody. Murder is illegal. We all agree?"

"AYE!"

".... hmmmm. Even though we all agreed murder was illegal, my defence will be 'it doesn't make it so'. What can go wrong?"

Kinda does in the real world.

No, that's the point, in the REAL WORLD, these rights don't actually exist.

No, that's the point, in the REAL WORLD, these rights don't actually exist.

So you're telling me that in the real world (i.e this) the Universal Declaration for Human Rights doesn't actually exist.

Can you give an example in this realm of where universally people agree on a subject, state something as a fact, and then it not actually be true?

Claiming that natural rights don't exist is as silly as claiming that earth doesn't exist.

Again, apples and oranges.

The concept of natural rights is a relatively recent one, actually a result of the philosophical outpourings of the so-called Age of Reason. Before that, rights were pretty much the property of the Church and the nobility (even the Magna Carta was about the rights of the nobility vis-a-vis the king - no mention was made of any rights for the peasantry).

God or nature didn't give you rights. Life, and a fairly short, brutish one, was about all you could expect of either.

Rights are a construct. God handed down orders to live by, not rights. Nature gave you a context in which you survived, not rights.

If you think rights are natural or inalienable, think about slaves in America, who weren't considered human and who had no rights until the government decided they did. Think about Indians in America, who weren't considered human and who had no rights until the government decided they did. Think about women everywhere, who in many countries still are considered subhuman and have no rights and who, in America, have attained rights vis-a-vis men only in the last century.

Think about George W. Bush, who has decided that rights can be alienated based on his concepts of power, security and faith.

Re rights - the government giveth and the government taketh away, blessed be the name of the government - God and nature have nothing to do with it.

And, in any case, a government or governments cannot destroy the Earth - they can leave it a barren, desolate, airless ball of dirt and rock circling the sun but they can't destroy it. Governments can and have destroyed every vestige of so-called inalienable human rights within their borders - Stalin, Hitler, Papa Doc, Hussein, Bush (he tried!), the Taliban, Mao, Kim Jong-Il (and that's just in modern times - have all done so.

So you're telling me that in the real world (i.e this) the Universal Declaration for Human Rights doesn't actually exist.


No, that does exist, I'm telling that natural rights don't exist, and that the UN deceleration is artificial.


Can you give an example in this realm of where universally people agree on a subject, state something as a fact, and then it not actually be true?

I'm sure there are examples. And we're not talking about people, we're talking about societies, in fact, not even societies, we're talking about nation states, and what the majority of nation states agree with, does not mean what the majority of people agree with.

The reason murder is illegal is because the word murder actually means unlawful killing. Hence why i is funny when people say things liek "abortion is murder" when they are somewhere where it is legal thus cannot be murder...

Anyways, I don't think natural rights exist because I don't believe in universal truths. Things liek "it is wrong to steal" isn't necessarily true if it is a poor man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family or the Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

The idea of killing someone being illegal is strange because goverments kill people for "national security" and in war the "enemy" is dehumanized so as it isn't presented as taking a human life.

state of nature is real natural rights are not.

I've always liked these quotes on the subject:

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - P.J. O'Rourke

"I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. " - Robert Heinlein

I had to vote other, because I am not sure, but not leaning either way.

But, still, there are natural laws...

Define natural laws. I presume you refer to things such as physics.

To be fair, at least it's a bit more specific! At least we only have to consider a limited number of moral statements, and also more of secular origin than religious which makes the whole thing less ugly....

Oh, you can have so much fun with religion as a justification for/denial of natural rights.

Yeh I did. The link in this was my argument.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14194836&postcount=16

That simply shows there is a right recognised by all states, not necessarily that it is a natural right inherent in all humans.

But that isn't an argument, just because everyone agrees that a is b, doesn't mean a is actually b.

Snappy call, but not the bit of it I would have picked on.

The concept of natural rights is a relatively recent one, actually a result of the philosophical outpourings of the so-called Age of Reason. Before that, rights were pretty much the property of the Church and the nobility (even the Magna Carta was about the rights of the nobility vis-a-vis the king - no mention was made of any rights for the peasantry).

<snip>


No, silly, the Magna Carta was an anti environmentalist document, written by the barons (the captains of industry of their time) against the Royalty (who have and always will be the heads of the vast environmental conspiracy).

I've actually met someone --- quite a smart guy, very good computer scientist --- who seriously believed that. Scariest argument of my life, the sheer amount of illogic this guy was wielding.

If you consider an instinct to not kill those in the same group 'natural', but then an instinct to kill or otherwise harm those not of the same group equally 'natural', then I'm not sure how you can claim a 'right to life' exists for most species, only the instinct to survive.

For humans, you could say this 'right' developed out of this above, but only for our own tribe/society. Only recently has any concept of universal rights become accepted. It seems rather obvious to me that such a concept is human-invented.

People create rights discourses based on their conceptions of justice. If these become widespread, they're regarded as natural. I find it very hard to believe that there is a list of natural rights objectively 'out there'

Why hasn't the usual defenders of natural rights shown up?

If they can be taken away, they aren't rights. If they can't be taken away, what point is there in enumerating them? They become facts, not rights.

Using sufficient amounts of force, I can take away your life, your liberty, and your property, thus disproving Locke. Despite Jefferson's intent, I can make your happiness effective unattainable, though I cannot prevent you from pursuing it via whatever pathetic means you might still have at your disposal. Hobbes is a bit convoluted for my tastes, but of the three listed his is the closest to my view.

Rights can exist within a social framework, but not in a natural framework. It's a silly bit of philosophical masturbation.

If they can be taken away, they aren't rights.

That's not the definition of "right."

If they can't be taken away, what point is there in enumerating them?

Good question. Why then do you use a definition that is obviously absurd?

Using sufficient amounts of force, I can take away your life, your liberty, and your property, thus disproving Locke.

Locke doesn't say it's impossible to take away my life, my liberty, or my property: he says it's wrong, contrary to right.

People create rights discourses based on their conceptions of justice. If these become widespread, they're regarded as natural. I find it very hard to believe that there is a list of natural rights objectively 'out there'

That's a slightly separate question, and one also worthy of a lot of discussion: "If there are natural rights, what are they?" I proposed a tentative list earlier.

Why hasn't the usual defenders of natural rights shown up?

Well, I gave it a try back here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14195037&postcount=53), but I haven't yet had a response.

Well, I gave it a try back here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14195037&postcount=53), but I haven't yet had a response.

Sorry, I was all caught up on Russian corruption in another thread and must have missed it, I may have a crack at it later, but probably tomorrow.

Why hasn't the usual defenders of natural rights shown up?

Do we have any "usual defenders of natural rights"?

Maybe NL, but I can't really think of anyone else.

Do we have any "usual defenders of natural rights"?

Maybe NL, but I can't really think of anyone else.

Well, you (I'm pretty sure you're a defender of natural rights, unless I've completely misunderstood your position), and I think anarchyeL off the top of my head.

Natural rights, like natural law, probably do exist, and they probably do carry their own penalty for violation, so we really don't need to worry about their violation too much, because these problems are likely to be self-correcting (at least in the long term) for their violation.

Well, you (I'm pretty sure you're a defender of natural rights, unless I've completely misunderstood your position),

Absolute morality (to a point), yes, and a deontological approach to ethics that rules out certain things in politics... but I'm not sure I'm comfortable putting the label "natural rights" on that.

For one, I don't think the basic demands of political justice have much to do with protecting rights that are independent of social sanction. I think they have much more to do with structural and formal considerations: is everyone granted the freedom to participate in politics, or do we have the exclusive coercive rule of an elite? Do the laws apply equally to all, or are certain groups arbitrarily deprived of or granted rights or privileges? This, as opposed to a more results-oriented framework arguing for something like, "Every just society must recognize the natural rights of individuals to this particular property framework."

I am more concerned, in terms of absolute moral rules, for who makes the decisions and how they are made than for what in particular is decided. The "natural" right we have is the right to freedom, and in a political community ruled by positive law, this is for the most part superseded (perhaps "absorbed into" would be the better term) into a right to participate in politics. But this is a political right, not a natural right: it's meaningless without a political order.

That said, I guess I'm inclined to defend a sort of "natural right" to bodily autonomy, simply on the grounds that my freedom to control my body does not compete with other people's freedom in the way most other claims of "right" do.

and I think anarchyeL off the top of my head.

I hesitate to speak for AnarchyeL, but at least to me he's mostly distanced himself from "natural rights"-oriented theories.

We had a bit of discussion about it in Jello Biafra (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555019)'s thread from several months ago.

The "natural" right we have is the right to freedom


Many natural rights defenders only believe in this right, and then some others adding in the right to own property, so I'd class you as a defender, even if you're coming at it from a different angle, and not basing your political theories on it.


I hesitate to speak for AnarchyeL, but at least to me he's mostly distanced himself from "natural rights"-oriented theories.

We had a bit of discussion about it in Jello Biafra (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555019)'s thread from several months ago.

That seemed like an awesome thread, I don't remember posting it it, but apparently I did, weird.

I'm going to go with "Yes, they exist, but so what?" I see them as a moral idea, and one that I would like the government to promote, but there's no guarantee it will.

The concept of individual rights is very western, no one seems to discuss society rights.

Do society rights trump individual rights?

The concept of individual rights is very western, no one seems to discuss society rights.

Do society rights trump individual rights?

I thought rights were only for individuals. Societies may trump individuals in some ways, but I don't think they have rights.

I thought rights were only for individuals. Societies may trump individuals in some ways, but I don't think they have rights.

We imprison criminals as a right of society over the individual?

We view invasion of privacy as a breach of individual rights but could it be justified in terms of society rights to remain safe over the individual?

Chinese philosophy views the attainment of harmony to be the highest order of society, which is why Confucian ideals of society structure are so important, one might say the West believes in change, or 'progress', which is engined by the individual.

These are very different goals based on different views over where rights lie, with the individual or with society?

Where there's a disruptive individual in the office or classroom, whose rights are more important?

Do people have some natural rights? Yes. The right to life. That's the biggie.

So what is NSG's views on natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights)? Do you believe that natural rights exist as an aspect of reality or as a moral truth?
I find the conception of natural rights to be pretty meaningless without the assumptions that (a) there exists a Supreme Being in the universe, and (b) that said Supreme Being is, in some way, focused on humanity.

As I do not hold the above to be true, I don't think much of the idea of natural rights.

Or do you believe that rights are totally contingent on an administrative framework, and do not exist when this is absent, as in there is nothing about the universe which contains in it inherent rights for humans (and perhaps animals)?
That's more like it.

Legal rights obviously 'exist' (in the sense that there exists rights legislation), and within legal terms I'm fairly happy with Wesley Hohfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Hohfeld)'s distinctions of liberty rights, claim rights, rights as powers and rights as immunities. But I don't believe we can take rights much further than this, and I certainly don't think we can construct a meaningful conception of natural rights without invoking an Almighty.

I have beef with theories of moral rights, or at least, ethical theories that rely on rights as the basis of human action/inaction. Furthermore, following from Marx, I don't think can ultimately help us in eliminating (as much as is possible) oppression; one can have all the (legal) rights in the world and still be oppressed.

Finally, I'm quite enamoured by the 'no-theory' theory of rights: you 'hold' a right if you declare a right to be yours and no-one opposes the 'holding' of that right in a manner such that you'd be unable to act/not act within your declared right.

Do people have some natural rights? Yes. The right to life. That's the biggie.

You may be alive, but that doesn't mean that you have a right to be alive. Life is a biological process independent of any notion of rights. I'm repeating myself, I know, but rights are a creation of people who finally had enough wealth and leisure to philosophize about the place of humanity in the scheme of things and independent of deity. When people were struggling for survival, rights were a non-issue. The whole concept of rights is a relatively new invention.

The whole concept of rights is a relatively new invention.
And a relatively new, largely Western invention at that.

Much of it comes from the traditional Western conception of the self. That's why, I believe, we see little discussion of rights in the East; especially in those countries with a broadly Confucian conception of the self.

Indeed, that's one of the reasons I don't think rights are particularly useful in preventing oppression or injustice: there's little point trying to get Chinese government to change its policy on Tibet on the basis of (human) rights reasons, just as there's little point in trying to get the UK government to change its policy on Iraq on the basis of Confucian or Dharmic reasons.

Note: I'm not saying the situations of Tibet and Iraq are necessarily comparable, I just couldn't think of a better example.

Indeed, that's one of the reasons I don't think rights are particularly useful in preventing oppression or injustice: there's little point trying to get Chinese government to change its policy on Tibet on the basis of (human) rights reasons, just as there's little point in trying to get the UK government to change its policy on Iraq on the basis of Confucian or Dharmic reasons.

Highlighted by Deng Xiao Peng's comment - Some Western countries, on the pretext that China has an unsatisfactory human rights record and an irrational and illegitimate socialist system, attempt to jeopardize our national sovereignty. . . . National sovereignty is far more important than human rights, but they often infringe upon the sovereignty of poor and weak countries of the Third World. Their talk about human rights, freedom, and democracy is only designed to safeguard the interests of the strong, rich countries, which take advantages of their strength to bully weak countries, and which pursue hegemony and practice power polities

One might not agree with this line but the point is that people don't necessarily believe in the West's talk of human rights, freedom and democracy, no matter whether they agree or not.

Second, China has long had the concept of 'Min Wei Ben' - people based ideals, the idea that a ruler must channel the requirements of society, to be father of the state as opposed to director - if not, the people have the right to overthrow them, hence the many, many peasant revolutions throughout Chinese history.

It's a different form of thinking about democracy, the main difference is how direct the vote is. We're all abused by the elite in one way or another, how we 'choose' that elite differs.

So 'rights' are viewed differently around the world and there's certainly a disconnect between what we espouse and what we actually do.

Same with individual 'rights', at most they're ideals.

You may be alive, but that doesn't mean that you have a right to be alive. Life is a biological process independent of any notion of rights. I'm repeating myself, I know, but rights are a creation of people who finally had enough wealth and leisure to philosophize about the place of humanity in the scheme of things and independent of deity. When people were struggling for survival, rights were a non-issue. The whole concept of rights is a relatively new invention.

No wonder you have 'Darwinism' in your name! What a surprise :tongue:.

Btw, I tend to agree that one may not have the 'right' to be alive. But regardless, while they are alive, don't you think people have the right to choose what they do? As you say, life is biological process.. Take sex for example. It's a biological urge, but don't we have the right to decide when we have sex?

I'd love it if natural rights exist - but they don't at least not at this point in human evolution.

As King Lear put it:
"Mankind must perforce prey upon itself
Like monsters of the deep."

Your rights are those things that you and your compatriots are prepared to defend. Failure to maintain and defend your rights does mean that they will be taken from you. (The price of liberty is eternal vigilance)

No wonder you have 'Darwinism' in your name! What a surprise :tongue:.

Btw, I tend to agree that one may not have the 'right' to be alive. But regardless, while they are alive, don't you think people have the right to choose what they do? As you say, life is biological process.. Take sex for example. It's a biological urge, but don't we have the right to decide when we have sex?

The notion of "rights" is an abstract concept. It wasn't so long ago that we (in the West) didn't have the "right" to decide when to have sex, with whom to have sex or even whether we would have sex. That was decided, depending on one's position in society, by your parents, the Lord of the place where you lived (you didn't really have a choice about that, either), the King, Queen or other ruler, or the religious authorities. Freedom of choice is a concept that's new in human history, it really came to fruition about 232 years ago. At this point, the concept of rights is still in the experimental stage.

People in Muslim countries, even liberal Muslim countries, don't have rights. People in India, China, Japan, indeed, in most of the rest of the world don't have rights as we understand them. Indeed, the whole notion of "natural and inalienable human rights" are an alien concept to them - as Chumblywumbly pointed out.

The notion of "rights" is an abstract concept. It wasn't so long ago that we (in the West) didn't have the "right" to decide when to have sex, with whom to have sex or even whether we would have sex. That was decided, depending on one's position in society, by your parents, the Lord of the place where you lived (you didn't really have a choice about that, either), the King, Queen or other ruler, or the religious authorities. Freedom of choice is a concept that's new in human history, it really came to fruition about 232 years ago. At this point, the concept of rights is still in the experimental stage.

People in Muslim countries, even liberal Muslim countries, don't have rights. People in India, China, Japan, indeed, in most of the rest of the world don't have rights as we understand them. Indeed, the whole notion of "natural and inalienable human rights" are an alien concept to them - as Chumblywumbly pointed out.

True but just because they are in an experimental stage does it deny their existence? It would seem to me that the fact you can recognise that the concept does exist is enough to suggest that there are 'rights'. What that really means, well, I'm not sure. As I said earlier in the thread I don't really have a definite view on the issue. Good point about the other non-Western countries. But I think it's dangerous to get in to comparisons like that. The whole, 'it's okay to do x because they do it in Africa!!!!' argument isn't strong... And I guess what you're doing is an opposite, i.e. they don't have this right in x, so it doesn't exist..... Am I making sense?

True but just because they are in an experimental stage does it deny their existence? It would seem to me that the fact you can recognise that the concept does exist is enough to suggest that there are 'rights'. What that really means, well, I'm not sure. As I said earlier in the thread I don't really have a definite view on the issue. Good point about the other non-Western countries. But I think it's dangerous to get in to comparisons like that. The whole, 'it's okay to do x because they do it in Africa!!!!' argument isn't strong... And I guess what you're doing is an opposite, i.e. they don't have this right in x, so it doesn't exist..... Am I making sense?

My argument is not that because "a" is doing it, it must be ok for us to do it.

Consider this, if rights were natural and inalienable, wouldn't they also be universal? Since non-western nations don't understand the concept and find the notion to be inapplicable to them, wouldn't that argue that they are not natural and inalienable, but a non-universal abstraction unique to the West - and the Northern European West at that (Eastern Europe has a singularly Asian view of rights - not surprising given their location on the path of Asian invaders).

In the Americas, when these concepts were being developed, a lot of emphasis was put on the "natural man," using the "noble savage" (i.e. Native Americans) as a prime example of natural and inalienable rights - the Native Americans of the time would have laughed their asses off at the notion.

what exists as a part of reality is that whatever kind of world all of us togather create for each other, each of us also has to live in.

that's what makes some things both self intrest AND 'altruism'.

like the avoidance of causing suffering, to whatever degree it is open to each of us to avoid doing so.

there are certain things that governments owe their subjects, to justify the burdens of their existence, and making wars don't cut it.

we live in a universe, that save for our own collective intervention, is a relatively level playing field, by virtue of being completely impersonal, however it may have came into existence, and impartial.

the biggest fly in the ointment so to speak, is our own collective short sightedness.

this is probably as close as i can come to answering the question of 'rights', without streatching something.

you could say rights are created by not committing wrongs, that is to say, rights exist in this world, primarily as a resault of people having consideration for each other, and remember, that consideration for each other, is not dependent on how highly we value each OTHER's well being, though that's as good a reason for it as any, indeed all reasons for it are good, but also the totally personal consideration for what kind of world we have to move through, whenever we leave our personal, usually rather flimsy for all that, 'fortressess' we retreat into at the 'end' of each our days.

i believe there is something big, friendly and invisible too, but have my doubts as to most of what anyone thinks they know about it.

what i believe IN, is the kind of strainge, wonderful interestingness, everything would otherwise be, if people didn't put damd near everything else ahead of the avoidance of destroying it.

i believe in rights in the sense that no one, morally, inheirently, has any more or less of them, then anyone else. no awairness, whatever life form it occupies, whatever world that life form lives on.

No, I don't believe in the concept of natural rights. Rights come from the social contract.

Would you agree that there are certain rights every human should possess, and if a government infringes on them, it has overstepped its bounds?Certainly. Of course, 'is' doesn't equal 'ought', or in this case, 'ought' doesn't equal 'is'.

I don't agree with the concept of natural rights...

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

...bonus cookie to whomever can identify the quote.

I don't agree with the concept of natural rights...



...bonus cookie to whomever can identify the quote.

Heinlein? It has that ring. Starship Troopers - the high school moral philosophy class.

I would have to say no, the only reasons I can think of behind rights are ones that are anthropocentric and based on human society rather than any firm universal laws. I think you only need to look a the sheer variety of morality to see that there are no universal constants.

I agree. One could speak of "universal rights" (in the meaning of rights of universi homines, that is all humans). A human society that doesn't recognise some basical rights to all of its components (like the right to life) isn't likely to survive for a lot of time - well, unless you take some examples like the generational spaceships (see The Space-Born by E.C.Tubb).

Anyway, rights aren't "natural": rights are a product of intelligent beings living in a society. As example, take a single individual on a planet: there aren't any rights involved; no right to life (the predators aren't going to recognize the man's right to life, and he's not going to recognize his preys' right to life), no right to property (after all, it's a "the winner takes what he wants" sort of situation), etc.

My argument is not that because "a" is doing it, it must be ok for us to do it.

I know, as I said it's the opposite. Because another culture doesn't exhibit the understanding of what we define as a right, then therefore it shouldn't be a right. Is that closer to what you mean?

Consider this, if rights were natural and inalienable, wouldn't they also be universal? Since non-western nations don't understand the concept and find the notion to be inapplicable to them, wouldn't that argue that they are not natural and inalienable, but a non-universal abstraction unique to the West - and the Northern European West at that (Eastern Europe has a singularly Asian view of rights - not surprising given their location on the path of Asian invaders).

Hmm, but does natural/inalienable = universal? Maybe if there was a right that was natural, say the right to freedom of religion or choice. Clearly this isn't a universal freedom but can't one argue that it should be universal? This just leads back to the objectivity of morality and = circles.

No, I don't believe in the concept of natural rights. Rights come from the social contract.

Certainly. Of course, 'is' doesn't equal 'ought', or in this case, 'ought' doesn't equal 'is'.

Oh man. Not the ought-is gap. ;)

I know, as I said it's the opposite. Because another culture doesn't exhibit the understanding of what we define as a right, then therefore it shouldn't be a right. Is that closer to what you mean?



Hmm, but does natural/inalienable = universal? Maybe if there was a right that was natural, say the right to freedom of religion or choice. Clearly this isn't a universal freedom but can't one argue that it should be universal? This just leads back to the objectivity of morality and = circles.

Natural - meaning that something occurs in nature, not artificial.

If plants occur naturally in one area, then they will occur naturally in another, if all the physical conditions for their existence are available - there are, of course, alterations in physiology and anatomy because the plants have evolved to fit conditions, but they are recognizable as plants. It follows then, that if the concept of natural, inalienable human rights occurs naturally in one area, the concept will occur naturally in another, with, of course, alterations to fit conditions, but the concept will be recognizable as such. This has not happened.

Heinlein? It has that ring. Starship Troopers - the high school moral philosophy class.

Correct, on author, book, and even the setting... :)

http://www.sallys-place.com/food/columns/zonis/Best_Cookie-20.jpg

Natural - meaning that something occurs in nature, not artificial.

If plants occur naturally in one area, then they will occur naturally in another, if all the physical conditions for their existence are available - there are, of course, alterations in physiology and anatomy because the plants have evolved to fit conditions, but they are recognizable as plants. It follows then, that if the concept of natural, inalienable human rights occurs naturally in one area, the concept will occur naturally in another, with, of course, alterations to fit conditions, but the concept will be recognizable as such. This has not happened.

Hmm, I don't have a response but it just doesn't feel right -- no pun intended. Might have a think see if I can come up with something.

Natural rights do exist. They might not be terribly potent in terms of judging how a society operates, but there are some facets of human biological behaviour that result in certain inevitable facts:

1) People have the natural right of free expression, because you cannot force someone determined enough to make themselves heard to cease all expression unless you kill them.
2) People have the natural right to treat something as their own, because were it to be removed from them, they can keep coming back after it until they die.
3) People have the natural right to have differing opinion, because they can ignore all of your arguments if they wish.
4) People have the natural right to associate and disassociate, since if two people want to be together or separate, you can't stop them trying.

There are others like this, I'm sure. Maybe not terribly useful, but nonetheless set in stone.

Natural rights do exist. They might not be terribly potent in terms of judging how a society operates, but there are some facets of human biological behaviour that result in certain inevitable facts:

1) People have the natural right of free expression, because you cannot force someone determined enough to make themselves heard to cease all expression unless you kill them.
2) People have the natural right to treat something as their own, because were it to be removed from them, they can keep coming back after it until they die.
3) People have the natural right to have differing opinion, because they can ignore all of your arguments if they wish.
4) People have the natural right to associate and disassociate, since if two people want to be together or separate, you can't stop them trying.

There are others like this, I'm sure. Maybe not terribly useful, but nonetheless set in stone.Are you certain you're not conflating rights with abilities?

*snip*
That's all true, but I wouldn't consider those scenarios where individual rights come into conflict with society's rights. If they conflict with anything, it's just the individual rights of more people.

In the natural world you have no rights. Rights are a human invention. Some species will act to care for their young but others will just pour out thousands and leave them to survive.

the natural world has no idea of health care. The animals ma learn from the parents but everything is based upon survival. we humans on the other hand consider things and have a nurture to care about thoes suffering. Rights while a human invention are also a modern human invention that is growing.

You're an optimist.

1) People have the natural right of free expression, because you cannot force someone determined enough to make themselves heard to cease all expression unless you kill them.
One can kill off those who do, and deter the other by threathening them. Already done.

2) People have the natural right to treat something as their own, because were it to be removed from them, they can keep coming back after it until they die.
One can still kill them or destroy the item or place it out of people's reach. Already done.


3) People have the natural right to have differing opinion, because they can ignore all of your arguments if they wish.

This maybe is the most strictly "natural" thing. Brainwashing and propaganda, though...


4) People have the natural right to associate and disassociate, since if two people want to be together or separate, you can't stop them trying.

HAHAHA! It's not about the right to TRY. It's about the right to SUCCEED.

To sum it up, I think that's you're mixing the "natural tendencies/abilities of human beings" (natural for humans = deriving from the way human are born, from latin natura, coming from nascor: I am born) with "natural rights". Rights are constructs (hence artificial, man-made, or god-made if you believe - that is of supernatural origin).

To sum it up, I think that's you're mixing the "natural tendencies/abilities of human beings" (natural for humans = deriving from the way human are born, from latin natura, coming from nascor: I am born) with "natural rights".
But that's what natural rights are. They are entitlements that are non-contingent on the society or politic in which they are apparent. This does not mean that they are things that nature implicitly protects. Natural rights aren't "Things you can do and get away with"; they're simply "Things you are always able to do, regardless of social agreement".

People will always be able to choose how to behave. They might have fewer options available as a result of being physically constrained, or they might be punished for it by people who don't like what they see (and you do not have a natural right to evade the punishment for your actions), but if you're prepared to accept the consequences, or don't want to worry about the consequences, that's entirely okay as far as the state of nature goes.

The four examples I gave were of rights that people are always able to do. There is no natural right to succeed in what these actions might be trying to accomplish, and such a right would be a very unusual one even in a social system. There is, however, an inalterable protection by the state of nature that the only way to stop a determined enough human being from doing them is to end their existence as a human being.

Now, people establishing a system of social rights might choose to accept these inherent natural rights as standards for how to form more useful ones. But the existence of natural rights is not dependent on their socialisation and agreement; they directly equate to ability.

I think it's a jungle out there and the idea of "rights" is the product of civilization.

Natural rights aren't "Things you can do and get away with"; they're simply "Things you are always able to do, regardless of social agreement".

But the existence of natural rights is not dependent on their socialisation and agreement; they directly equate to ability.Ah, you are equating rights with abilities. Good to know.