Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow, man. We have a lot of true intellectual ground breakers. Here. These guys have singlehand overturned hundreds of years of western philosophy in one fell swoop!!!
This is truly amazing!
Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions. No one can prove they exist; no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.
No one has to prove they exist.
Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.
Which proves nothing.
The same can be said for the "natural" right to rule.
People fight for that too.
Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions. No one can prove they exist; no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.
No one has to prove they exist.
Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.
Then I'm exactly right. They only exist as ideas or opinions. There is nothing 'natural' about them. They are not God given.
They are merely opinions that form a part of the basis for how certain forms of government should function.
We should agree, first..what are "rights"?
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]
<snip>
Natural rights versus legal rights
painting of a dark gray skies with trees and water, and a human image, flying, with arms outstretched
According to some views, certain rights derive from God or Nature
Main article: Natural and legal rights
Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.
Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.
And that "government" is wholly not necessary.
I dispute that contention.
Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
Is my life transferable to someone else?
Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
Cogito ergo sum?
So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,
and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.
That's not a right.
It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.
It's not a right.
The rabbit doesn't recognize it as a right.
The wolf doesn't recognize it as a right.
Eating is a function.
You don't eat..you die.
And not because some force outside yourself will kill you.
Rights are a legal concept.
Thus you are automatically defining 'natural rights' as a construct of government. Using that as a premise, there is not a debate. Maybe you can start with a premise where there is room for a debate. Otherwise...
Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
Is my life transferable to someone else?
You're asking several different questions here.
But I will try to unpack it.
There is no "natural right" to life. And as you were in competition to be born (Your sperm being the fastest, reaching the egg first), you are in constant competition to keep living.
That's why humans banded together. To "mitigate" the competition, first between them an animals, then between them and themselves. And as these "bands" evolved into Society, humans ascribed themselves "rights" to "civilize" society.
And it works.
However to make the leap and say that rights are "natural" and innate? Is misrepresenting what a "right" is and what it took to get us to the point where we are even talking about "rights".
Thus you are automatically defining 'natural rights' as a construct of government. Using that as a premise, there is not a debate. Maybe you can start with a premise where there is room for a debate. Otherwise...
99% of this thread consists not of arguments, but squabbles over definitions.
We should agree, first..what are "rights"?
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]
<snip>
Natural rights versus legal rights
painting of a dark gray skies with trees and water, and a human image, flying, with arms outstretched
According to some views, certain rights derive from God or Nature
Main article: Natural and legal rights
Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.
Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.
And that "government" is wholly not necessary.
I dispute that contention.
Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute. If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
That you need government to breath ?
Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
Is my life transferable to someone else?
You're asking several different questions here.
But I will try to unpack it.
There is no "natural right" to life. And as you were in competition to be born (Your sperm being the fastest, reaching the egg first), you are in constant competition to keep living.
That's why humans banded together. To "mitigate" the competition, first between them an animals, then between them and themselves. And as these "bands" evolved into Society, humans ascribed themselves "rights" to "civilize" society.
And it works.
However to make the leap and say that rights are "natural" and innate? Is misrepresenting what a "right" is and what it took to get us to the point where we are even talking about "rights".
Ah...yes....
Then why did John Jay say that people give up some of their rights to form a government.....answer: to protect the rest of them.
Whether they existed or not from the start does not matter. How people perceive them does.
Oh, good grief!!!
The concept has been dispelled. This is amazing
One final question for the the governance worshipers before i unsubscribe. Do positive, or legal rights/laws have any basis in western society grounded in natural rights/laws? Or is it all the same?
Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
Is my life transferable to someone else?
You're asking several different questions here.
But I will try to unpack it.
There is no "natural right" to life. And as you were in competition to be born (Your sperm being the fastest, reaching the egg first), you are in constant competition to keep living.
That's why humans banded together. To "mitigate" the competition, first between them an animals, then between them and themselves. And as these "bands" evolved into Society, humans ascribed themselves "rights" to "civilize" society.
And it works.
However to make the leap and say that rights are "natural" and innate? Is misrepresenting what a "right" is and what it took to get us to the point where we are even talking about "rights".
Ah...yes....
Then why did John Jay say that people give up some of their rights to form a government.....answer: to protect the rest of them.
Whether they existed or not from the start does not matter. How people perceive them does.
Ah yes what?
I am sure that folks like Timothy Treadwell and Christopher McCandless probably thought that the universe would recognize their "right" to life before they ventured out into the great wide open.
Guess what?
It didn't.
