Do natural rights exist?

[Athena]

What civilizations have decided to perserve as thoughts about natural rights is food for thought.

Natural rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Conceptions of natural rights Many philosophers and statesmen have designed lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty, as these are considered to be the two highest priorities. H.L.A. Hart has argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. The existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through "reason" alone. Some thinkers like John Locke emphasized "property" as primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of the right of revolution, Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" for property in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence also based natural or "unalienable rights" on human nature, arguing that it was "self-evident" that human beings by their very nature seek life, liberty, and happiness. This assumed, like Hobbes, Locke and Jean–Jacques Rousseau - also a major social contract thinker - the right of human beings to follow their nature as a natural right antedating and not bestowed by government. The first philosopher who fully made natural rights the source of his moral and political philosophy was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes argued that it is human nature to love one's self best and seek one's own good (this is a view known as psychological egoism). Since it is unavoidable ("necessity of nature") for human beings to follow their nature, it becomes a right to do so. According to Hobbes, to deny this right is to deny that we have a right to be human, which would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to demand that carnivores reject meat or that fish stop swimming. However, this was not a right in the conventional sense of imposing obligations on others, but merely a "liberty." Therefore, we have no obligations by birth or nature, but only unlimited rights - leading to a situation known as the "war of all against all", in which human beings have to kill, steal and enslave others in order to stay alive. Hobbes reasoned that this world of chaos created by unlimited rights was highly undesirable, causing human life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". As such, if humans wish to live peacefully they must give up most of their natural rights and create moral obligations in order to establish political and civil society. This is one of the earliest formulations of the theory of government known as the social contract.

[Athena]

Our human nature is social. Our DNA programs us to be social rather than solitary like a leapord. True some humans do seek solitude, but this is rare.
Especially young women (like female mice) seem attracted to large cities. Many find cities exciting and rural areas boring. Being attracted to large numbers of people and excitement, necessiates something natural in our give and take nature, for humans reject humans with no social skills. To get want we want, we need social skills. This would be true, even before language and all the fancy concepts we discuss.

Among chimps, and humans, lack of social skill can mean death, as those lacking in social skills are pushed to outer circle, if not completely driven away. The outer circle is more dangerous than the inner circle, because those on the fringe are less protected. Something in our nature makes us social. And when human beings are isolated from others for an extended period of time, they can go insane. This was the result of the earliest penitenaries where prisoners were suppose to do penitents to "save their souls" and were forced into extreme isolation. So many went insane, the policy was changed and prisoners were given work to maintain their sanity.

Perhaps, we need to clarify what is our nature, before we can objectively determine our natural rights?

[Fonceai]

@Athena

That's easy.

What separates humans from animals is our sense of expanded social morals and ethics.

Animals act for their own instinctive needs...

Feeding, sleeping, mating, protecting their young, protecting their territory.

Those 5 are basically it.

Just speak them out to yourself and it makes sense.

"I need to sleep and I need to eat."
"I need to make sure I'm not going to be killed while I sleep, and I need to make sure I have enough food, so I need to protect the area in which I sleep and hunt."
"I need to mate. So I'll naturally need to bring a mate into my protected area and make sure they can sleep and eat, too."
"I need to mate spread my seed as much as possible, so I might need more than one mate."
"Finally, I need to protect those young so they survive to spread my seed, too."

Humans started functioning at a level beyond instinct because the increased brain capacity allowed them to retain cause-and-effect knowledge longer than animals can.

Retaining knowledge of cause-and-effect meant that humans began to prepare advantageous causes in advance in order to reap earlier or extra effects.

Also, that same knowledge of cause-and-effect began to lead to a process of deduction, allowing humans to "override" instinct in order to achieve a more advantageous effect.

Therefore, human "nature" is to conflict instinctive reaction with learned deduction.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Athena Your opinion appears to that of a young person. I live in apartments for people over 55, and it is not authority over us that dictates our behavior, but consideration for each other. People here are very careful to not make too much noise or otherwise disturb neighborhoods. The only time we have a problem with noise is when someone is going deaf and isn't aware of causing a problem. The lint trap on the dryer is always cleaned. It just isn't cool to be unpleasant or cause someone a problem. Being stuipd and causing someone a problem is kind of like wearing one's underpants on the head. It is just dumb.

Wrong... I'm 53, and it's the opinion of one who was once a "Conservative" but has adjusted his opinions to reality as he has assessed it... as we all do.

Sometimes consideration dictates behavior, sometimes "what they'll do to me" (that could be "authority" of any kind... a pimp, government (redundant distinction sometimes!), a gang, school bully...), or a sense of what's morally, and ethically, right. Ethics being, to me, how well we actually conform to our own sense of morality.

The rest of your post, I'm not quite sure how it fits into the discussion of ""natural" rights, or "giving up rights" so we can keep other rights.

Being stupid and causing someone a problem is kind of like wearing one's underpants on the head. It is just dumb

Here again, it's a matter of definition. Sometimes I find what others label "stupid" or "causing a problem" just a way for one person to shut up another. For instance, when the Right pundits keep demanding that the Left shut up because they "embolden the enemy," their motives for saying so are highly dubious.

Given a more mundane example, like the apartment one... I know a lady in a resort where I stay who uses up most of the dryers and washers every day because she runs a business doing other people's clothes: using equipment meant for all. I was considered "inconsiderate" because I insisted on using two machines that she thought she might need at some point. (Then, when she couldn't get me to let her have them, she got in my face, following me around, criticizing how I did my clothes. The second time she tried that I told her that I didn't give a damn what she thought, I would wash my clothes any damn way I wanted because "they're MY clothes," and I would tell security what she was harrassing me if she didn't leave me alone. After that, she backed off.)

Yes, there are stupid people who wear their underwear on their heads, although as far as the last part goes... why should I care? Dumb? Probably. Something I should concern myself with? Hardly.

Plus, there are always people out there looking to be annoyed by someone else because they don't get everything they want at the moment they want it, exactly the way they want it. Like people on cellphones who feel their conversation is more important than paying attention to driving, or people who quickly cut from behind you, over the berm, while you're both trying to merge onto an interstate... and then they block your access. :rolleyes: If I'm considered "inconsiderate" by folks like that... well maybe that's a good thing.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Technosoul In some cases we should allow natural rights to trump "made made rights". If we wish to live in a civilized culture rather then in the jungle we must have concepts like our Bill Of Rights and Consitution. ETC. Which is about preventing one person from violating the personal rights of others. In nature a Tom Cat has the right to rape a female cat, as this will insure reproduction and the survival of the spieces. The feline cat has the right to fight off the tom cat if she so wishes. (harmones). The "natural rights" book would support the notion that rape is the natural right of the male of the spieces. But needless to say we do not favor that right in our civilized communities (unless you are in the military where "boys will be boys"). Natural rights work for animals in nature for two reasons, one is that they do not have the advanced technology that we have ( relative to weapons and so forth ) and two: because they have not reached our level of intelligence and reason, which makes us more aware and causes us to have more compassion or concern about others and about the importance of maintaining a well organized group culture. Which has resulted as something we call a conscience. We cannot return to nature nor to that Garden of Eden way of life. And so relative to the thinking of our more intelligent culture (civilized concepts) most of the natural rights would now be rather un-natural for humans.

I'm assuming you meant to type "man made rights."

If so, typos happen.

The whole concept that within animal communities they have "rights" seems nonsenical to me. To have rights one must be able to conceptualize having, not having, or even what rights are. Some of their behavior is instinct, true, but some is thinking... IMO. (I know, many fight even the idea that animals can "think.")

I doubt when animals behave more civil than humans it has anything to do with any sense of "rights," but more to do with the obvious defect within our species. We perceive ourselves as rational and there are those who willingly use it against us.

I'm not sure we could ever completely fathom how an animal "thinks." We can guess... that's about the best we can do.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Athena Recently a couple burried together, hugging each other, has been found. We share a bonding gene in common with bonodos that chimps do not have. Primitive societies, that we can observe today, are not brutal. There are exceptions. There are cannibol tribes and tribes that do raise their young to be aggressive. The Apache mother would slap her child and say something to the effect that the slap would make the child a strong warrior. The other end is the Hopi whose culture is very non aggressive. So we can sling either way, depending on the popularity of the leader, his decisions and circumstances.

The warrior is still very much a practical part of primative and modern cultures without the culture being considered more brutal, inhuman and evil, and less immoral in any way. Cultures vary, and some were of course more brtal and inhuman tha others, but there is nothing in the evidence that would indicate that the western varied Judeo-ChristianiIslamic cultures represents the pinnical or shining example of the moral human. The evidence shows that we are very, very human, and sometimes brutal, inhuman and immoral, and at other times loving, compassionate and caring just as we see throughout the history of all the cultures of history.

All this aside, there is a great deal of evidence that there is a natural morality and social structure with laws, that has evovled over time and we share many traits of this social structure with many animals.

[rez]

Quote by: shunyadragon The evidence shows that we are very, very human, and sometimes brutal, inhuman and immoral, and at other times loving, compassionate and caring just as we see throughout the history of all the cultures of history.

All this aside, there is a great deal of evidence that there is a natural morality and social structure with laws, that has evolved over time and we share many traits of this social structure with many animals.

I don't see why you put the former quote aside. You described how humans are capable of using all forms of traits to obtain some kind of progress in life even if it is "brutish" or "evil". Remember, natural selection is a process dictated by the environment, therefore, the weakest organism is capable of surviving for a very long time. Why should one deem brutal and immoral behavior as a hazard, rather then a healthy mechanism to progress in life?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: rez I don't see why you put the former quote aside. You described how humans are capable of using all forms of traits to obtain some kind of progress in life even if it is "brutish" or "evil". Remember, natural selection is a process dictated by the environment, therefore, the weakest organism is capable of surviving for a very long time. Why should one deem brutal and immoral behavior as a hazard, rather then a healthy mechanism to progress in life?

I do not put the former quote aside as such, I consider our warrior nature very much a part of our nature now and in the past. It is not necessarilly just brutish and, ah . . . evil?, nor necessarilly a hazard or a healthy mechanism to survive. Natural selection has many sides to it as well as competition between members and groups for the attributes necessary for survival. Our whole social structure, morals, family and community structure are a part of our human nature.

[Athena]

Quote by: Ken Carman Wrong... I'm 53, and it's the opinion of one who was once a "Conservative" but has adjusted his opinions to reality as he has assessed it... as we all do. Sometimes consideration dictates behavior, sometimes "what they'll do to me" (that could be "authority" of any kind... a pimp, government (redundant distinction sometimes!), a gang, school bully...), or a sense of what's morally, and ethically, right. Ethics being, to me, how well we actually conform to our own sense of morality. The rest of your post, I'm not quite sure how it fits into the discussion of ""natural" rights, or "giving up rights" so we can keep other rights. Here again, it's a matter of definition. Sometimes I find what others label "stupid" or "causing a problem" just a way for one person to shut up another. For instance, when the Right pundits keep demanding that the Left shut up because they "embolden the enemy," their motives for saying so are highly dubious. Given a more mundane example, like the apartment one... I know a lady in a resort where I stay who uses up most of the dryers and washers every day because she runs a business doing other people's clothes: using equipment meant for all. I was considered "inconsiderate" because I insisted on using two machines that she thought she might need at some point. (Then, when she couldn't get me to let her have them, she got in my face, following me around, criticizing how I did my clothes. The second time she tried that I told her that I didn't give a damn what she thought, I would wash my clothes any damn way I wanted because "they're MY clothes," and I would tell security what she was harrassing me if she didn't leave me alone. After that, she backed off.) Yes, there are stupid people who wear their underwear on their heads, although as far as the last part goes... why should I care? Dumb? Probably. Something I should concern myself with? Hardly. Plus, there are always people out there looking to be annoyed by someone else because they don't get everything they want at the moment they want it, exactly the way they want it. Like people on cellphones who feel their conversation is more important than paying attention to driving, or people who quickly cut from behind you, over the berm, while you're both trying to merge onto an interstate... and then they block your access. :rolleyes: If I'm considered "inconsiderate" by folks like that... well maybe that's a good thing.

:) How long have you been single? My condolences to your wife if you ever had one.

Not all men improve with age, but just get more stuck in their ways.

[Athena]

Quote by: Ken Carman I'm assuming you meant to type "man made rights." If so, typos happen. The whole concept that within animal communities they have "rights" seems nonsenical to me. To have rights one must be able to conceptualize having, not having, or even what rights are. Some of their behavior is instinct, true, but some is thinking... IMO. (I know, many fight even the idea that animals can "think.") I doubt when animals behave more civil than humans it has anything to do with any sense of "rights," but more to do with the obvious defect within our species. We perceive ourselves as rational and there are those who willingly use it against us. I'm not sure we could ever completely fathom how an animal "thinks." We can guess... that's about the best we can do.

We can judge how animals thinking by observing their behaviors. Behavior expresses acts of caring and acts of hostility. The discovery of bonobos is so important, because these primates behave in significantly different ways from chimps. They are more sexual and have a different social organization that is more protective of females. In general they are less aggressive with each other than chimps. I think we are under estimating the caring and social behaviors of animals, and how the biology that makes them as they are, makes us as we are as well.

[Boetie]

The human creature is a creative creature and that act of creativity is part of our nature, thus natural.

Asking questions is part of the creative process not to mention none of us feel we are robots.

Paradoxically, we are made by something that we feel we have the right to question.

Therefore we have a natural right which is the right to question.

[Autolykos]

I suspect that there is a deep semantic issue with "natural rights", which comes from the semantic issue surrounding "rights". Some people seem to correlate "right" with "freedom" or "ability". When they say "I have the right to do [something]", they mean they are able and/or free to do it. For others, "right" has a more normative sense. It's more than just "freedom", because the latter simply means the absence of physical (and/or causal) restraint. A right to do something, then, means that it is considered acceptable to do it by those who observe it (i.e. they will not interfere with someone doing it).

I personally find it hard to understand how natural rights exist in an empirical sense. Maybe that's because I ascribe to the normative idea of "rights". Take the right to life, for example. If one uses the descriptive sense of "rights", then a natural right to life can be postulated. All other things being equal, a person is free to live out his life. However, in no way does that make it automatically acceptable for everyone who observes him living.

My suggestion is that natural rights do not exist, but that natural freedoms do. The advantage here is the lack of semantic overlap between "rights" and "freedoms".

- Rob

[Fonceai]

@Auto

That makes sense, and I agree that some people aren't making the distinction.

I think we talked about this once before...

I have the right (freedom) to speed while driving, but I don't have the right (legal) to speed while driving.

Personally, if I wanted to reference ability/freedom I would say it.

When I talk about "rights" I talk about the "legal" version.

That's why I specifically say that there are no natural rights.

[Athena]

Quote by: rez I don't see why you put the former quote aside. You described how humans are capable of using all forms of traits to obtain some kind of progress in life even if it is "brutish" or "evil". Remember, natural selection is a process dictated by the environment, therefore, the weakest organism is capable of surviving for a very long time. Why should one deem brutal and immoral behavior as a hazard, rather then a healthy mechanism to progress in life?

Rez, was your question meant to stimulate thought? As Socrates reasoned through this, that which is destructive would destroy everything, until nothing as left to destroy but itself. I believe one of the ancient civilizations gives us a story of such a thing, and in the end it swallowed itself, leaving only its lips.
sort of a black hole.

Without balance things become dysfunctional. In the city ghettos were there is a destructive subculture, life and property is not safe. Here a police force works to counteract the destructive force, but a police force has a hard time being constructive, so we have a war zone, forces of destruction pitted against each other. I think this needs to be considered as, "a hazard, rather then a healthy mechanism to progress in life?".

[Autolykos]

@Fonce

Correct, but it's not necessarily about the law. I would refrain from associating the normative sense of "rights" with legality. Morals and ethics generally presume certain rights.

Otherwise, I think we're in agreement.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Indeed.

I know what you mean about the problem with the word "legal".

Maybe it would be better stated as the granting of permission from the current authority on the extent one can exercise their freedom.

[Athena]

Quote by: Autolykos I suspect that there is a deep semantic issue with "natural rights", which comes from the semantic issue surrounding "rights". Some people seem to correlate "right" with "freedom" or "ability". When they say "I have the right to do [something]", they mean they are able and/or free to do it. For others, "right" has a more normative sense. It's more than just "freedom", because the latter simply means the absence of physical (and/or causal) restraint. A right to do something, then, means that it is considered acceptable to do it by those who observe it (i.e. they will not interfere with someone doing it). I personally find it hard to understand how natural rights exist in an empirical sense. Maybe that's because I ascribe to the normative idea of "rights". Take the right to life, for example. If one uses the descriptive sense of "rights", then a natural right to life can be postulated. All other things being equal, a person is free to live out his life. However, in no way does that make it automatically acceptable for everyone who observes him living. My suggestion is that natural rights do not exist, but that natural freedoms do. The advantage here is the lack of semantic overlap between "rights" and "freedoms". - Rob

Natural rights get good results, because that is how the universe works. What happens when we think of as Cicero did?

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong doing by its prohibitions."

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Athena Natural rights get good results, because that is how the universe works. What happens when we think of as Cicero did?

As usual, your efforts to completely miss the point are met with resounding success. :rolleyes:

- Rob

[Athena]

Do you think there is a connection between natural rights and liberty?

Do you think Cicero had anything to do with having democracy instead of autocracy? This thread seems to favor the reasoning for autocracy. You know a king chosen by a God to rule, because humans born in sin must have strong rule over them. Their only rights are correctly the rights the king grants them, because only this God chosen man can determine such things.

[Osborn F Enready]

As simply as I can express my opinion......

Natural Rights are what you can DO naturally amongst equals, without the "use" of "force".