Do natural rights exist?

[rez]

Hobbes suggested that without government humans existed in a "state of nature". This state of nature, consequently made humans brutish and evil. He thought that without a social authority humans had the right to take whatever from whomever. This way of thinking caused him to think that people in a state of nature should give up control to a strong central authority to provide rules for humans. Hobbes constructed a set of nine laws within his book Leviathan giving humans natural rights and the ways they should act upon them.

Was Hobbes reasoning sound? Why or why not?

Should humans sacrifice their "natural rights" to preserve these rights?

[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.

[Praxius]

Without the order we have now, we would probably be just like other primates, with the strongest of the pack being the leader, and hunting in groups...... other groups would fight other groups for territory, food and women...... back to the stone ages we'll go.

We wouldn't just be scattered all over the planet without organization. If a human decided to take what they want from the weaker human, the weaker human will team up with other weaker humans and organize against the stronger human, forming organizations and packs again.... before you know it..... a couple of thousand years later..... we'll be sitting in front of our computers again asking the same questions.

[rez]

Quote by: Praxius Without the order we have now, we would probably be just like other primates, with the strongest of the pack being the leader, and hunting in groups...... other groups would fight other groups for territory, food and women...... back to the stone ages we'll go.

Exactly how is this any different from today?

If a human decided to take what they want from the weaker human, the weaker human will team up with other weaker humans and organize against the stronger human, forming organizations and packs

What is wrong with that?

[rez]

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.

What are "personal rights"? Did nature give these rights to humans or were they invented by humans? If nature gave these rights to humans who exactly should interrupt what nature gave humans?

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.

William James took the opposite view of you. He said that animals may be ruled by instincts, but humans are ruled by more instincts. This thread was designed to make the natural seem strange.

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.

Quote by: William James In other words, our modern skulls house a stone age mind. The key to understanding how the modern mind works is to realize that its circuits were not designed to solve the day-to-day problems of a modern American -- they were designed to solve the day-to-day problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

[Osborn F Enready]

One doesn't necessarily have to ascribe to a "previous" theory to recognize natural rights.

I find a lot of good points in Hobbes theory, but it doesn't match my observation of natural rights, nor would I ascribe to it as doctrine.

My brief description of natural rights, as observed by nature.
(note, when saying "all people" below, I am talking about the natural form with exception to those born with mental or physical deficiency.)

(also note, I have done several compilations of this common sense theory, and this post contains none of my reference materials, its off the top of my head for point of expression.)

The natural right to self-ownership:
*All people are born with an ability for reason, and applying logic, therefore we have a right to self ownership based on free-will, and the historicly observed human nature of resistance to unjust authority.
The natural right to property:
*All people are born with a natural requirement of food and water and shelter for existence, therefore all people have the right to obtain property to the extent they can obtain and defend of free-will, legally or otherwise if law doesn't exist or refuses to recognize property.
The natural right to free-speech:
*All people are born with an ability to communicate, based on their ability to reason and convert it to action and or verbal communication of free-will, therefore all people have a right to free thought, free speech, free voluntary exchange of information.
The natural right to life, and its defense:
*All people are born "mortal", and all people quest to survive once birthed, as their very life depends on it through individual labor, therfore all people have a right to defense of that life, and the lives of their loved ones, by any means justifiable(equal and opposite) by tangible threat to life or liberty.
The natural right to free-will barter of labor:
*All people are born with an ability to labor, for ones own needs, or for others, therefore all people are born with a right to "free-will" barter their labor for self, goods, services or property.
The natural right to form,partake, or be seperate from free-will collectives:
*All people are born with both "collective and individual" tendencies, therefore all people have the right to create and attend "free-will" collectives or become individuals in the truest sense of the word, outside society or its privlidges, unaffected by society, based on their "means" to effect such with respect for equal right of their peers, and self, mutually.
The natural right to freedom of belief, bound by the natural world:
*All people are born into the natural world, limited by the natural world as we know it, as expressed in Sciences universal languages. Based on that, all people have the right to aspire to any religion, or lack of religion, should they so choose, realizing of course that the natural world dictates our laws on earth as far as natural man can observe, and it is only logical to assume that the common conclusion from nature and all observed and recorded forms of religion that, man, the individual, is responsible for their own choice to observe creation in their own way, and celebrate such in their own way, with equal respect to peers same common rights.
The natural right to privacy in person and property:
*All people are born with a necessity of privacy, to indvidually different levels of discretion, therefore all people are born with a right to privacy in property and person to the effect their means can provide, as well as to the effect they defend, regardless of laws of society.
The natural right to life once birthed:
*All people are born individuals, once seperated from mother at birth.


These are all of the top of my head, and not all inclusive, but clearly common sense in my opinion.

[Praxius]

[quote=rez;341387]Exactly how is this any different from today?[quote]

It's not.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing. I was just explaining that if you threw us back into the stone age way of life without order, we'd end up making order in some fasion or another anyways..... survival so to speak. You can't survive on your own.... well.... it's harder.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: You can't survive on your own.... well.... it's harder.

Some people can, and they have that natural right to do so.

[sdbest]

There are no "natural" rights. Rights are a political artifact of human societies. This can be demonstrated by considering an environment where no humans exist. In such a place, no rights--of the notion generally accepted by humans--exist. Given that all rights are human constructs, elevating some to "natural" rights is a form of propaganda. No different than the claims and appeals to God and the Creator made in the US Declaration of Independence (for rich white men).

This is not to argue that human rights are not a good thing.

Regards
S.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez What are "personal rights"? Did nature give these rights to humans or were they invented by humans? If nature gave these rights to humans who exactly should interrupt what nature gave humans? I am not sure if "rights" were given by anything, be it nature or a Creator. But some behaviorisms are self evident. We can observe nature and take note that nearly all animals and birds (of higher intelligence) have a habit of protecting their truf from other animals, although flight is sometimes an option for a fight. Female animals often protect their off spring form danger. Some might call that a "right to self defense" but it is not about rights at all, it is about protecting your self and family and what you need so that you can survive and not be distroyed - so that you do not become a "happy meal" for some other animals or creature to enjoy. It is an impulsive reaction. Nature is about consuming and being consumed, and so to suggest that you have a nature or god given right to protect your self when attacked is two sided, because under that system all other creatures have the right to eat you for supper, just like you also have the right to eat food to stay alive. Which is not a right, it is a matter of fact. Not an interpretation but a reality. So you can fight or take flight as determined by how your spiecies evolved. And you can eat and consume and build your "house" as a nest or as a hole in the ground, or whatever, and you can try to protect it from intruders. But that is different then some "right to own property" which is a man made concept that involves money, banks, deeds (paperwork) and other "un-natural" contracts and lawyers. An animal does not really "own" the land where it builds it's dwelling place. If you wanted to chop down a tree in your yard the bird that has a nest in that tree would have no legal foundation to stop you from distroying it's "house". Legal rights are a kind of imaginary rule that we have created as human beings but they are not the same thing as what we can witness in nature. Animals do not own property, they "proclaim it and then must defend that claim" by force - by fang and claw - not by going to a courtroom of "justice". Nature could care less about the concepts we call "justice". By the same token a crow does not know that you own that corn field and they will fly right down and eat the corn as they please, unless you physically stand by and defend it by killing the crow or by scaring it away. Where-as if some hobo or homeless person ate your corn you could have them arrested for violating your "rights" to own that food supply. The difference is that a hobo knows that a farmer has property rights under law and a crow does not have a clue, no animal feels bound to respect the 'ownership rights" of other animals, if a dog "marks" it's truf it is just a warning but their are no rules enforced by nature to back up that claim. God will not punish a dog for violating another dogs truf. Sniff sniff all you want, you will not find evidence of any "superpower" that is enforcing any of those so-called natural rights. If an animals claims a right they must do their own defending of that right. Or run for the hills - or be distroyed as is sometimes the case. William James took the opposite view of you. He said that animals may be ruled by instincts, but humans are ruled by more instincts. This thread was designed to make the natural seem strange.

William James is a well respected person of philosophy, and he has added much to our resource of knowledge. The natural is not strange, but the concept of natural rights might be so, as I am not sure if an instinct is a "given right". Or a "evolved right" for that matter. Again, nature does not have money and banks and deeds and lawyers and courtrooms of justice. Humans do. We have created a different kind of "paperwork" environment that animals might find a bit amusing if they could even fabric such a notion.
Do we really think that Mother Nature in her wisdom created the "Consitution of the United Kingdom and a Bill of Rights" for the birds? And that humans then used that to create our own Consitution of the United States and our bill of rights? Because we felt it was self evident that this is how nature should operate under the control of a Creator who might enforce such concepts for which religions often advocate? A little bit yes, and a lotta bit no.

Instinct is not a right or the enforcer of rights, it offers no choice of free will for a animal anyway. Nature is not a government and it will not rescue those who feel their rights are being violated. If a mountian lion attacks a human we can call in the police who will kill the lion and to protect our rights to be safe in our own backyards, but if that mountain lion kills a deer, the deer would have no right to ask God or Mother Nature to take revenge or to protect it in it's own field of grass. Because in nature everything has a right to violate your rights just as you have the right to defend those rights, which are not actually rights in the legal sense of the word.

[Fonceai]

I'm also of the opinion that people don't have a "right" to anything.

In nature, and I mean purely animal-like nature, there is no such thing as a "right".

[Technosoul]

As for the right of free speech in the animal world, well, the neighbor has this tiny dog that yaps all day and night at just about anything it sees. I wish it would shut the hell up. I should petition Mother Nature to remove the "right to bark freely" that dogs now enjoy with a new law "no barking after 10 O'clock at night". It is violating my right to a good nights rest.

Who ever gave that mutt the right to bark bark bark should be removed form office right away. And that goes for some of the birds that chrip all night, the crickets and bullfrogs are okay, but some of the critters are causing a lot of noise polution, like that tom cat that is always making racket getting into fights and "singing" on the backfense. And then we got those wind blasts that come roaring through here, the wind can make lots of noise and us humans cannot get our much need snooze because it comes right onto our property to cause a runkus, where are my property rights and why is President Bush not doing something about that? eh? Where are our "natural rights" to own property when a hurricane blows our house away, eh? My lawyer is trying to serve the Creator notice but they are not returning his call. No justice in that!

I only have one right, to gripe about it, so..... bark bark bark. Hmm. that felt better, perhaps the doggie next door is not so stupid after all.

Wake up America. bark bark bark, before it is too late.

[Osborn F Enready]

There are indeed natural rights, its simply a matter of if you observe them, accept them as they are, and recognize them in society or not.

To violate any of the issues I mentioned above, in my post listing rights, you must use some type of force.

If you justify the use of force for yourself or your own ideals, you have to be willing to justify it against you, or its simply unrealistic, since we're all different.

If you justify the use of force for ideals, outside of defense of those rights, you are admitting you lend credance to or aspire to "survival of the fittest", which is usually what people like that are trying to "deny" by their use of force.

[Ken Carman]

"Hobbes suggested that without government humans existed in a 'state of nature.'"

False. We are all part of "nature." "State of" is redundant, at best. Governments are made up of people, so governments are part of nature.

"This state of nature, consequently made humans brutish and evil."

And governments aren't?

"He thought that without a social authority humans had the right to take whatever from whomever."

Social authority often takes the stand it has a right to take whatever from whomever. Humans need to organize so as to protect themselves and improve their lot. That's how government starts. But evenb without some authority an authority eventually develops. In reality, humans need to both organize to protect and improve, and defend themselves from the very organizing efforts that screw up. Our forefathers had a good sense of this when in the Constitution they included that all rights not mentioned belong to the people.

"This way of thinking caused him to think that people in a state of nature should give up control to a strong central authority to provide rules for humans."

And this has been used by some of the most oppressive regimes in history to excuse their excesses. There's a false separation here between government and people. The assumption is that there will be some control to give up if there is no central authority. There will always be one, in reality, whether it's formulated by those attempting to create a society that's free, or grabbed by those whose interest is in gaining power for themselves at the expense of the governed. Some governments are more "centralized" than others. But centralization neither increases freedom, or necessarily destroys it. Depends upon who is in charge. Larger can mean more imposing, but smaller doesn't always mean less so.

"Hobbes constructed a set of nine laws within his book Leviathan giving humans natural rights and the ways they should act upon them."

Got link to these laws?

"Should humans sacrifice their 'natural rights' to preserve these rights?"

I find "natural rights" a meaningless phrase. We are either allowed the right, given the right, or it is taken from us. Then the assumption is you're giving up rights to preserve rights. Nonsense. Your giving up rights because someone wants power over you. Given certain examples, yes, the state should have power over us if we murder someone. No right should be absolute. But considering other "rights"... no way in hell.

(Also, I wonder about Hobbes. Did he get Calvin's approval first??? Chuckle.)

[Athena]

Quote by: rez Hobbes suggested that without government humans existed in a "state of nature". This state of nature, consequently made humans brutish and evil. He thought that without a social authority humans had the right to take whatever from whomever. This way of thinking caused him to think that people in a state of nature should give up control to a strong central authority to provide rules for humans. Hobbes constructed a set of nine laws within his book Leviathan giving humans natural rights and the ways they should act upon them. Was Hobbes reasoning sound? Why or why not? Should humans sacrifice their "natural rights" to preserve these rights?

I like some of the things that Hobbes said, but on this one, he obviously didn't have the research necessary to make such a statement. He is wrong.
Try watching the movie The Gods Must Crazy. It gives a fair representation of primitive people. In a natural state with an adequate food supply, humans are very caring of each other. In extreme cases of inadequate food supply, humans do not do so well. Not that they become brutish with each other, but men and women may separate to avoid sexual contact, and mothers may become passive about allowing their babies to starve to death when they have gone hungry for so long, they stop crying.

However, city life is not natural. It is not natural for such large numbers of people to live together that they do not know each other. When everyone knows each other, social order is maintained informally. Not until there are too many of us to know each other, do we advanced to formal laws and with an authority above all.

[Athena]

Quote by: Ken Carman False. We are all part of "nature." "State of" is redundant, at best. Governments are made up of people, so governments are part of nature. And governments aren't? Social authority often takes the stand it has a right to take whatever from whomever. Humans need to organize so as to protect themselves and improve their lot. That's how government starts. But evenb without some authority an authority eventually develops. In reality, humans need to both organize to protect and improve, and defend themselves from the very organizing efforts that screw up. Our forefathers had a good sense of this when in the Constitution they included that all rights not mentioned belong to the people. And this has been used by some of the most oppressive regimes in history to excuse their excesses. There's a false separation here between government and people. The assumption is that there will be some control to give up if there is no central authority. There will always be one, in reality, whether it's formulated by those attempting to create a society that's free, or grabbed by those whose interest is in gaining power for themselves at the expense of the governed. Some governments are more "centralized" than others. But centralization neither increases freedom, or necessarily destroys it. Depends upon who is in charge. Larger can mean more imposing, but smaller doesn't always mean less so. Got link to these laws? I find "natural rights" a meaningless phrase. We are either allowed the right, given the right, or it is taken from us. Then the assumption is you're giving up rights to preserve rights. Nonsense. Your giving up rights because someone wants power over you. Given certain examples, yes, the state should have power over us if we murder someone. No right should be absolute. But considering other "rights"... no way in hell. (Also, I wonder about Hobbes. Did he get Calvin's approval first??? Chuckle.)

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.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ken said: False. We are all part of "nature." "State of" is redundant, at best. Governments are made up of people, so governments are part of nature.

Not true.

Pecking order is natural, the means collectives use to arrive at that pecking order is not. All beings that "socialize" or form "society" or "collectives" have a pecking order. Governments are constructs of society to "formalize" the method of arriving at that pecking order.

Everything in the natural world not made by man, is natural. Everything that is made of natural components, assembled and designed by man are man-made, or modified nature, "synthetic".

Ken said: And governments aren't?

Governments are force, at the behest of a collective. The larger the collective(assuming by larger we mean more population with potential to "donate, tax, extort, enslave" for the claimed "greater good" of the day), the larger the force, the larger the wars between collectives.

The secret to effective and efficient government are clear limitation to the protection of rights with force, as opposed to the usurpation of rights with force, domestically or internationally.

Seeing two people fight with fists, clubs, swords, guns is the small version of watching two nations fight in the names of their people using fists, clubs, swords or guns.

What is better, 2 men fighting, or ....

2 million men fighting in the name of their nations, under orders of 2 men using 2 mens competing ideologies as the basis for war?

The smaller government is, the less harmful it is to man in general.
The more independent people are, the smaller government need be.

Ken said: Social authority often takes the stand it has a right to take whatever from whomever. Humans need to organize so as to protect themselves and improve their lot. That's how government starts. But evenb without some authority an authority eventually develops. In reality, humans need to both organize to protect and improve, and defend themselves from the very organizing efforts that screw up. Our forefathers had a good sense of this when in the Constitution they included that all rights not mentioned belong to the people.

Well, they actually said to the States, or people respectively. Regardless, no state had the right to pass laws that violated the rights of individuals without due process by a jury of their peers, which held the right to nullify based on individual cases and circumstances.

I will say that I think if more people rejected the system as it is, by voting out BOTH major parties, we would see change. The problem is too many people being tricked into being dependent on government, not knowing that the privatized alternative would be cheaper in almost all cases, as well as better and more efficient.

Insurance didn't used to be expensive until the government started mandating it, much like police, fire and health care insurance now provided by the state or fed.

We are attempting to remove the reality of nature from our kids, in protection of their comfort, feelings and "other peoples" individually perceived moral judgements. We attempt to be there for every skinned knee, from birth to death, social programs to care for those who CAN care for themselves, but won't. We are attempting to legally remove the cost of nature, to life, which is impossible, impractical and will lead to our doom, by our own means or out of uprising from others who refuse to be witness to such or exploit it.

Feel-gooders, Moral extremists, special intrests and corporate lobbyists are removing the rights of the people, through unconstitutional laws, built on bad precedent.




Back on original topic.... natural rights.....

Natural Rights are a natural respect for "ability".
Its an "admission" of humanity, in a means to cooperation as opposed to force, based on "common threads", or "ties that bind".

[shunyadragon]

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.

Hobbs is a bit out of date as far as behavior models for animals and primative human societies. Rape does not likely exist much outside of the primate world, and within that it could unlikely be the governing rule. In fact withi many if not most animal societies the female desides who she shall select as a mate and mate with. In others their may be only one dominante male, but females are rarely reluctant companions in heirachial animal societies because mating means survival of the species.

The more recent archeological evidence indicates that Neolithic societies were not as brutish, cold or evil as we used to think. In fact burial remains of elderly members of these societies show heald bones and apparent care to live as long as they did. Our apparently brutish societies today may be worse than some ancient Neolithic societies. From what we know know, heirarchial societies with order and laws are the general rule in primative human societies, other primate societies, and other many animal societies.

[Fonceai]

I would suggest that it's easier to adhere to a sense of "natural" morals and ethics (care for children and elderly) when you have a simpler way of life.

I think the introduction of luxury and wealth adds a negative dynamic.

A simple "we live to survive" society where the days are spent preparing food or clothing (think Fearless and Last Samurai) make it easier to take in the elderly, who have worked and earned their keep.

[Athena]

Quote by: shunyadragon Hobbs is a bit out of date as far as behavior models for animals and primative human societies. Rape does not likely exist much outside of the primate world, and within that it could unlikely be the governing rule. In fact withi many if not most animal societies the female desides who she shall select as a mate and mate with. In others their may be only one dominante male, but females are rarely reluctant companions in heirachial animal societies because mating means survival of the species. The more recent archeological evidence indicates that Neolithic societies were not as brutish, cold or evil as we used to think. In fact burial remains of elderly members of these societies show heald bones and apparent care to live as long as they did. Our apparently brutish societies today may be worse than some ancient Neolithic societies. From what we know know, heirarchial societies with order and laws are the general rule in primative human societies, other primate societies, and other many animal societies.

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.