[Sockem]

Quote by: Thanatos Rights as we know them are social constructs. People gotten as far as we have by moving away from such basic rights as the one I outlined above. However there's a right way to do things and there's a wrong way to do things and a society with some basic rights seems to be an inherent mathematical optimum for how to do things in a society. Are they natural rights because that's the best way to do things? Your definition calls for rights that inherent in the nature of living beings which depending on the spin you put on it may or may not be the same thing. Rules can change and if they don't disaster is inevitable. Back in the day of black powder smoothbore firearms a right to bear arms was all well and good; one individual could not do much damage. Even a cannon would have made a mediocre terrorist weapon. In the days of tactical nukes even the NRA is not going to take that rule too far; there are some arms no sane person is going to let anybody buy.

I agree! That is what I'm trying to get at. Laws should focus on order not on any degree of freedom or happiness, but order.

Quote by: anak Natural rights are the essential privileges that human believe they should have. You are semantically confused. Nature is defined the same way in "natural rights" as in "human nature". It just refers the most inherent desires of humans, objectified, and overwhelmingly accept by everyone else.

Argumentum ad populum

Quote by: anak And sense there is no objective morality, a "right" can only be determined by an individual for himself; a set of rights are just the individuals conception of ideal moral proprietaries. And his individual rights are only objectified if society agrees, which is almost always the case since we are so alike, but only with certain conditions when there is a conflict-of-rights as you have pointed out.

An individual cannot define a right. Rights are only given by governments. So, if I only have the Locke/Jefferson rights if society agrees that is the exact same if a government gives me those rights which still supports my position that the only right we have are government given.

Quote by: anak The word "inalienable" doesn't mean that no one is able to take them away from you; it just means that we would never want to desire death, restriction, and sadness, all other things equal.

Yes, inalienable does mean that:

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo.

Quote by: dan4reason What do you mean by inate rights?

I mean the Locke/Jefferson definition

unalienable, endowed by our Creator

Quote by: dan4reason Do they have to be rigid rule,

I don't understand what you mean here.

Quote by: dan4reason or do you mean a universal constant?

That seems to be what Locke/Jefferson is getting at.

-
This thread is about objective human rights vs. subjective human rights. Just clarifying.

Sorry about late replys.