Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[G.T.]

No need for me to apologize. I didn't lie.

He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.

In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.

Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.

There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.

You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.

and I apologize for saying you lied, too.

TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times. When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies. When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already." This is the merely the last. Of course he lied about what I wrote. That is obvious. Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident." That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid. He isn't. But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough. Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants. Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.

I agree that natural rights don't exist.

But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in basic rights such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.

I believe they exist BECAUSE we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct

 

[hunarcy]

He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.

In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.

Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.

There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.

You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.

and I apologize for saying you lied, too.

TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times. When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies. When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already." This is the merely the last. Of course he lied about what I wrote. That is obvious. Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident." That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid. He isn't. But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough. Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants. Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.

I agree that natural rights don't exist.

But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in basic rights such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.

I believe they exist BECAUSE we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct

So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?

 

[G.T.]

TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times. When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies. When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already." This is the merely the last. Of course he lied about what I wrote. That is obvious. Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident." That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid. He isn't. But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough. Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants. Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.

I agree that natural rights don't exist.

But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in basic rights such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.

I believe they exist BECAUSE we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct

So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?

There was an instinct to.

A right to, though? Based on what? (we just did this for 28pages, fyi)

 

[The Rabbi]

He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.

In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.

Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.

There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.

You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.

and I apologize for saying you lied, too.

TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times. When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies. When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already." This is the merely the last. Of course he lied about what I wrote. That is obvious. Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident." That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid. He isn't. But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough. Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants. Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.

I agree that natural rights don't exist.

But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in basic rights such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.

I believe they exist BECAUSE we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct

Then what you are describing are not "natural" rights at all. IOW, there are rights that exist not like air exists but like etiquette exists. Which is prety much what I mean when I say they are constructs of society. This society believes in things like free speech. Ergo we have free speech. When some gov't official or other tries to squelch it, society, through its organizations, pushes back to guarantee it. The Japanese interned in WW2 are a good example. It was a violation of their rights. There was pushback, granted way too late, and many of them were compensated for it. So there were consequences for violating their rights.
But that was particular to this society. Germany never had an idea of natural rights. Rights were what the gov't said they were. So when the Nazi government redefined rights in one way or another there was no consequence. That is the difference.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No need for me to apologize. I didn't lie.

He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.

In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.

Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.

There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.

You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.

and I apologize for saying you lied, too.

TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times. When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies. When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already." This is the merely the last. Of course he lied about what I wrote. That is obvious. Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident." That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid. He isn't. But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough. Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants. Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.

Damn, if only you could have been moar specific with the fallacies. Can we get a false dichotomy? Maybe a argumentum e silentio, circulus in demonstrando or reptrospective determinism?

Seriously. I didn't lie about what you said.I even linked it up! Further, your stance of there is no natural rights falls directly in line with other men, i.e. government (as they are the "authority) bestows an individual with "rights". Yet you disagree with KatznDogz. It's a very interesting, perhaps even fascinating display.

 

[G.T.]

TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times. When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies. When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already." This is the merely the last. Of course he lied about what I wrote. That is obvious. Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident." That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid. He isn't. But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough. Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants. Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.

I agree that natural rights don't exist.

But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in basic rights such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.

I believe they exist BECAUSE we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct

Then what you are describing are not "natural" rights at all. IOW, there are rights that exist not like air exists but like etiquette exists. Which is prety much what I mean when I say they are constructs of society. This society believes in things like free speech. Ergo we have free speech. When some gov't official or other tries to squelch it, society, through its organizations, pushes back to guarantee it. The Japanese interned in WW2 are a good example. It was a violation of their rights. There was pushback, granted way too late, and many of them were compensated for it. So there were consequences for violating their rights.
But that was particular to this society. Germany never had an idea of natural rights. Rights were what the gov't said they were. So when the Nazi government redefined rights in one way or another there was no consequence. That is the difference.

Sounds like we agree.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yet you maintain that other men do not grant you rights!

I do not have any clue where you two are coming from at this point.

 

[The Rabbi]

He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.

In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.

Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.

There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.

You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.

and I apologize for saying you lied, too.

TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times. When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies. When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already." This is the merely the last. Of course he lied about what I wrote. That is obvious. Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident." That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid. He isn't. But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough. Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants. Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.

Damn, if only you could have been moar specific with the fallacies. Can we get a false dichotomy? Maybe a argumentum e silentio, circulus in demonstrando or reptrospective determinism?

Seriously. I didn't lie about what you said.I even linked it up! Further, your stance of there is no natural rights falls directly in line with other men, i.e. government (as they are the "authority) bestows an individual with "rights". Yet you disagree with KatznDogz. It's a very interesting, perhaps even fascinating display.

Of course you lied. That is obvious. Of course I pointed out the fallacy of many of your posts. And of course you are mischaracterizing what I wrote, subsituting "government" for "society."

 

[hunarcy]

I agree that natural rights don't exist.

But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in basic rights such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.

I believe they exist BECAUSE we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct

So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?

There was an instinct to.

A right to, though? Based on what? (we just did this for 28pages, fyi)

While you may have done this for 28 pages, apparently you failed to resolve it successfully. I submit that a right is a morally justified reason to act in a certain way. The instinct we have to self defense is morally justified, therefore it's a right and was one even before man invented philosophy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet you maintain that other men do not grant you rights!

I do not have any clue where you two are coming from at this point.

So you've got government bestowing rights, other men bestowing rights, etc? Do you need this explained to you in a certain way?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If rights aren't innate, and man doesn't give the rights to other men, where does that leave us?

 

[The Rabbi]

So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?

There was an instinct to.

A right to, though? Based on what? (we just did this for 28pages, fyi)

While you may have done this for 28 pages, apparently you failed to resolve it successfully. I submit that a right is a morally justified reason to act in a certain way. The instinct we have to self defense is morally justified, therefore it's a right and was one even before man invented philosophy.

That's not even close. Hitler felt he was morally justified to wipe out Jews and Gypsies. I dont think that really constitutes a right though. Further you might have an instinct to kill someone who threatened you over the phone. But you have no right to do so.

 

[emilynghiem]

To answer the OP: No. As Oldschool has mentioned, who decides what a natural right is?

People would have to figure it out, to make sure we are talking about the same principles:
Comparing what concept each person means by rights, freedoms, and laws;
and what "terms" they use since this can vary. We can believe in similar concepts,
but use different terms or systems. Whatever principles we agree are naturally occurring among all humans, we may agree to identify those with "natural rights or laws."

Most of the interactions I find online are people stumbling or bumbling around in this process -- some people more aware of it, and some not at all. but in the process of sharing and comparing, we are essentially figuring out what are universal values and what are not.

My main sticking point in this debate though, is not about whether they exist outside of govt, it's whether they exist at all. I say, no.

Dear Dr. Grump and also Rabbi:
Would it take another thread to go through all the possible universal principles or
natural laws you do or do not relate to or recognize as part of human nature?

I am very curious to know what you DO believe in.

Rabbi mentioned "instincts" which is along those lines.
Anything that could be called "natural rights" can also be
explained in terms of natural human "instincts" to respond
positively or negatively to certain things or events in society.

(I can list some more possible ideas here, or we could start a new thread,
so it doesn't bog this one down. Rabbi seemed to object to it going off topic.)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yet you maintain that other men do not grant you rights!

I do not have any clue where you two are coming from at this point.

So you've got government bestowing rights, other men bestowing rights, etc? Do you need this explained to you in a certain way?

Is government a construct of men?

 

[The Rabbi]

If rights aren't innate, and man doesn't give the rights to other men, where does that leave us?

In your case in a quandary.

 

[Asclepias]

TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times. When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies. When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already." This is the merely the last. Of course he lied about what I wrote. That is obvious. Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident." That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid. He isn't. But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough. Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants. Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.

I agree that natural rights don't exist.

But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in basic rights such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.

I believe they exist BECAUSE we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct

So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?

Thats pretty much what I said many moons ago. No one can take away your right to fight for your life. It probably is the only naturally inherent right you have that no one can tinker with. You also have a right to think what you want to but that can be manipulated.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet you maintain that other men do not grant you rights!

I do not have any clue where you two are coming from at this point.

So you've got government bestowing rights, other men bestowing rights, etc? Do you need this explained to you in a certain way?

Is government a construct of men?

Obviously. So is etiquette. Your point?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Thanks for making my point, Rabbi.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks for making my point, Rabbi.

Which was?

 

[emilynghiem]

I agree that natural rights don't exist.

But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in basic rights such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.

I believe they exist BECAUSE we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct

What about our impulses to respond positively to things we agree with and want by "free will or free choice"
and to respond negatively when we run into conflict or opposition trying to force us against our will.

Is this reaction "philosophized into existence" by teaching or experience?

Or is it inherent in human nature or conscience to
seek "pleasure, peace, or satisfaction" in doing or getting what we want
and avoiding "fear, suffering, or pain" with what we do NOT want?

I know that the ASSOCIATIONS we have are socially conditioned.

But what about the "pleasure/pain" instinctive reaction itself?
Isn't that "naturally occurring" and independent of external context that is relative?