Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dilloduck]

Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself. You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.

The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity. To deny them is ridiculous. For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly. That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.

Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?

And there you go again. You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right. The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate. A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.

Who determined this ?

 

[dilloduck]

Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

Assignment: What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?

This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --

But in my view, a better reading would be:

-- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights --

Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We might claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.

So what would the difference be? Is a right not a right even if somebody bigger, stronger, meaner etc. denies your free exercise of it? That is what I believe the Founders intended. If there is to be liberty, then all much be allowed whatever occurs to them 'naturally' and those rights must be regarded as unalienable--and based on the language of the Declaration, I take their intent is that those terms "natural rights - God given rights - unalienable rights" as interchangeable, all one and the same.

And the purpose of government is to recognize and secure those rights so that all can enjoy the blessings of liberty as expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution.

The founders were very selective and chose which behaviors they were going to protect. This is why they aren't natural. They were selected by men out of a multitude of natural behaviors and did so because these certain behaviors had been restricted in the recent past. Notice that they did not chose to protect everything that man does naturally.

 

[RKMBrown]

Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?

And there you go again. You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right. The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate. A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.

Who determined this ?

I did.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:



-- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --

But in my view, a better reading would be:

-- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights --

Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We might claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.

So what would the difference be? Is a right not a right even if somebody bigger, stronger, meaner etc. denies your free exercise of it? That is what I believe the Founders intended. If there is to be liberty, then all much be allowed whatever occurs to them 'naturally' and those rights must be regarded as unalienable--and based on the language of the Declaration, I take their intent is that those terms "natural rights - God given rights - unalienable rights" as interchangeable, all one and the same.

And the purpose of government is to recognize and secure those rights so that all can enjoy the blessings of liberty as expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution.

The founders were very selective and chose which behaviors they were going to protect. This is why they aren't natural. They were selected by men out of a multitude of natural behaviors and did so because these certain behaviors had been restricted in the recent past. Notice that they did not chose to protect everything that man does naturally.

They were not at all selective in which behaviors they were going to protect. They were so determined that government would have no ability to assign rights but only the power to defend rights, that the federalists pretty much had to be bullied into including a Bill of Rights specifing some things the anti-federalists deemed necessary to prevent the new republic from sliding right back into the authoritarian kind of government the Constitution was intended to prevent. It certainly was not intended to cover all the unalienable rights the Founders saw as unalieanble rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

Notice that they did not chose to protect everything that man does naturally.

Which is it, you are so completely clueless so as to believe that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness does not mean everything man could possibly want to do other than to harm others. Or you are again acting as Satan's disciple trying to again deflect the conversation to one where liberty means the power to murder people.

 

[Asclepias]

The dictionary definition in 2014 is likely to be irrelevent to what a term meant to those who used it in 1776.

How we define a 'right' or 'natural right' or 'god given right' or 'unalienable' right is likely to be irrelevent to what the Founders intended or the philosophers who preceded them intended when they utilized those terms(s).

So the numbnuts will split hairs and focus on semantics and argue what can and cannot be with our 21st understanding. The thinkers and serious scholars will explore the concept as the Founders intended it to be understood and evaluate it on its own merits or lack thereof.

So exactly how do you know what the founders intended? Are the founders human? What proof did they exhibit that makes you think they were correct? No need call anyone names. A serious scholar such as yourself should know that right?

 

[RKMBrown]

The dictionary definition in 2014 is likely to be irrelevent to what a term meant to those who used it in 1776.

How we define a 'right' or 'natural right' or 'god given right' or 'unalienable' right is likely to be irrelevent to what the Founders intended or the philosophers who preceded them intended when they utilized those terms(s).

So the numbnuts will split hairs and focus on semantics and argue what can and cannot be with our 21st understanding. The thinkers and serious scholars will explore the concept as the Founders intended it to be understood and evaluate it on its own merits or lack thereof.

So exactly how do you know what the founders intended? Are the founders human? What proof did they exhibit that makes you think they were correct? No need call anyone names. A serious scholar such as yourself should know that right?

 

[dblack]

Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

Assignment: What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?

This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --

But in my view, a better reading would be:

-- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights --

Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We might claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.

So what would the difference be?

The difference is that natural rights that are deemed worthy of protection, whereas 'inalienable rights' is simply characterizing rights by their inalienable nature. There are inalienable rights that we wouldn't consider natural rights - the right to harm others, for example. I think you could also make a case - as RKMBrown suggested - for granted ('alienable') rights that we'd, nonetheless, consider natural rights, perhaps because they are integral to the survival of a rational being. I actually have a hunch that Jefferson considered 'property' to this kind of natural right, which is why he changed it to 'pursuit of happiness' in his example list...

 

[Asclepias]

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint. If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information. I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them. How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so? You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.

When a new born child looks at you and smiles for the first time, it should be proof enough to you that the child was born with the ability to feel kindness and know kindness when it is present around him or her. Now to deny that child it's God given right afterwards, otherwise for it to feel these things in which the child has been given the right to do or to try and take that from the child afterwards would be a sin of a great maginitude, and therefore it would constitute an evil of a great maginitude that shall be delt with come the judgement. It is that we recoginize life itself as a right that has been granted unto us by God as it is written, and also it is by our witness of in these things that are before us, in which we cannot deny or escape from our very own eyes in seeing or from our very own feelings in which are a part of our own unique make up in life that was granted onto us just as well. Where there is not God, then of course there is not life. We are given of many attributes before our awakening, and once we have awaken these attributes come shining like a star that fills the whole room with light upon those whom hold the very miracle of life within their very own arms in witness there of.

After birth it is that the new life is protected in respect to the creator, and also in respect to us being created by the one that has charged us in the protection of this life or in the future protections of his creation that will be needed in accordance with his will upon this earth therefore as it should be.

When a new born child looks at you and smiles for the first time, it should be proof enough to you that the child was born with the ability to feel kindness and know kindness when it is present around him or her.

This is the kind of thinking that is messing this whole debate up. That right there is an assumption not proof of anything. The child could have gas or more to point it is merely acting on instinct knowing it is defenseless and automatically smiling to ingratiate itself to the larger person. Very similar to any animal being born and finding the mothers breast or knowing to avoid danger.

 

[dilloduck]

And there you go again. You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right. The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate. A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.

Who determined this ?

I did.

You determined that contemplation is the natural right of all living things ? Does anyone else know this yet ?

 

[Asclepias]

Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself. You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.

The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity. To deny them is ridiculous. For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly. That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.

Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?

And there you go again. You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right. The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate. A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.

Its not about my eagerness to agree or disagree. its about defining words based on what I see in the dictionary. I redefined nothing. How is that any more whimsical than you insisting it is a right? Who says you are correct other than people, humans just like you and I, that have the same opinion as you do? There is nothing that makes it a right except that a man/woman says so. I agree that a computer does not have the right to contemplate because its not really contemplating nor does it have the power. It is merely following instructions a software programmer gave it and processing data, not contemplating.

 

[dilloduck]

Consider a world without humans for a second. Step back and look at it. Does it even have any need for the concept of natural rights ? Isn't everything that is happening just occurring with not so much as a single right being issued or protected ? Rights only come into play when man steps in and starts to make value judgements.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:



-- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --

But in my view, a better reading would be:

-- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights --

Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We might claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.

So what would the difference be?

The difference is that natural rights that are deemed worthy of protection, whereas 'inalienable rights' is simply characterizing rights by their inalienable nature. There are inalienable rights that we wouldn't consider natural rights - the right to harm others, for example. I think you could also make a case - as RKMBrown suggested - for granted ('alienable') rights that we'd, nonetheless, consider natural rights, perhaps because they are integral to the survival of a rational being. I actually have a hunch that Jefferson considered 'property' to this kind of natural right, which is why he changed it to 'pursuit of happiness' in his example list...

There is no unalienable right to harm others, however. There is only the unalienable right to be who and what we are, to do as we wish, to choose what we want with impunity - so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights. And that is where government comes in. Under the U.S. Constitution, it was intended that the federal government do just as much as it needed to in order to secure our unalienable right to be who and what we want to be. That would require the same government to not infringe on those rights--thus the Bill of Rights--even as it recognized and defended the ability of people to exercise their unalienable rights that do not infringe on the rights of others.

Nobody's right are secure under anarchy--there you have survival of the fittest, biggest, strongest, most ruthless.
And nobody's rights are secure under authoritarian government that would presume to dictate to us what rights we will have.

The fact that rights are infringed on however does not take away those rights as the Founders understood them. It only meant that people were denied their rights. The Founders wanted a nation in which those rights would be recognized and defended. And the federal government was for no other purpose than that.

 

[dblack]

Consider a world without humans for a second. Step back and look at it. Does it even have any need for the concept of natural rights ? Isn't everything that is happening just occurring with not so much as a single right being issued or protected ? Rights only come into play when man steps in and starts to make value judgements.

Ok. What does this prove, in your view?

 

[dblack]

So what would the difference be?

The difference is that natural rights that are deemed worthy of protection, whereas 'inalienable rights' is simply characterizing rights by their inalienable nature. There are inalienable rights that we wouldn't consider natural rights - the right to harm others, for example. I think you could also make a case - as RKMBrown suggested - for granted ('alienable') rights that we'd, nonetheless, consider natural rights, perhaps because they are integral to the survival of a rational being. I actually have a hunch that Jefferson considered 'property' to this kind of natural right, which is why he changed it to 'pursuit of happiness' in his example list...

There is no unalienable right to harm others, however. There is only the unalienable right to be who and what we are, to do as we wish, to choose what we want with impunity - so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights.

I would argue that you are describing, here, natural rights and not merely unalienable rights. The bolded portion is a rational extrapolation of natural law, but not of unalienable freedom. But again, that's the distinction I'm making. I'm viewing inalienable rights as identical to free will. I have no argument if we're equating natural rights and inalienable rights, and I realize that view is the consensus.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who determined this ?

I did.

You determined that contemplation is the natural right of all living things ? Does anyone else know this yet ?

Do your own damn homework.

 

[dilloduck]

Consider a world without humans for a second. Step back and look at it. Does it even have any need for the concept of natural rights ? Isn't everything that is happening just occurring with not so much as a single right being issued or protected ? Rights only come into play when man steps in and starts to make value judgements.

Ok. What does this prove, in your view?

That man has taken upon himself to use the term "natural rights" to elevate certain behaviors as worthy of protection. Man used to use the word "God given rights" but that's not kosher anymore.

 

[RKMBrown]

Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?

And there you go again. You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right. The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate. A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.

Its not about my eagerness to agree or disagree. its about defining words based on what I see in the dictionary. I redefined nothing. How is that any more whimsical than you insisting it is a right? Who says you are correct other than people, humans just like you and I, that have the same opinion as you do? There is nothing that makes it a right except that a man/woman says so. I agree that a computer does not have the right to contemplate because its not really contemplating nor does it have the power. It is merely following instructions a software programmer gave it and processing data, not contemplating.

Contemplation is a natural right at least because there is no possible way to legislate it away other than to harm the individual. Such as by performing a lobotomy.

 

[Foxfyre]

The difference is that natural rights that are deemed worthy of protection, whereas 'inalienable rights' is simply characterizing rights by their inalienable nature. There are inalienable rights that we wouldn't consider natural rights - the right to harm others, for example. I think you could also make a case - as RKMBrown suggested - for granted ('alienable') rights that we'd, nonetheless, consider natural rights, perhaps because they are integral to the survival of a rational being. I actually have a hunch that Jefferson considered 'property' to this kind of natural right, which is why he changed it to 'pursuit of happiness' in his example list...

There is no unalienable right to harm others, however. There is only the unalienable right to be who and what we are, to do as we wish, to choose what we want with impunity - so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights.

I would argue that you are describing, here, natural rights and not merely unalienable rights. The bolded portion is a rational extrapolation of natural law, but not of unalienable freedom. But again, that's the distinction I'm making. I'm viewing inalienable rights as identical to free will. I have no argument if we're equating natural rights and inalienable rights, and I realize that view is the consensus.

LOL. Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the definition and for sure neither the fate of the stars or world peace hinges on that. But in a way I can agree that freedom to be who and what we are, tochoose our own actions/goals/destiny etc., i.e. unalienable rights, and free willl are very similar and perhaps are synonymous. But I can't see how 'natural rights' are any different from that. Perhaps you do see a distinction that I am missing.

But I think we're pretty close regardless. Of course in the Founders views, such rights, however they are defined, exist with or without permission from some authority. The fact that some would refuse to acknowledge them or would refuse to allow others to exercise them does not cause them to cease to exist.

 

[Asclepias]

Consider a world without humans for a second. Step back and look at it. Does it even have any need for the concept of natural rights ? Isn't everything that is happening just occurring with not so much as a single right being issued or protected ? Rights only come into play when man steps in and starts to make value judgements.

Ok. What does this prove, in your view?

That rights do not exist. They are man made constructs used to rationalize our ability to think in an abstract manner about more than just basic survival.