Natural Rights

Free discussion of anything human or divine ~ Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality

Moderators: Xar, Fist and Faith

User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Natural Rights

Post by Fist and Faith »

So then... Mighara Sovmadhi and paulcoz claim there is something called "natural rights". Would you guys care to make your case? Start at the beginning, eh? What's the first step in your chain of thought. Let's see who agrees with that first step.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
deer of the dawn
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6758
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Jos, Nigeria
Contact:

Post by deer of the dawn »

Just my $.02. In nature, the only "right" is to survive. Which means that you have the right to exist and your right supersedes all others', unless (and only to the degree which) your existence depends on theirs.

But I believe there is an unseen realm and a personal God, so that changes the whole thing. I am curious to know what this "natural rights" thing is about, too. The online dictionary definition refers to "inalienable rights", which sounds very US Constitutionish; the phrase there reads "endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with... inalienable rights..." so I wonder what the basis is, if not belief in a personal God.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle. -Philo of Alexandria

ahhhh... if only all our creativity in wickedness could be fixed by "Corrupt a Wish." - Linna Heartlistener
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Yes, deer, those are my thoughts about the online things I've seen. I'll likely argue for many of the same things paulcoz and Mighara Sovmadhi do when we talk about how I think we should all behave. But that's the legal rights I would enact, and a very different thing from whether or not everybody automatically has rights of any sort. Words like "inalienable" and "self-evident" are everywhere, but they don't really mean anything. Some people believe they are inalienable and self-evident, and others do not.

And yes, I'm sure the basis of rights for many is God. Of course, different people in the world believe in a different God (or god, or gods), and disagree over which rights that being endows us with. Even many people who believe in the same God disagree, even violently, about it.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

I'll wait until we get at least a definition I think. Don't want to skew things pre-emptively. ;)

--A
paulcoz
Ramen
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:29 am
Location: Australia

Post by paulcoz »

Guys, if you create a thread called 'Are there objective moral truths?' and ask whether appeals to natural rights, moral rights, equality, justice and other such concepts can be anything other than subjective claims, I'll contribute when I have time.

However, if those participating in the thread do not agree to be rational forget it. That means acknowledging logical arguments, even if we don't agree with the implications of those arguments.

I clarified my position in the Tank thread, re: moral rights. Please confirm my position.

Peter Singer, from onthehuman.org/2011/02/taking-life-animals/ :
Jan Narveson doesn’t think humane slaughter laws are justifiable. He thinks we have no obligations to future generations. In this, he is at least consistent, for these are the logical consequences of the view that morality is a contract and we only have moral obligations to beings who can reciprocate. And no doubt for the same reason, and with equal consistency, he would not see any need for laws regulating the conditions under which we slaughter people with profound intellectual disabilities, should we wish to eat them or use them for research, as long as they have no capacity to reciprocate, and do not have relatives who care about them and are capable of reciprocating.

Since I’m no great fan of resting our moral theories on commonly accepted intuitions, I do not regard the above as refuting a consistent contractarian view. But in the comment above, Narveson relies on a confusion to make his view seem more plausible than it really is. He says that people are “entitled” to their preferences or have “a perfect right” to them. That seems to be an attempt to win over those who believe in freedom of thought; but if it is, it muddles political and legal rights with the issue of philosophical justification for a moral theory. In the political and legal system that I support, Narveson has a right to say that there is no strong evidence that our continued emissions of greenhouse gases will change the climate of our planet.

Nevertheless, if he does say that, he will be saying something that is untrue. There is a fact of the matter here, and he has got it wrong. The interesting philosophical question is whether the same applies to moral judgments. People have a right to say that a world in which billions of animals suffer greatly is just as good as an otherwise identical world in which very few animals suffer. But if they do say that, is there a fact of the matter that they have got wrong? That’s too big a question for me to answer here, but I recommend those interested in this deep question to read Derek Parfit’s major work, On What Matters, which is scheduled to be published next month by Oxford University Press. Parfit argues for an affirmative answer to the question I just asked, and from now on, any serious discussion of whether there are objective moral truths, independently of what reciprocating beings may prefer, will have to take his arguments into account.
Last edited by paulcoz on Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
_________
Paulcoz.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

The Tank thread got all messed up. As usually happens. Nobody's fault. No harm, no foul. "Do they exist legally?" "Should they exist legally?" "Why should they exist legally?" Trying to find the essence of what I'm talking about here amongst all that is not easy. Legal ideas is more the Tank than the Close, so I figured we could discuss the other aspects here, starting over, with "What is this idea of 'natural rights' that paul and MS are talking about?" What I've read so far is that they're "self-evident", "inalienable", and agreed upon by various people. I don't see any definitions. And, though they're clearly-seen, I haven't seen a list of what they are.

I think this is a fairly rational approach to the topic. As is my thinking that, since you're the one (or one of the two) trying to convince many of us of the existence of something that we do not think exists, it has to be you who gets the ball rolling.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Cybrweez
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4804
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Jamesburg, NJ

Post by Cybrweez »

If we're only talking natural, the only right is might. Because that's the only thing that can be practical. You can think anything is a right you want, but if you can't enforce such a right, who cares? The US founders had an idea of rights, but if the British won, they'd all be hanged.
--Andy

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
User avatar
Cail
Lord
Posts: 38981
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:36 am
Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners

Post by Cail »

Cybrweez wrote:If we're only talking natural, the only right is might. Because that's the only thing that can be practical. You can think anything is a right you want, but if you can't enforce such a right, who cares? The US founders had an idea of rights, but if the British won, they'd all be hanged.
Exactly. Natural rights pretty much amount to a collection of nice ideas which get codified into law.....Sometimes, and usually with exceptions (which, of course, makes them privileges, not rights).
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5904
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Cail wrote:
Cybrweez wrote:If we're only talking natural, the only right is might. Because that's the only thing that can be practical. You can think anything is a right you want, but if you can't enforce such a right, who cares? The US founders had an idea of rights, but if the British won, they'd all be hanged.
Exactly. Natural rights pretty much amount to a collection of nice ideas which get codified into law.....Sometimes, and usually with exceptions (which, of course, makes them privileges, not rights).
I'm amazed both by how completely we agree and by how vehemently you deny it.

All rights ever are, is the consequence and implication of might. People have a right to be armed, for instance, because others are powerless to disarm an armed people with the will to resist. It really is that simple, and that empirical.
Image
User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3422
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand

Post by Holsety »

Exnihilotto2 wrote:
Cail wrote:
Cybrweez wrote:If we're only talking natural, the only right is might. Because that's the only thing that can be practical. You can think anything is a right you want, but if you can't enforce such a right, who cares? The US founders had an idea of rights, but if the British won, they'd all be hanged.
Exactly. Natural rights pretty much amount to a collection of nice ideas which get codified into law.....Sometimes, and usually with exceptions (which, of course, makes them privileges, not rights).
I'm amazed both by how completely we agree and by how vehemently you deny it.

All rights ever are, is the consequence and implication of might. People have a right to be armed, for instance, because others are powerless to disarm an armed people with the will to resist. It really is that simple, and that empirical.
So you're contending that in the absence of might on the side of another, people not only have the freedom to do whatever they will to that person but always will do what they want to to that person? Frankly, I can see that darker side of human nature there, but I can't accept that it's always going to be true. It's not even something that I'm repelled by, I just believe that humans will, even in the impossibility of actually bridging universes, at times be capable of recognizing the worth of a universe they will never experience and avoid inflicting suffering upon that other universe. If you aren't contending that, then rights are something that exist even without might, in that they are acknowledged even in the absence of might.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Nothing is ever quite as simple as the last several posts make it seem. Taken to the endpoint, those statements mean:
Nothing exists if any other thing exists capable of destroying it.
A place you end that cracks me up:
1+1=2 has natural rights, cuz no matter how big your guns you can't even wound it...but the person adding it up has none.
Now, I've never heard a formulation of natural rights that really works...but if there ARE any actual rights [or even if there aren't...maybe especially if there aren't], force is not a factor in the existence [or non-] even if it's the prime factor in claiming/exercising them.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5904
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Holsety wrote:
Exnihilotto2 wrote:
Cail wrote:Exactly. Natural rights pretty much amount to a collection of nice ideas which get codified into law.....Sometimes, and usually with exceptions (which, of course, makes them privileges, not rights).
I'm amazed both by how completely we agree and by how vehemently you deny it.

All rights ever are, is the consequence and implication of might. People have a right to be armed, for instance, because others are powerless to disarm an armed people with the will to resist. It really is that simple, and that empirical.
So you're contending that in the absence of might on the side of another, people not only have the freedom to do whatever they will to that person but always will do what they want to to that person? Frankly, I can see that darker side of human nature there, but I can't accept that it's always going to be true. It's not even something that I'm repelled by, I just believe that humans will, even in the impossibility of actually bridging universes, at times be capable of recognizing the worth of a universe they will never experience and avoid inflicting suffering upon that other universe. If you aren't contending that, then rights are something that exist even without might, in that they are acknowledged even in the absence of might.
Rights exist in and through might. The efforts of a free people, properly armed and motivated, are stronger than those who would enslave them, all things being equal. How else do you explain the success of insurgency as a strategy? Napoleon in all his intimidating power and might could not subdue Spain, because they could not be made to submit no matter what he tried. And that is why they won, and why he fell. It is always easier to quit oppressing than it is to quit resisting, because the motivation to protect yourself, your family, your home, and your dignity has more inherent strength than the motivation to oppress others. Without might, the very notion of rights is still born.
Image
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Hang on. While in practice, I don't think we can separate right and force, even force at some remove, from each other, that doesn't mean we can't do the same thing philosophically.

Forget the practicalities guys. That isn't what this thread is about.

We can certainly all agree that it's wrong for something to be done, even if law (might) allows it to be done, right?

My own argument against rights is that nature does not contain them. The dominant lion kills all his predecessors cubs, for example. Nature does not prevent it, nor does it matter that it happens. You could kill a dozen people or yourself, the sun will still rise, rain will still fall.

Nature simply is. It has no morals or ethics. The strong survive, the weak die.

--A
Cybrweez
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4804
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Jamesburg, NJ

Post by Cybrweez »

Yea, isn't that saying the same thing? For my part, I didn't say nature recognizes rights, I said if we're only talking about natural realm, then only might matters. The lion has the right to eat the cubs b/c nothing is stopping him.

In this context, if I punch someone in the face, people may think I've wronged someone, but no, I've only punched them in the face. Maybe I have to spend a night in jail or something, but there's no moral problem, there is no morals.
--Andy

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

I'm thinking more along the lines of making slavery legal doesn't make it moral.

--A
Cybrweez
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4804
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Jamesburg, NJ

Post by Cybrweez »

someone... wrote:In reality, there is no right and wrong.
--Andy

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
User avatar
Cail
Lord
Posts: 38981
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:36 am
Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners

Post by Cail »

Avatar wrote:I'm thinking more along the lines of making slavery legal doesn't make it moral.
Maybe not to you.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5904
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Avatar wrote:I'm thinking more along the lines of making slavery legal doesn't make it moral.

--A
Slaves have but to rise up and break their chains and they are free.
Image
User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3422
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand

Post by Holsety »

Exnihilotto2 wrote:
Holsety wrote:
Exnihilotto2 wrote: I'm amazed both by how completely we agree and by how vehemently you deny it.

All rights ever are, is the consequence and implication of might. People have a right to be armed, for instance, because others are powerless to disarm an armed people with the will to resist. It really is that simple, and that empirical.
So you're contending that in the absence of might on the side of another, people not only have the freedom to do whatever they will to that person but always will do what they want to to that person? Frankly, I can see that darker side of human nature there, but I can't accept that it's always going to be true. It's not even something that I'm repelled by, I just believe that humans will, even in the impossibility of actually bridging universes, at times be capable of recognizing the worth of a universe they will never experience and avoid inflicting suffering upon that other universe. If you aren't contending that, then rights are something that exist even without might, in that they are acknowledged even in the absence of might.
Rights exist in and through might. The efforts of a free people, properly armed and motivated, are stronger than those who would enslave them, all things being equal. How else do you explain the success of insurgency as a strategy? Napoleon in all his intimidating power and might could not subdue Spain, because they could not be made to submit no matter what he tried. And that is why they won, and why he fell. It is always easier to quit oppressing than it is to quit resisting, because the motivation to protect yourself, your family, your home, and your dignity has more inherent strength than the motivation to oppress others. Without might, the very notion of rights is still born.
Good post. Thanks for your response. That being said, the fear of others might birth the belief that protecting your group might necessarily involve oppressing another group.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Cail wrote:
Avatar wrote:I'm thinking more along the lines of making slavery legal doesn't make it moral.
Maybe not to you.
Well, no, obviously not to me. :D That is sorta the whole point. However, I suspect that most people, certainly most people here, could agree with that statement.

I'm a big fan of morality. The fact that I know we all pick our own, and that mine has no more authority than anybody else's doesn't change that.

--A
Post Reply

Return to “The Close”