Do men have natural rights? Are men born, without regard to the society in to which they are born, with certain, inalieable rights? If so, what are these rights?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Natural rights
- Thread starter LibraryOwl
- Start date
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Let me put it this way, I don't think that people are born with natural rights. Not precisely. We are born with the need for natural rights, because they define the conditions that we need to flourish as beings with a human nature. Everyone has a stake in natural rights, since we are all human, and we have an interest in seeing that other people are protected by natural rights, since we flourish best when other people are able to flourish as well, given the social aspect of human nature.
These rights are, to put them very simply, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. flourishing).
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
The question is not whether natural rights exist, but how they are distributed if they do exist.
To use a vivid example from history, you could justify slavery by saying blacks were naturally inferior, and thus had no rights. This makes the reverse true; that whites have more rights than blacks. This is an example of unequal rights; they are still natural to birth, by claim of skin color, but they are unequal.
The belief I adhere to is that there is no such thing as natural rights; this makes the reverse true, since no natural right exists to take precedent over anyone else's, then all rights a person possesses must be equal to those possesed by all other people.
On the other hand, if you assume that there are in fact natural rights granted equally to all people (perhaps granted by God, etc) the result is the same. All these rights are equal in scope, and thus no ones rights can justly be sacrificed. Thus a complete lack of natural rights, and the equal distribution of natural rights by a creator, result in the same principle: Equality, or as we tend to call in America, Civil Rights.
To use a vivid example from history, you could justify slavery by saying blacks were naturally inferior, and thus had no rights. This makes the reverse true; that whites have more rights than blacks. This is an example of unequal rights; they are still natural to birth, by claim of skin color, but they are unequal.
The belief I adhere to is that there is no such thing as natural rights; this makes the reverse true, since no natural right exists to take precedent over anyone else's, then all rights a person possesses must be equal to those possesed by all other people.
On the other hand, if you assume that there are in fact natural rights granted equally to all people (perhaps granted by God, etc) the result is the same. All these rights are equal in scope, and thus no ones rights can justly be sacrificed. Thus a complete lack of natural rights, and the equal distribution of natural rights by a creator, result in the same principle: Equality, or as we tend to call in America, Civil Rights.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
No, you could try to argue this. However, biologically, blacks are human beings, and therefore have an equal claim on human rights.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
Verv
Senior Veteran
- Apr 17, 2005
- 7,277
- 672
- Country
- Korea, Republic Of
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
As humans we are bornw ith certain rights from God. A lot of people look to God to decipher them, including the man who came up with the notion of Natural Rights (John Locke, though some argue Thomas Hobbes).
Many root some of the mos timportant rights of property and life to the Ten Commandments, and many root the idea of liberty back to the fact that as being created in the image of God, we have a right to exist freely and express ourselves as we choose.
Many root some of the mos timportant rights of property and life to the Ten Commandments, and many root the idea of liberty back to the fact that as being created in the image of God, we have a right to exist freely and express ourselves as we choose.
Upvote
0
That's a nice story, but what does it mean to say that these rights come from God? Does God guarantee them? If so, why can they be taken away? Is there any difference between God-given rights, and rights that people simply decided that they deserve? Is this merely the democratization of the old idea that kings rule by divine right?
Upvote
0
I think what he would argue is that the god-given rights have a 'stamp' on them from God, and anyone who violates them does so knowing that if "God" is worth his sauce, there will be some serious punishment for him in the world after.
I still have a problem with this. There is a great need for distinguishment. We observe, for instance, that "artificial" rights (which are clearly extant and inarguably present) granted by the state, say, the right against unlawful search and seisures, or the right to free speech (explicitly in America) are temporaly enforcible. When one violates the artificial rights of another, one may expect temporal retribution, at least if one's tie to the crime is obvious.
A natural right, if such things existed, wouldn't necessarily carry a consequence towards it's violation. Since I believe in the doctrines of "hell on earth" and "self-created hell," I would argue that the violation of a natural right (if such rights exist) does carry an immidiate consequence, since it degrades the soul and character of the person violating it. It is said, for instance, that the crueler southern slavemasters gradually developed a hatered of all mankind, which manifested itself in some ways in their civil relationships. It is also observed that a greedy businessman, once filled with money, becomes greedier.
I am loathe to actually name the natural rights, though. Eudamontist listed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and these are certainly some sorts of natural or artificial rights which are granted to Americans, and yet, I do not wish to comdemn other cultures by saying that we need life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to
Because doing so would imply that sultures where such rights are not extant are in some way not flourishing. I observe, anyways, that different cultures have different rights, (as the apostle paul says: if it is a sin to you, then it is a sin to God also) and that some systems of rights seem to work and others seem to not work. I do not believe that rights are transferrable. Trying to artificially remake a society to conform to a set of values, say, such as the soviet union did, is obviously disasterous. But I have a big problem with condemning african tribes because, say, they are patriarcal. It may be that the women of that tribe want to be ruled by the men. I also have a hard time condmening societies without social mobility (the pursuit of happiness,) the Jews seem to have been happy enough, but it is Solomon who said that "One thing angers God... a slave who becomes a king!"
Just my two cents.
Upvote
0
Well, if that is actually what he does argue, then I'm probably going to make fun of him. I understand that under the constitution, I have the right to free speech. I know that the government will see to it that said right is not infringed. The government is the guarantor of that right. If God acts as a guarantor only by punishing those who violate our rights, then he is a weak and terrible guarantor.
Upvote
0
The scripture that would go with that idea is
"When men are persecuting you or doing evil to you, do not do evil back to them. Yet do not be comfortless that the wicked triumpth, for if they do wicked to you and are not returned wickedness, yea, they are heaping hot coals on themselves for the afterlife"
It's just what we believe. I don't know what makes you so angry about it. Such retribution wouldn't be "weak" either, since, at least theoretically, it lasts forever whereas government-induced punishment can really only last until you die, so to speak. As for the fact it is not instant, well, I do not argue that since I believe it degrades the character. To me heaven is merely the exposing of things before God, so that those who hated and rejected him are then unable to reject him, and left hating him, and thus everything for all eternity, a true suffering. Though im sure he could come up with something of the sort of an argument that made future punishment seem threatening while reminding you that you had time now to repent. Ultimately, im stating that in a sort of different way.
"When men are persecuting you or doing evil to you, do not do evil back to them. Yet do not be comfortless that the wicked triumpth, for if they do wicked to you and are not returned wickedness, yea, they are heaping hot coals on themselves for the afterlife"
It's just what we believe. I don't know what makes you so angry about it. Such retribution wouldn't be "weak" either, since, at least theoretically, it lasts forever whereas government-induced punishment can really only last until you die, so to speak. As for the fact it is not instant, well, I do not argue that since I believe it degrades the character. To me heaven is merely the exposing of things before God, so that those who hated and rejected him are then unable to reject him, and left hating him, and thus everything for all eternity, a true suffering. Though im sure he could come up with something of the sort of an argument that made future punishment seem threatening while reminding you that you had time now to repent. Ultimately, im stating that in a sort of different way.
Upvote
0
billwald has nicely summed up the argument I was intent on eventually providing. This is the downside of having a job.
Upvote
0
Gusoceros
Head Rhino
Personal opinions aside- the official American position is:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
Upvote
0
savvy
I always finish what I....
- Jul 30, 2004
- 1,039
- 74
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I do not believe that there is anything that endows human beings with natural rights. I don't think anyone "deserves" anything. What I do think is that the concept of natural rights and equality is beneficial to the species. when we are all given equal opportunity and treatment, human society is bettered.
Upvote
0
Okay, for the people who say there are no natural rights, would you agree that every man has the right to sleep?
Upvote
0
no i dont think we have a right to sleep. If everyone/everything had the right to sleep then nothing could kill anything that slept at night, as it would violate their right.
I think the only natural right we have (as well as all other life) is the right to defend ourselves with our natural means.
I think the only natural right we have (as well as all other life) is the right to defend ourselves with our natural means.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
