Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[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

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.

I've seen people's will to live and to fight beaten out of them.
Sometimes I wish it would happen to me so I would give up too!

What I haven't seen anyone able to force on someone else, no matter what,
* forcing someone to forgive
* forcing someone to change their beliefs
I don't even think God can do this by force.

God can orchestrate circumstances where the pressure is so great that people "choose or agree to let go," or ask for help to change or forgive where they can't on their own.
But it still has to be by free will or it does not really liberate the person from the pressure.

So whatever these laws of free will and reason are that are built into human nature or conscience,
not even God can break these rules, but people can only accept change in accordance with conscience.
It cannot be forced on us, or people rebel because of how our consciences are designed to defend our consent and free will.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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?

Instinct!

 

[G.T.]

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.

morals are a human construct also

so your therefore doesn't work

 

[G.T.]

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?

Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.

We want to live.
We are good natured.

etc
etc
etc
etc
etc


That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

nailed it!

 

[hunarcy]

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.

That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection. Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?

 

[G.T.]

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?

Instinct!

Of course you're being facetious, but the answer is correct.

The instinct does not prove the right. That's a pretty fantastical leap, I'd love to see it on paper some day. I know you cant do it, because all you do is juxtapose.

 

[G.T.]

nailed it!

I saw your post before I responded, you're a mark.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind) originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?

 

[G.T.]

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.

That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection. Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?

In what setting?

You'll always have the instinct to defend it.

Having the "right" to defend it is an abstract idea brought upon by human cohabitation.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

morals are a human construct also

so your therefore doesn't work

The basic foundation of the argument is whether rights are inherent or artificial. If you have a right to defend your life and had it prior to philosophy, then it's inherent. In that case, philosophy's role is to explain why you have it, not create it.

 

[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

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?

Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.

We want to live.
We are good natured.

etc
etc
etc
etc
etc


That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.

If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.

 

[G.T.]

Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind) originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?

Both, and the question is also irrelevant.

 

[Asclepias]

I just looked up right as a noun. There are no rights you have that are not granted to you by someone else. I.E. a governing body.

Right:

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

I guess this definition also kills the phrase "natural rights".

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection. Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?

Refuting your argument by showing its absurdity is not deflection.
The answer to your question is, It depends. IN America generally yes you do. In Spain, no you dont. In Vietnam I would doubt it.

 

[G.T.]

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?

Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.

We want to live.
We are good natured.

etc
etc
etc
etc
etc


That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.

If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.

the ability to act = the right to act?

cool, bro


im able to take money from my mom's wallet on sundays
guess I automaticall have the right to since I have the ability to

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.

We want to live.
We are good natured.

etc
etc
etc
etc
etc


That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.

If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.

So I have the right to rape an attractive woman on the bus? How cool is that??

 

[hunarcy]

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.

That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection. Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?

In what setting?

You'll always have the instinct to defend it.

Having the "right" to defend it is an abstract idea brought upon by human cohabitation.

LOL! So, you would be unable to defend your life until society grants you that right?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind) originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?

Both, and the question is also irrelevant.

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

 

[hunarcy]

Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.

We want to live.
We are good natured.

etc
etc
etc
etc
etc


That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.

If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.

So I have the right to rape an attractive woman on the bus? How cool is that??

LOL! Ah, I'm in the hyperbolic absurdity zone?