Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dblack]

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.

The distinction I'm getting at is that natural law, via natural rights, gets into the rationalization for which unalienable rights should be protected and why. Where as unalienable rights is just a recognition of our basic state as thinking creates that can freely make decisions. Natural rights, in my view, would not include all unalienable rights. I'm viewing 'right', in the phrase 'inalienable right' as synonymous with 'freedom', rather than imbuing it with a sense of 'shouldness'. The real difference, from what I'm seeing, is the understanding of unalienable as an existential description, rather than a designation.

 

[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?

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.

Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The distinction I'm getting at is that natural law, via natural rights, gets into the rationalization for which unalienable rights should be protected and why. Where as unalienable rights is just a recognition of our basic state as thinking creates that can freely make decisions. Natural rights, in my view, would not include all unalienable rights. I'm viewing 'right', in the phrase 'inalienable right' as synonymous with 'freedom', rather than imbuing it with a sense of 'shouldness'. The real difference, from what I'm seeing, is the understanding of unalienable as an existential description, rather than a designation.

Okay. I don't think the Founders looked at it that way, but I don't think they would think your perspective to be so far off base they would object to it either.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.

Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.

 

[dblack]

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.

Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.

Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.

Is anyone contesting that?

 

[Mathbud1]

I read this to help me think about this subject.

A few things stood out, but this stuck out most: the idea of the symmetrical nature of rights. I might say, "I have the right to live." If I say that though, what I imply is, "Everyone else has a duty not to kill me."

If you acknowledge that I have the right to live, you are not saying that I CANNOT be killed, but that I OUGHT not be killed. You acknowledge that people have a duty not to kill me. Whether they uphold their duty and thusly uphold my right, is beyond the scope of what the right is. If someone kills me, it does not mean that I did not have the right to live, only that they ignored their duty to let me do so.

This implies that there is a social aspect to rights. They have meaning only inasmuch as they apply to interactions. A right to life means nothing without anyone around to infringe on that right by killing you. So society is the context in which rights have meaning, but this doesn't mean that all rights come from society or especially the government. The right to life is a basic and fundamental right based on the value of life. If former governments failed to recognize that right, that does not mean that it did not exist. I for one, am glad that our government was founded with the recognition that there were some basic rights that governments could not and should not take away. Rights based on fundamental moral values that are separate from government.

 

[Asclepias]

Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.

Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.

Is anyone contesting that?

The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.

Rights do not exist without man making them up.

 

[dblack]

Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.

Is anyone contesting that?

The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.

Rights do not exist without man making them up.

Would you characterize scientific laws as things that man "makes up"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.

Is anyone contesting that?

The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.

Rights do not exist without man making them up.

Of course they do. Nobody would have a name for them until somebody invented sufficient language to give them one, but they would still exist. Just as all creatures on earth, breathing, the beating of hearts, hunger, pain, pleasure, comfort, discomfort existed before anybody knew what to call them.

 

[Asclepias]

Is anyone contesting that?

The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.

Rights do not exist without man making them up.

Would you characterize scientific laws as things that man "makes up"?

No. Scientific or natural laws exist regardless of what man calls them. If all the humans disappeared from earth a rock falling into a pond would create a ripple.

 

[dblack]

The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.

Rights do not exist without man making them up.

Would you characterize scientific laws as things that man "makes up"?

No. Scientific or natural laws exist regardless of what man calls them. If all the humans disappeared from earth a rock falling into a pond would create a ripple.

And scientific laws regarding human consciousness? Is the volition (i.e. freedom to decide and act) exhibited by the human mind "made up"?

 

[Asclepias]

Is anyone contesting that?

The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.

Rights do not exist without man making them up.

Of course they do. Nobody would have a name for them until somebody invented sufficient language to give them one, but they would still exist. Just as all creatures on earth, breathing, the beating of hearts, hunger, pain, pleasure, comfort, discomfort existed before anybody knew what to call them.

Please prove your assertion. How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs. If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.

 

[Foxfyre]

The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.

Rights do not exist without man making them up.

Of course they do. Nobody would have a name for them until somebody invented sufficient language to give them one, but they would still exist. Just as all creatures on earth, breathing, the beating of hearts, hunger, pain, pleasure, comfort, discomfort existed before anybody knew what to call them.

Please prove your assertion. How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs. If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.

I didn't say it existed without man. I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it. In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation. They exist period. All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not. But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait. Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.

 

[Asclepias]

Would you characterize scientific laws as things that man "makes up"?

No. Scientific or natural laws exist regardless of what man calls them. If all the humans disappeared from earth a rock falling into a pond would create a ripple.

And scientific laws regarding human consciousness? Is the volition (i.e. freedom to decide and act) exhibited by the human mind "made up"?

Lets make sure we are on the same page. By scientific/natural law I am speaking about events that will occur regardless of what man calls them. Things under the heading of physics, biology, etc. Is this what you mean?

Also what do you mean by consciousness? Are you talking about being aware of your surroundings or are you talking about being able to think in abstract terms about things such as morality?

 

[dblack]

No. Scientific or natural laws exist regardless of what man calls them. If all the humans disappeared from earth a rock falling into a pond would create a ripple.

And scientific laws regarding human consciousness? Is the volition (i.e. freedom to decide and act) exhibited by the human mind "made up"?

Lets make sure we are on the same page. By scientific/natural law I am speaking about events that will occur regardless of what man calls them. Things under the heading of physics, biology, etc. Is this what you mean?

Yep. As well as a human's innate freedom to think and act on their thoughts. That's real no matter what we call it.

Also what do you mean by consciousness? Are you talking about being aware of your surroundings or are you talking about being able to think in abstract terms about things such as morality?

The trait of consciousness I'm concerned with here is that which the concept of inalienable rights recognizes: our volition, ie free will.

 

[Asclepias]

Of course they do. Nobody would have a name for them until somebody invented sufficient language to give them one, but they would still exist. Just as all creatures on earth, breathing, the beating of hearts, hunger, pain, pleasure, comfort, discomfort existed before anybody knew what to call them.

Please prove your assertion. How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs. If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.

I didn't say it existed without man. I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it. In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation. They exist period. All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not. But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait. Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

 

[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.

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.

Why do you insist on calling it a "right" ? We could contemplate even if we didn't have the so called "right".

 

[dilloduck]

Please prove your assertion. How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs. If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.

I didn't say it existed without man. I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it. In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation. They exist period. All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not. But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait. Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.

 

[Asclepias]

And scientific laws regarding human consciousness? Is the volition (i.e. freedom to decide and act) exhibited by the human mind "made up"?

Lets make sure we are on the same page. By scientific/natural law I am speaking about events that will occur regardless of what man calls them. Things under the heading of physics, biology, etc. Is this what you mean?

Yep. As well as a human's innate freedom to think and act on their thoughts. That's real no matter what we call it.

Also what do you mean by consciousness? Are you talking about being aware of your surroundings or are you talking about being able to think in abstract terms about things such as morality?

The trait of consciousness I'm concerned with here is that which the concept of inalienable rights recognizes: our volition, ie free will.

Thats a problem. I wouldn't define free will as a scientific law or a right. I would define it as an ability or to be more specific a freedom like you said. However to answer your question free will exists no matter what you call it. It is observable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Please prove your assertion. How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs. If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.

I didn't say it existed without man. I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it. In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation. They exist period. All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not. But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait. Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

Where is there even a reasonable rationale for how they didn't exist before man made them up? I didn't assign the word 'natural' to them. That was the term that those who first acknowledged and wrote about them gave to them and which the Founders referred to as 'God given' or "unalienable'.

I don't know what a cat feels but for damn sure, whatever it feels exists whether or not we know about it or have a word to describe it.

Did somebody have to 'make up' breathing or love or fear in order for these things to exist? Did somebody have to 'thnk up' gravity in order for it to exist? Some things just are. Natural rights are something that just is.