I'll Give 9001$ to the Man Who Proves Natural Rights

[Sockem]

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.

[Thanatos]

I have the natural right to beat up people smaller than I am. Its true; it is inherent in my nature and the laws of logic that people of lesser stature are inferior and meant to do what I say. Unless maybe they have a pointy stick or something

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.

[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.

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.

So there is no contradiction when Jefferson said that we are endowed with inalienable (and natural) rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 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.

And the only reason he referred to God is because the Theory of Evolution didn't exist yet. I'm sure we could replace God with Natural Law, or something of the same effect, and it would make perfect modern sense.

Jefferson's logic isn't fallacious... he correctly analyzed human nature and effectively argued for the implementation of a social contract concerning these rights, rights that he felt were overwhelmingly being abridged by the countries of the day.

[Compugasm]

I'll Give 9001$ to the Man Who Proves Natural Rights

This information is worth more than $9001. You can do better than that.

[dan4reason]

What an interesting you brought up sockem! I do not know what you mean by rights. Pratically people should not rule over the rights of others. He calls this right because he i religious. Ynow, you go to heaven if you're good, and if you are bad, well...., goodbye. In a naturalistic sense there are two kinds of right. Selfish and selfless. Selfish is when you try to make yourself as happy as possible over your life. Selfless can be defined in many ways. Seflessness to country, world, community, etc. This is when you try to do what makes your opject of selflessness as happy as possible over a long period of time. If you are an atheist selflessness, works, if religious, it might still work.

[ironeagle]

I will give you a million dollars if you can prove difinitively we do not have inate rights.

[dan4reason]

What do you mean by inate rights? Do they have to be rigid rule, or do you mean a universal constant?

[knvb8]

Natural Rights is walking into the woods at night, with no tools or clothing and living there. The mosquitos will whisper you the truth. Those are the laws that govern all life on earth.

[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.

[domio760]

Quote by: Sockem 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.

Well, natural rights cannot be proven. Only justified. Instead of looking at these as rights, try to view them as privileges.

For example:
You are granted the privilege of life until you take someone elses away unjustifiably (e.i. self-defense/to defend one who cannot defend themself, etc.) Once you have done this, you can no longer justify your own 'right' to life for you have stripped away that of another.

[grandpa]

Quote by: domio760 Well, natural rights cannot be proven. Only justified.

They can be justified from within, as rights are a matter of perception.

Grandpa h.

[domio760]

Quote by: grandpa They can be justified from within, as rights are a matter of perception. Grandpa h.

Exactly.

I, personally, believe that as a human being my life has value. That value grants me certain rights.The freedom to express myself, define myself, and pursue a happy and full life.

[barts]

Quote by: ironeagle I will give you a million dollars if you can prove difinitively we do not have inate rights.

The proof that you have no innate rights is that if you were stranded alone on a deserted island, the notion of rights becomes meaningless. Anything that becomes meaningless merely because of change of place means the rights you profess are non-existent, in the absence of other people, and therefore not innate.

[dan4reason]

I think that we must have a set of rules to determine "rites". These rules create order. We must allow variation between these rules so we can aim at what is best. The best thing is to let people live their lives in the way they think best. Do not let them trample on other's rights. I think that a right is more like a privlage granted to you by the community. If you make a negative effect on the community, they are taken away. The only universal constant for society as a whole is happiness. Everthing else can be measured from that.

[Sockem]

Quote by: barts The proof that you have no innate rights is that if you were stranded alone on a deserted island, the notion of rights becomes meaningless. Anything that becomes meaningless merely because of change of place means the rights you profess are non-existent, in the absence of other people, and therefore not innate.

Exactly!

[Nocebo]

Quote by: Sockem An individual cannot define a right. Rights are only given by governments.

What came first, the individual or the government? Individuals are the prime mover. They are the first cause. We create our own rights, together, and agreeably, because we are all alike... See social contract. Only then do they become enforced by our institutions.

Quote by: Sockem Yes, inalienable does mean that:

inalienable only means that it can't be alienated, or removed. human nature is our essence, by definition, so it can't be removed. it is inalienable, and so are our rights it procures.


Natural rights are rights "given" to us by our nature, and institutionalized by the social contract. Rights are:
1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval


Jefferson's concept of an inalienable and natural right didn't depend on the concept of God. It didn't even depend on God giving us our human nature, which he believed (and which has been proven false). But it does depend on our human nature being inalienable. It is. It does depend on rights arising from our nature, which they do. We all want to live instead of die, we all want to be free instead of constrained, and we all want to pursue happiness instead of sadness. That is our nature. That is our essence.

Our nature is inalienable. Our universal human nature gives us our rights through the social contract.

These rights are both natural and inalienable. 9001$ please....

[Nocebo]

Quote by: barts Anything that becomes meaningless merely because of change of place means the rights you profess are non-existent

That's like saying our disposition to help people isn't innate because, if there were no people, the disposition would be meaningless.

The existence of a right does depend on a society, but that doesn't preclude it from having a causal link to our nature.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Nocebo That's like saying our disposition to help people isn't innate because, if there were no people, the disposition would be meaningless. The concept of a right is innate, in the context of a social setting.

From what I have read, seen and experienced in life, rights are not "innate." They have to be learned over time, through experience and awareness. An infant, for example, will not have a well-organized concept of rights. It may cry if it is not fed or taken care of, but I don't think that would be intelligently understood by the child as a right. This is not to say the plight of an infant is without merit, of course. One should perceive the right of that infant to eat, even if it cannot do so for itself. That is called social consciousnesss, which is not entirely innate.

Grandpa h.

[barts]

Quote by: Nocebo That's like saying our disposition to help people isn't innate because, if there were no people, the disposition would be meaningless. The existence of a right does depend on a society, but that doesn't preclude it from having a causal link to our nature.

If there were no people other than yourself, how would you know if you had a disposition to help other people?

[Sockem]

Quote by: Nocebo What came first, the individual or the government? Individuals are the prime mover. They are the first cause. We create our own rights, together, and agreeably, because we are all alike... See social contract. Only then do they become enforced by our institutions.

Tell that to Hitlers, Stalins, and every other dictators regime. Humans are not inherently good. Not every government is a democracy. Not every person has a say. You're just being idealistic.