Quote:
A natural right is the concept of a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs.
The theory of natural law, a law whose content is set in a state of nature and therefore has validity everywhere, derives from the theory of natural rights. Thus the natural rights were the rights present primarily in a state of natural anarchy. During the Enlightenment, natural law theory opposed the divine right of kings theory, and became the basis of classical republicanism which was explaining hypothetical reasons of establishing a positive law and a government.
The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right: A natural right is one that is said to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society, while a legal right is one created by the government or society for the benefit of its members. The question of which rights are natural and which are legal is an important one in philosophy and politics. Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that all human rights are legal rights, while proponents of the concept of natural rights say that documents like the American Declaration of Independence, and social contracts like the Constitution of the United States, demonstrate the usefulness of recognizing natural rights.
The idea of human rights descended from that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[1] Natural rights, in particular, are the rights of the individual, considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The idea that animals have natural rights is one that has gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century.[2]
|
Natural right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can anyone prove any rights that are not granted by governments, beliefs (philosophy), or religions?
-
Also John Lock defined natural rights as life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness was added by Thomas Jefferson.
Life: How much freedom of life do I have? If I killed 6 million people of a certain ethnicity; would I still have this freedom? Am I allowed Self-defense?
Liberty: Liberty from what exactly? Governments?
Property: Under all circumstances? If I stole something would I have to return it? Do I have to pay taxes?
Pursuit of Happiness: How far? Can I infringe on any other natural right?
All of these are self-contradictory and idealistic to the max. It is impossible to have these rights unabridged and not infringe on anothers' rights.
-
Who do these rules apply to the individual or a government? Say, I kill someone am I violating this right or is it only bad when a government does this?
-
Who grants these rights? God? But He is unproved (unprovable) etc. Or is it Nature? But Nature is inherently random.
-
I see no reason to believe that anyone possess rights from the mere fact that they exist. I see no reason to belief that natural/human rights are mere subjective beliefs.