Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Natural rights are those rights that are ours simply by virtue of our existence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
I'm not trying to split hairs with you, but I don't believe any of those things are "natural rights." In fact, I don't believe there's any such thing as "natural rights." Nobody has a "right" to live. You may not have the "right" to kill somebody else, but there aren't any guarantees as regards life itself. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are concepts invented by human beings, and there again, if you have a "right" to either one, it's because you live in a country where the laws say so. There's nothing natural about that.
If you think about it, you don't even have the "right" to breathe. You do it because it's a biological function, not because of some sort of guarantee.
American thinking always includes (drum roll) 'the Creator".
Which why Americans are groups trying to secure more rights for their group and less for others. As if civil rights is a limited commodity.
I'm not trying to split hairs with you, but I don't believe any of those things are "natural rights." In fact, I don't believe there's any such thing as "natural rights." Nobody has a "right" to live. You may not have the "right" to kill somebody else, but there aren't any guarantees as regards life itself. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are concepts invented by human beings, and there again, if you have a "right" to either one, it's because you live in a country where the laws say so. There's nothing natural about that.
If you think about it, you don't even have the "right" to breathe. You do it because it's a biological function, not because of some sort of guarantee.
Split hairs are a tough thing and need to be cut off...your thought process means humans are subjects to be controlled by a ruling class/person/object. If that is the case we are all screwed.
I am not saying we don't have areas where that theory is in effect, that humans are subject to something/someone else, but that thought process also opens the door for sexism, racism, etc, etc...think about the ramifications of your thought process.
By having certain human rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) that closes the door on any of those "ism's" because humans were all made equally free and able to pursue our own dreams.
Notice, the US has included in there (among other things) the right to healthcare recently, and in the 60's we included a retirement and healthcare for elderly; we have also included unemployment insurance, money for poor, and public education through high school as "rights". But these latter "rights" were man-given rights, able to be taken away at any moment. Big difference to natural rights and given rights.
One last thing...the natural instinct for humans to breathe is the same as the natural right for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is inate in us, we are made to breathe, just as we are made to be free. When someone steps on our freedom, it is the same as that person putting a plastic bag over your head and suffocating you. Without breath, we die. Without freedom, we might as well be beasts of burden (what many slave holders felt of their slaves) subject to the whims and will of the person ruling us. Freedom is life, it is as natural as breathing for us. That is why life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are called natural rights.
Last edited by stuckinbalad; 08-18-2010 at 12:32 PM..
These discussions always take a zero sum approach to every issue, which is unfortunate because there are salient points to both sides of the issue.
Man made rights are not immutable and over time have given impetus for amendment, or eradication. So where does that impetus come from other than some innate sense of justice ie., natural right. Yet for an orderly society to exist there has to be some consensus that those natural rights are rational, justified, and as a result, in the best interest of the society. Once these natural rights have been accepted, they then can be codified as man made rights. Neither has an inherent superiority over the other but without either we would cease to exist in civilized societies.
Last edited by ovcatto; 08-18-2010 at 12:39 PM..
Reason: For clarity
Neither has an inherent superiority over the other but without either we would cease to exist in civilized societies.
I must differ on that point. The fact that all humans possess natural rights inherently makes natural rights superior over man-given/lawful rights.
By your reasoning, you are saying the Taliban law which states women must subject themselves to men is equivalent to the right to liberty, or that without said law that the Middle east would collapse?
There are certain areas where I would agree that laws are a good thing helping to tie civilizations together, but in this point I beg to differ.
Yes, if we are nothing but the glorified product of Pond Scum which arrived from accidental DEAD chemicals and magically worked its way up to a 206 bone human being having some 60 major anatomical systems all working collaboratively so we can live....there is no intrinsic worth or dignity in any human being . Fortunately, atheist scientists themselves calculate the desperate philosophy of abiogenesis at 10x40,000 th power probability and macro evolution at 1 in over 4,000,000 chance probability. So rest assured your great ancestor didnt swing from a tree and you are very special , have intrinsic worth and dignity, and should have full respect from your fellow man for your inalienable rights ; the trouble is, they think and act like they are forest animals too making Rodney Dangerfields mantra ring true :
'I just cant get no respect' . The only way of making peoples basic human rights stick, is to get beyond Man being the Determiner.
Yet god is conspicuously absent in the real world... so if there is a god, how do we know what "rights" he/she/it grants us?
Well, the answer is through real human people who claim to be in contact with god. Said folks also claim their flock is the "chosen" one, and that people with different ideas are "heathens, barbarians, and sinners"...or in other words: NOT people entitiled to the same "rights" at worst and unworthy "others" at best.
Good luck with that whole "get beyond man as the determiner" thing...we've tried that for 10,000 years and it has yet to work for all of us.
Yet god is conspicuously absent in the real world... so if there is a god, how do we know what "rights" he/she/it grants us?
Well, the answer is through real human people who claim to be in contact with god. Said folks also claim their flock is the "chosen" one, and that people with different ideas are "heathens, barbarians, and sinners"...or in other words: NOT people entitiled to the same "rights" at worst and unworthy "others" at best.
Good luck with that whole "get beyond man as the determiner" thing...we've tried that for 10,000 years and it has yet to work for all of us.
Only certain religions will say their people are the "chosen ones" and able to receive their god-given rights while all other humans are not able to receive the same rights.
Not all religions are the same, don't fall on the devil's myth that all religions are the same.
My problem with the concept of natural rights is that because of their amorphous nature they can mean "different rights to different people". A few illustrations may be useful:
1. In a Muslim Country, men might claim the natural rights to force women into arranged marriages or to beat them. Their religious leaders would affirm that under the Koran this is a "natural or God-given right".
2. In India, religious figures might claim that it is "God-given" that people born into a certain caste must occupy certain low rungs on the economic ladder of life.
3. Another person might claim its his natural right to kill his wife when she commits an act like adultery. After all, the Old Testament makes adultery punishable by death.
4. A section of our country used the Bible and natural rights to defend slavery. Our Constitution as originally written subtly accepted slavery by references like "3/5's of all other persons".
My point is not to argue whether natural rights exist or do not exist. I would say its not a very helpful or useful concept if it does exist. The reason we need written laws--instead of natural rights--in our country is because its much harder to argue over the rights that written laws either grant or deny individuals.
If people want to get all weepy and goo-eyed over their "God given rights" that's fine with me. Don't start telling me though that you and your church have a monopoly on determining what those rights may be. I have just as good an idea as you do, thank you very much.
My problem with the concept of natural rights is that because of their amorphous nature they can mean "different rights to different people". A few illustrations may be useful:
1. In a Muslim Country, men might claim the natural rights to force women into arranged marriages or to beat them. Their religious leaders would affirm that under the Koran this is a "natural or God-given right".
2. In India, religious figures might claim that it is "God-given" that people born into a certain caste must occupy certain low rungs on the economic ladder of life.
3. Another person might claim its his natural right to kill his wife when she commits an act like adultery. After all, the Old Testament makes adultery punishable by death.
4. A section of our country used the Bible and natural rights to defend slavery. Our Constitution as originally written subtly accepted slavery by references like "3/5's of all other persons".
My point is not to argue whether natural rights exist or do not exist. I would say its not a very helpful or useful concept if it does exist. The reason we need written laws--instead of natural rights--in our country is because its much harder to argue over the rights that written laws either grant or deny individuals.
If people want to get all weepy and goo-eyed over their "God given rights" that's fine with me. Don't start telling me though that you and your church have a monopoly on determining what those rights may be. I have just as good an idea as you do, thank you very much.
I think it is fairly obvious to everyone reading that those examples are grossly in opposite to the inalienable rights which we hold to be true.
Another way of putting God-given human rights would be "universal-rights". Does that right equally apply to you as it does to me. In your examples it clearly does not.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit (key word there) of happiness...I think I can universally apply those to anyone I would come across.
Remember, rights do not guarantee results. The right to live does not mean we will live forever. The pursuit of happiness does not mean we acheive it. But we should all be free to venture there.
I must differ on that point. The fact that all humans possess natural rights inherently makes natural rights superior over man-given/lawful rights.
First you have to establish specifically what those natural rights are and secondly they must be universally accepted and inherently recognized.
Quote:
By your reasoning, you are saying the Taliban law which states women must subject themselves to men is equivalent to the right to liberty, or that without said law that the Middle east would collapse?
My reasoning or your presupposition, that is the problem with the zero sum approach. Anyway, as for your question, what is liberty in an, for lack of a better word, primitive culture? The right to starve, to not reproduce, to live without security of any kind? Examine the evolution of human societies, divisions of labor, and the anthropological history of both Western and non-western cultures that are patriarchal in nature before asking that question. Then we can talk.
Quote:
There are certain areas where I would agree that laws are a good thing helping to tie civilizations together, but in this point I beg to differ.
If you had really read my comments you would find that there is nothing to disagree about. The reason why, we view the subjugation of women in Afghanistan as unnatural, or just plain wrong isn't because we woke up some morning, looked around and said, "That's a violation of natural law!" We, and I mean western nations, have come to see this as a denial of basic human rights because of our own evolutionary transformation. After all, the "subjugation" or at the very least subordination of women in our own societies is not exactly ancient history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
