Natural Rights

[WatersMoon110]

"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." - The US Declaration of Independence.

Many different people have debated over the ages whether there are "Natural Rights", rights that exist independent from any sort of government. Personally, I guess I don't really believe in such a thing, but I'm not very certain about it.

I go to the easiest source, Wikipedia, and here is part of what everyone has to say about Natural Rights:

Many philosophers and statesmen have designed lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty, as these are considered to be the two highest priorities.
Among philosophers, H. L. A. Hart has argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. The existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through "reason" alone. Some thinkers like John Locke emphasized "property" as primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of the right of revolution, Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" for property in the United States Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is based on natural or "unalienable rights" as being endowed by the Divine Creator or Nature's God to every human being, arguing that it was "self-evident" truth that human beings by their very nature inherently have and seek to experience the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This being considered self-evident truth, like Hobbes, Locke and Jean–Jacques Rousseau — also a major social contract thinker — the right of human beings to follow their nature as a natural right antedating and not bestowed by government.

 

[keith99]

If Life is a natural right then it would seem we will all sooner of later lose our rights, for death cames to all men.

So one of these at least is pretty meaningless.

But it is a great line for a propaganda document.

 

[WatersMoon110]

If Life is a natural right then it would seem we will all sooner of later lose our rights, for death cames to all men.

So one of these at least is pretty meaningless.

But it is a great line for a propaganda document.

Good point! *laughs* Life must be a "natural right" with a time limit attached.

 

[cantata]

I'm still utterly mystified by the concept.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I'm still utterly mystified by the concept.

I know. I want to talk with John Locke or someone who believed in such a thing, and get them to explain why...

 

[cantata]

I know. I want to talk with John Locke or someone who believed in such a thing, and get them to explain why...

Oh man, I recommend you pick someone to ask about it who doesn't get comma use so spectacularly wrong that people wrote whole essays based on misunderstandings caused by being misled by a misplaced punctuation mark.

*doesn't like Locke much*

 

[WatersMoon110]

Oh man, I recommend you pick someone to ask about it who doesn't get comma use so spectacularly wrong that people wrote whole essays based on misunderstandings caused by being misled by a misplaced punctuation mark.

*doesn't like Locke much*

Kant? *wink*

 

[Eleveness]

I'm still utterly mystified by the concept.

The notion of "human rights" is a concept that limits the proper actions that a person may take while living in a society. The key word here is "proper": What are the proper actions that a person may take when living among others?

Here we see that rights are a moral concept, as they define what a person should and shouldn't do. The recognition of others' rights is part and parcel of a moral code to which one adheres. The whole point of a moral code is to define the proper actions that one should take; "human rights" define what actions one should take with respect to other people.

Does your moral code uphold those actions which are conducive to human survival? If so, your moral code demands that you treat others in a way that is conducive to their survival. You thus have a right to perform actions which are conducive to human survival (e.g. don't murder people, don't rape, don't steal), as you understand that such actions are in accordance with your moral code.

Now, it is certainly true that there is more than one moral code in existence, and since the concept of rights depends on the concept of morality, it is possible that two people may have different conceptions of human rights. What you need to do is ask yourself: What is my moral code? How does my moral code determine the proper interpersonal actions that I may take? Such questions determine what your conception of rights will be.

Even though different people may adhere to different moral codes, what is not open to debate is whether a person is alive or dead, and whether a particular action results in life or death. Since it is possible to objectively determine whether or not an action is conducive to human survival, we can objectively say: If a person adheres to a moral code that upholds human survival, then that person is bound to act in certain ways with respect to others, and that person is bound to respect the rights of others. One thus proceeds to enumerate the ways that one can act that aid human survival; such an enumeration becomes a Bill of Rights.

 

[Verv]

What does humanity have if we do not have the inherent rights to life, liberty and property?

What should we in its place decide are our collective rights?

Can you do better?

 

[Asimov]

What does humanity have if we do not have the inherent rights to life, liberty and property?

We have our brains and faculties of reason to understand that in order for society to flourish, principles must be in place to allow for said flourishing.

 

[WatersMoon110]

What does humanity have if we do not have the inherent rights to life, liberty and property?

What should we in its place decide are our collective rights?

Can you do better?

I wasn't suggesting that we abolish these rights. I simply don't believe that rights exist as anything but social concepts, which map out ethical patterns of behavior. If life, liberty, and property should not be removed from any humans, as per the demands of our society, then so be it. Whatever rules society (not the government, but society in general) agrees to play by, I will follow. When different groups within society disagree, I will pick which one I believe is best, fairest, or causes the least amount of harm.

But I don't believe that people have rights separate from society/government. I don't see how, if there were no government/society, human beings would still have any "rights".

 

[BobW188]

I would add to Eleveness's post above that natural rights also set limits on how the government deals with individuals, and note that Jefferson goes on to say that:

1. governments are instituted to secure natural rights;

2. governments derive their powers only from the consent of the governed; and,

3. the governed have a right to alter or abolish a government they feel is not securing these rights.

So, you are quite right. Natural rights operate in society. But, then, part of our human nature is to create societies.