Natural rights

[quatona]

Okay, for the people who say there are no natural rights, would you agree that every man has the right to sleep?

No. I think every man has a natural need for sleep.

 

[thedream233]

No. I think every man has a natural need for sleep.

what would you define as a "natural right?"

 

[quatona]

what would you define as a "natural right?"

I think this term is complete nonsense. A contradiction in terms. Nature doesn´t give out any rights. "Rights" is a human concept, and people have rights because and only if others allow them those rights.
The term "rights" is useful and meaningful only in legislation.
"You have the right to..." merely means that if someone prevents you from doing it he is acting unlawfully and will be punished.
Nature doesn´t operate with legislation nor with punishment. In nature we only find consequences. The consequences of sleep depravation affect the depraved rather than the perpretrator.

 

[thedream233]

I think this term is complete nonsense. A contradiction in terms. Nature doesn´t give out any rights. "Rights" is a human concept, and people have rights because and only if others allow them those rights.
The term "rights" is useful and meaningful only in legislation.
"You have the right to..." merely means that if someone prevents you from doing it he is acting unlawfully and will be punished.
Nature doesn´t operate with legislation nor with punishment. In nature we only find consequences. The consequences of sleep depravation affect the depraved rather than the perpretrator.

and what are the differences between punishments and consequences?

 

[The Nihilist]

and what are the differences between punishments and consequences?

Consequences aren't carried out by someone who thinks he knows better than someone else...

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Consequences aren't carried out by someone who thinks he knows better than someone else...

A consequence can be carried out by phenomena, not only a "other self". Did you read my post under "we are not special? I edited a few times, but didnt exactly understand what you meant....did you want me to bring the term of Heideggers "being" and the unavoidable death that no one can help stop?

 

[quatona]

and what are the differences between punishments and consequences?

A consequence is what happens naturally, a punishment is what humans inflict upon others based on their ideas of "rights".
Like always when it comes to natural laws vs human laws, you have to acknowledge that - although sharing the same word - they are completely different concepts: natural laws are descriptive, human laws are prescriptive.
So, revisiting your sleep depravation example: then consequence of A depraving B from sleeping is that B will die. Whereas the idea of a "right to sleep" means that A should not do it and should be punished for it.

And, btw., wouldn´t it be a good idea for you to tell me what you mean when saying "natural right", rather than asking me to define your term for you? That way I might learn that, even though you have picked the term poorly, you have a working concept that you use it for.

 

[GenuineMonotheist]

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?

It's very interesting that this very very "religious" idea is foundational to the American system. That is what many do not understand about the American tradition - it doesn't present itself as being a "custom" or anything like this, but as a statement upon reality and one with universal vision and objectives. When you read "all men are created equal" or that all men have the right to pursue hapiness, etc....it stresses "all men." Everywhere...not just the STATES and territories under the Presidency of the man in Washington.

As far as this goes (at this very basic stage at least) it sounds all well and good...but there's a problem. Which "God" are all of these USA citizens "under"? Which God do their rulers pray to and remain mindful of? Which Prophet? Further, in declaring what is obligatory and what is forbidden, what will said USA use as it's criterion? Do they even have one? If they do, do they agree with each other in the least? You can see the problem - something at the center is missing.

That "something missing" is the root of so many problems in the world today. Instead of upholding wherever their arm can reach the authentic rights of all mankind, their actual God-given rights, they wind up causing mischief to fund arms dealers, pursue secret agendas, make some politicians some money, export "Coca Cola and McDonalds", etc.

So that's a real good, important question you're asking. And it's a question which can only be answered by a solution which is in accord with reason/logic, and brings strong evidences. If you don't know that, all you can do is SAY "everyone has inaliable rights", but never plausably be able to claim to know just what those "rights" really are. Are they to be allowed to sodomize each other and call it "a lifestyle" and let women do whatever they want with themselves, even if it be dressing and behaving indecently in public, or wantonly electing to abort the unwanted consequences of their "one night stands"? Is that man's right? Is making an industry of usury and speculating, parasitic economics, REALLY our right?

America needs to get that one straight, and so does the rest of the "secular" world, even if they don't have the same "messianic" spirit of the Americans.