Do natural rights exist?

[Osborn F Enready]

Another great read:

The Myths of Individualism:
Myths of Individualism


Rob, do you see how this ties into my argument of collectives vs individuals, based on force?

[Boetie]

When legislators makes laws, "the rules that they make for other men's actions must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it.

[ZNFYRH]

Thanks for your response, Osborn.

I think the only way to really comment and on what you wrote is to reply that nature makes its own rules. I think we are currently the top dog because we happen to stay one step ahead of nature.

But when people let their instinctive desires drive their actions (9/11) or when nature comes up with a real doozy (Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami in Thailand) it should remind us that humans really have no natural rights other than what we think we made for ourselves.

To paraphrase Animal Farm, all men are created equal. Some are more equal than others.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Z, and I often overlook nature as a player in the food chain, because it is the dictator of that chain.

There is a law to nature though, at least observed, which is "Survival of the fittest".

Individual rights, attempt to apply that reality which is dictated by nature, to a common thread system of self governance, and while it was pure, it was the most productive system in human history.

[ZNFYRH]

I see what you're saying.

I think we are in agreement that the only "natural right", as it relates to nature, is survival of the fittest. In that sense, humans found a way to be unfit and still survive, which is increased "fitness" in and of itself.

Otherwise, I think the implication that there are "natural rights", as it relates to independence and governance, is false. The only rights we have are what we define for ourselves. As soon as the "fittest" among us decide to impose their "fitness" on the rest, they have the ability to define rights. We may have the right to act as we choose, but that right is no longer free of consequence.

The language of this is tricky because there are "rights" in the ability sense and the "rights" in the allowed sense.

[Osborn F Enready]

Z said: I think we are in agreement that the only "natural right", as it relates to nature, is survival of the fittest. In that sense, humans found a way to be unfit and still survive, which is increased "fitness" in and of itself.

How have we cheated? We have a natural opposable thumb, and the minds to use them. We are more fit to almost any predator un-armed, with our minds, and with our thumbs to make and use weapons and nature, I think we clearly reside as the most fit second only to nature itself.

Z said: Otherwise, I think the implication that there are "natural rights", as it relates to independence and governance, is false. The only rights we have are what we define for ourselves. As soon as the "fittest" among us decide to impose their "fitness" on the rest, they have the ability to define rights. We may have the right to act as we choose, but that right is no longer free of consequence.

So how do you view natural rights, or do you contend they don't exist?

Z said: The language of this is tricky because there are "rights" in the ability sense and the "rights" in the allowed sense.

What is the common factor?

Force.

Do you think all use of force is natural?

I do not. I feel force is only natural in defense of rights, which one of those, is life. Killing an animal is not the same as killing a human, which is an equal in species and ability.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: 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".

As generally presented in this thread the word 'rights' have limited meaning, but nontheless it best referes to the sum of our 'natural' relationships within the natural heirarchy and social structure of human existence including rights and limits on individual to perserve the integrety of the community, and not limited to just 'amongst equals'. The concept of 'rights' evolved with the concept of the 'ego' where humans and apparently some animals evolved the concept of individual identity that defines their freedom of choice with in the natural relationships, moral, ethics, and the social structure of relationships to the family, community and those considered outside the sense of community. the 'use pf force' is definitely a part of the picture, because 'use of force', may both provide for the exercise of 'rights', and the imits to the exercise of rights. These concepts also exist to a limited degree in animal societies.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Another great read: The Myths of Individualism: Myths of Individualism Rob, do you see how this ties into my argument of collectives vs individuals, based on force?

The extreme views of libertarian individualism and collective determinism are two unreasonable extremes.

[LogicaLunatic]

Quote by: Athena It is more scientific than assumptions. We know chimps are empathetic, because when they see someone pick up a banana and eat it, their brain reacts as though they were picking up the banana. This was discovered by accident. The chimp was hooked up to electrodes so scientist could observe how the brain reacts to different stimulus. It was not a deliberate experiement, but someone picked up a banana and started to eat it and the chimps reaction was recorded. Chimps and ourselves are biologically empathetic. That is our brains respond to what we see and hear. Just like our brains respond to heat or cold, they respond to what we see and hear. This is true for animals and humans. What is different for humans, is the greater degree to which their thoughts enteract with the response. The rule about protecting another person's dignity is important because it avoids trigering a bad reaction in the other person. On the other hand a smile and acknowledgement of another human being usually gets a positive reaction. As argued else where, we are feeling beings. So natural rights is having knowledge of this and applying the rules of nature to our actions. Lording it over someone who willing submits, is like the relationship a dog has with the leader of the pack. On the other hand, lording it over someone who does not willing submit, neccessitates some kind of force, and this is like a territorial fight among animals. The person forced to submit, will harbor negative feelings, and sooner or later, the consquences will be negative. Natural rights are about nature.

I only quoted the above because I thought this after reading it.

Animals enforce their own rights. They do this using what they were born with and what they've learned throughout their lives. Sometimes (actually amazingly often) animals will form groups. These groups always appear to have some sort of social order or, some respect for the "rights" of other members of the group. They also have what could be called group rights. These rights are enforced by some or all of the group's members.

We see these common behaviors in everything from ants to wolves to bees to primates. Some species accomplish this differently than *others but they all attempt to get it done.

*What I find amazing is the fact that so many different species seem to have developed very similar ways of deciding rights.

Do wolves have a right to eat deer? If they can, then they do. Is it a deer's right to escape unharmed? If they can't, then it isn't. Sometimes a group of wolves will show up to enforce their right to feast. Then the group of humans enforces their right to not be feasted upon by shooting the shit out of the wolves. Why did the wolves want to feast on the humans? Because they couldn't feast on the deer. Why? Because the humans enforced their right to shoot the shit outta deer too.

So as a member of the animal kingdom, we give ourselves our own natural rights. We can decide what our individual rights are and we can help decide what our group rights are. But we are (and I could be wrong) the only group that can actually decide to LIMIT our individual and group rights to protect the rights of something else.

But why do we choose to protect the rights of something else? Wolves, if they were smart like us, would likely domesticate the deer. They would protect the deer's right to not get eaten by other animals. The deer would have to give up their right to wander freely and do all the other wonderful things they do that get them eaten by other animals.

But couldn't it also be said that the wolves are simply protecting their right to eat the deer? Hrm... Anyway...

It's all about who can better enforce their rights. Between the wolves and deer? It's still a tie. Between wolves and wolves? They fight and frighten to enforce their rights. I bet if we gave wolves the vote, we'd have Jeb Bush as the next president.

What gives some humans more power to enforce their rights over others? Generally, it's money and weapons. Resources and the ability to gain or defend those resources. What determines if a country can enforce their rights? How many resources they have and how good their weapons (soldiers and the tools they use) are.

Now, the thing with resources is that when our right to them is taken away, the right to then possess and use the resource belongs, normally, to the the thing taking our rights away. A pack's territory, I think, is a good example of that kind of resource. Digital music (MP3s), I think, is another one.

What if there is a resource that could not be carried off when our right to it is taken away? Well money is definitely not an example of that but what leads to having more money (resources) most certainly does. What leads to more resources/money and ultimately gets us more rights in the end? Intelligence.

Smarter people tend to make more money and have more power. I know Bush Jr. is a glaring contradiction to what I just said but really, he's standing on the shoulders of giants. I'm just thankful he's finally losing his balance.

/slaps tangent out of the way...

So intelligence is a resource we have that nobody can actually take. They can try to deny us the right to it by killing us or limit our right to it by sending us to church every week as children; but ultimately, they don't gain anything. They simply reduce the risk that something better than them will come along and replace them.

So what if we valued intelligence more than money? What if we held peoples ability to think above peoples ability to pay to be taught the ability to think? You can rob a person of his wallet but not the person's ability to fill it.

/stops writing to determine exactly how much of his tax money is going to local schools...

[rez]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I agree Z, and I often overlook nature as a player in the food chain, because it is the dictator of that chain. There is a law to nature though, at least observed, which is "Survival of the fittest". Individual rights, attempt to apply that reality which is dictated by nature, to a common thread system of self governance, and while it was pure, it was the most productive system in human history.

I do not like the term "survival of the fittest" because it implies that the strongest will survive. It should be more like the organisms that best fit the given conditions/environment will be the ones that survive. Consequently, the organism can be weak compared to all the other animals, yet still be the organism that actually thrives within the environment. Ehh, maybe I am just being picky?

[ZNFYRH]

Yes, you're being picky!!

I always thought "fittest" meant "able to thrive best" regardless of actual physical size.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rez said: I do not like the term "survival of the fittest" because it implies that the strongest will survive. It should be more like the organisms that best fit the given conditions/environment will be the ones that survive. Consequently, the organism can be weak compared to all the other animals, yet still be the organism that actually thrives within the environment. Ehh, maybe I am just being picky?

No, I agree. "Survival of the Fittest" refers to the idea that the being that is most able to utilize nature, defend its position, and sustain or thrive better than all others.

People have skewed the perception, to form it to the idea that "the Strongest survive", but it is not really about physical strength as much as the entire biological, societal and natural interplay.

I would bet the next species to dominate nature, will be a germ, or bacteria, and it could literally decimate the entire human race without ever using a gun, or muscle in anger.

If that happens, the germ, or bacteria, or virus, will be using its natural rights, via inherant ability to control nature to its ability, and our intrests will take less precedence as we are wiped out if unable to resist it.

Natural rights, are just a view of natural ability from an individual perspective, as a human, in my opinion.

shunydragon said: The extreme views of libertarian individualism and collective determinism are two unreasonable extremes.

So, could you please show me why you feel that way, or the reasoning with which you use to come to such conclusions?

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Another great read: The Myths of Individualism: Myths of Individualism Rob, do you see how this ties into my argument of collectives vs individuals, based on force?

Civilizations are collectives. Honorable people understand their duty to their country. Those who do not, regardless of how much they earn, are a problem to the civilizations they exploit. We call this problem corruption when it is self serving people on the top, causing the problem.

Unfortunately we are not teaching the concepts essential to democracy. If we were there would be less corruption, crime and welfare, and more people would have a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives.

"For, in truth, our country has not given us birth and education without expecting to receive some sustenance, as it were, from us in return; nor has it been merely to serve our convenience that she has granted to our leisure a safe refuge and for our moments of repose a calm retreat; on the contrary, she has given us these advantages so that she may appropriate to her own use the greater and more important part of our courage, our talents, and our wisdom, leaving to us for our own private uses only so much as may be left after her needs have been satisfied." Cicero

[Athena]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Yes, you're being picky!! I always thought "fittest" meant "able to thrive best" regardless of actual physical size.

Jelly fish are not excessively large nor strong in anyway, and yet they have survivied longer than humans. Humans have not survivied because of size or strength, but because of their organization. It is by working together that they have been so successful.

I think part of the problem is religion and/or elitist thinking. Religion tends to generate a negative opinion of nature and humans, as something that must be subdued and controlled. Elitist justify their privileged position with the belief they are superior. Religion very strongly supported this perspective, supporting the reasoning for slavery and other social/economic injustices. It was believed God destained people to their positions in life. The arguement of natural rights is an argument against this reasoning. It is saying all the man made rules that make us unequal, are man made, not God given.

Our forefathers approved a history book, by agreeing to their compliments being printed in the beginning of the book. This history book states, they were not only Protestants, but also protesting Protestantism. Several were Deist or Unitarians. Europe was built on the bible. The US was built on philosophy. Unfortunately, only the wealthy received the education essential to democracy. Even when there was free public education, children had to work and few attended school. Then this institution for good citizenship was taken over for military and industrial purpose, leaving extremely few to understand what the philosophical natural rights debate has to do with democracy.

Whatever, human beings have been a very successful species up to this point. However, it is questionable if they will manage their increasingly complex reality well enough to survive much longer. Their mythology of a God above them needs to radically change, before they self destruct.

[ZNFYRH]

I'd be curious to see how successfully we really are as a species. By rejecting our instincts we probably should have been killed off long ago. It also raises an interesting question regarding the age of our species. I'm willing to bet we're one of the youngest, relatively speaking (and not counting hybrids we've created ourselves).

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNFYRH said: I'd be curious to see how successfully we really are as a species. By rejecting our instincts we probably should have been killed off long ago.

Exactly, at least in my opinion.

Nature will win in the long run, and the more people here at the time, the uglier and more mass horror and chaos there will be.

The more we keep society reflective of nature, the more prepared we will be to deal with what nature throws at us to deal with, and the better we will weather the storm.

There will always be pain, discomfort, unhappiness and suffering.

To minimize that mass cases should be job 1, if people care about society as much as they claim.

By allowing society to venture to far from nature, you open the door for mass catastrophe, repeatedly, cyclically.

[Osborn F Enready]

Athena said: Civilizations are collectives.

How many types are there?

Free-will
Forced-will
?

Athena said: Honorable people understand their duty to their country.

Is that instinct, or taught?

Athena said: Those who do not, regardless of how much they earn, are a problem to the civilizations they exploit.

So where is this defined?

Athena said: We call this problem corruption when it is self serving people on the top, causing the problem.

Do you think it has anything to do with the 157 years of bi-partisan monopoly on politics and appointments for the third check (judicial system) to this nations power?

If not, why not?

Athena said: Unfortunately we are not teaching the concepts essential to democracy.

We are not, and never were a democracy. (for the 1500th time)

Athena said: If we were there would be less corruption, crime and welfare, and more people would have a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives.

If people had access to information they could trust, they would have meaning in their lives. The internet is changing that, but there is to be a period of worse, before better.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn By allowing society to venture to far from nature, you open the door for mass catastrophe, repeatedly, cyclically.

Precisely. Instincts have a way of furthering a species into higher states of physical evolution, perfection, and mental speed. Humans are no longer part of that cycle.

While "natural rights" are only what you can keep for yourself, through physical prowess or ingenuity, humans have created "unnatural rights" that make it so you don't have to strive to keep.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNFYRH said: Precisely. Instincts have a way of furthering a species into higher states of physical evolution, perfection, and mental speed.

I agree.

ZNYFRH said: Humans are no longer part of that cycle.

I disagree.

ZNFYRH said: While "natural rights" are only what you can keep for yourself, through physical prowess or ingenuity, humans have created "unnatural rights" that make it so you don't have to strive to keep.

I disagree. We still have to strive, but instead of by only ONE means (force), we now observe many means, inlcuding law, enforcement of such law, war, contracts, etc.....

It is an attempt at subversion without the application of direct violence.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn I disagree. We still have to strive, but instead of by only ONE means (force), we now observe many means, inlcuding law, enforcement of such law, war, contracts, etc..... It is an attempt at subversion without the application of direct violence.

It's not just about violence. Consider that one of our "unnatural rights" is health care. And I am a perfect example.

I have absolutely horrible vision and I had a condition at birth (pyloric stenosis) that altered the peristaltic mechanism that moves food to the stomach. As a result, food wasn't getting in my stomach, but instead going out the way it came in. If I didn't die in the first month due to starvation (I would have in a "natural" world) my lack of vision would have gotten me killed in a "natural" world.

This was corrected, for a while, when I started wearing glasses. The glasses made me unattractive which, in a "natural" sense, ensured I would not breed unless I could somehow demonstrate myself superior to the "prettier" members of the species. Unfortunately, girls don't quite get hot and sweaty over smart guys, at least not until they are older and wiser.

Then the "unnatural" world reared its ugly head again; I started wearing contacts. I was more desirable again. This meant that, "unnaturally", I would be passing on my genes for bad eyesight and possible pyloric stenosis.

I suggest, and please elaborate on your disagreement if any, that while we evolved a trait that allowed us to enhance our chances for survival, the advent of modern medicine is the reason we have stepped out of the cycle.

The way I see it is if every modern human was reverted to a "natural" state, there are a good many of us who would die and whose children would die.

The solution to this, the way for humanity to re-enter the cycle again, is through genetic medicine. Once we can actually correct bad eyesight, cancer, or pyloric stenosis through genetic manipulation, we will be back on track with "natural" rights. After a few generations of genetic correction, we will be eliminating genetic flaws while passing on genetic advantages.

Thus, we will be more "natural" again.