What "rights" does nature give us?

[Quantum Windbag]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

The idea behind 'natural' rights (aka inalienable, intrinsic, god-given, etc...) as referenced in the US Constitution was to characterize the kind of rights that government is created to protect. As you may have noticed, "rights" is an overloaded term that refers to many different concepts, so it was necessary to clearly define what they were talking about.

Now, nature (or God, or government, for that matter) doesn't "give" us natural rights. They are a simply a by-product of having volition - the ability to think and choose our own actions. In our natural state as thinking creatures we enjoy perfect freedom to do as we wish unimpeded by other people. Natural rights is just another way to refer to the general concept of social freedom. We create government to protect as much of that freedom as possible.

Obviously, the 'natural' state ends as soon as we have to associate with other people. That's where government comes in. We need government to mediate when our respective 'freedoms' come into conflict. In order to avoid the ugliness of violence every time a dispute can't be resolved, we count on government instead.

The point of this concept, re: the Constitution, isn't to specify a list of rights to protect (natural rights are essentially infinite in number), it's to define the purpose of government - to protect our freedom (inalienable rights).

Based on your posting history I suspect you'll have some difficulty with this concept, but I applaud your efforts. It's an important topic and voters need a clear understanding of it to guide our country.

This depends on what is meant by ‘government.’

If by ‘government’ one is referring to the judiciary, this might be marginally correct in that context only.

Otherwise, no – it’s the natural tendency of government to encroach upon rights, to probe for and exploit weaknesses in the Constitutional edifice. Constitutional case law, therefore, is the bulwark between the excesses of government and the rights of the people.

Huh?

Constitutional case law is a diagram of how the government argues that, because the Constitution makes their job harder, they should be able to ignore it, the judiciary is complicit in this process, not hampering it.

 

[JohnA]

Natural Law IS science, dummy. Why the fuck are you people incapable of grasping that? Natural rights are based on OBSERVABLE human behavior and the PREDICTABLE trouble that ensues when those rights are oppressed. If you enslave human beings, their natural inclination is to free themselves. Stuff a gag in a man's mouth, he'll attempt to remove it. Steal from him, he'll retaliate if he can.

Again.... the CONTEXT is about governance. How do we create a society where human beings can live together in peace and harmony? Our particular system of government is designed to maximize that by PROTECTING the inherent rights of citizens.

Who gets to decide what is or isn't a natural right?

If they were endowed by a Creator, why didn't that Creator specify them, so as to eliminate doubt and conflict?

ps im not a bleeding heart liberal

Who gets to decide that gravity exists? Who gets to decide what the speed of light should be?
If you're a believer in God, you'd likely say that He makes those kind of decisions, just as you'd likely say that He made us as we are. But whether you believe in a higher power or not, physics EXISTS. So too does biology. Human animals have certain distinct characteristics just like any other species does. In study of these characteristics, a system of government was created by our founders to maximize civil order.

What's really kind of funny about the debate we hear consistently from so-called "liberals" is that what they're REALLY denying is social science. In their haste to kill God, they toss the baby right on out with the bathwater.

kill god ? how come you can kill something that doesnt exist
PS im not a bleeding heart liberal

 

[there4eyeM]

What is the origin of words and thoughts?

 

[regent]

In the age of enlightenment man discovered laws governed the heavens and earth-nature's laws. These laws were opposed to what religion taught, i.e. the sun revolved about the earth. Then some began asking did nature have laws regarding man and man's governments, they concluded nature did indeed have laws on how man was governed. The old divine right of kings, nobles etc. were not natures laws but man-laws. So what did nature have in mind for governments? Those laws are to be found in many places including Locke and the Declaration of Independence. Are they real laws like gravity or just what some men believe nature had intended?

 

[NLT]

I ain't "pro-fag". Given a choice..I want nothing to do with them.

I am tolerant of fags.

Big difference.

You actually come across as a liberal warrior 102.

And?

He's a pretty stand up guy.

He's okay in my book.

I get along with warrior also, but you both go strAight to fag attacks when anyone disagrees with you. I can understand warrior doing it, he is outspoken about not liking gays, but a liberal doing it smacks of hippocracy. See Bodey, she calls warrior a closet fag when she is gay herself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the age of enlightenment man discovered laws governed the heavens and earth-nature's laws. These laws were opposed to what religion taught, i.e. the sun revolved about the earth. Then some began asking did nature have laws regarding man and man's governments, they concluded nature did indeed have laws on how man was governed. The old divine right of kings, nobles etc. were not natures laws but man-laws. So what did nature have in mind for governments? Those laws are to be found in many places including Locke and the Declaration of Independence. Are they real laws like gravity or just what some men believe nature had intended?

The laws of nature were not in conflict with religion except in the minds of small minded modernists.

 

[Toro]

The right to eat in nature whatever the hell we want.

 

[regent]

In the age of enlightenment man discovered laws governed the heavens and earth-nature's laws. These laws were opposed to what religion taught, i.e. the sun revolved about the earth. Then some began asking did nature have laws regarding man and man's governments, they concluded nature did indeed have laws on how man was governed. The old divine right of kings, nobles etc. were not natures laws but man-laws. So what did nature have in mind for governments? Those laws are to be found in many places including Locke and the Declaration of Independence. Are they real laws like gravity or just what some men believe nature had intended?

The laws of nature were not in conflict with religion except in the minds of small minded modernists.

Tell that too Galileo.

 

[Cecilie1200]

read John Locke

I have.

He's wrong about "natural rights".

Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.

In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.

And by the animals in that group.

Sound familiar?

You either didn't read Locke, or you didn't understand what he said. Whichever it is, BIG shock!

 

[Cecilie1200]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

Locke said they were life, liberty, and property. Jefferson rewrote them as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[konradv]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

Locke said they were life, liberty, and property. Jefferson rewrote them as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Still don't see what's natural about them. It's a rhetorical ploy, because without a force to back them up, they really don't exist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me cut through all the obfuscatory leftist bullshit, and muddleheaded "I listen to too many leftists" righty bullshit, and get right to the bottom line.

Natural Rights - Fundamental human rights based on universal natural law, as opposed to those based on man-made positive law. Although there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government. And that, whether or not these rights are enshrined in a national legal code, no government is lawful if it fails to upholds them. See also human rights.

For the lazy among us, I went ahead and looked up some of the confusing terms in there, as well.

Natural Law - Idea of perfect law based on equity, fairness, and reason, by which all man-made laws (see positive law) are to be measured and to which they must (as closely as possible) conform. Natural law is derived from the concept that the entire universe is governed by cosmic laws on which human conduct should be based, and which can be deduced through reasoning and the moral sense of what is right or wrong. See also laws of nature.

Where pretty much everyone here screws up is assuming that by "nature" and "natural", philosophers - particularly those of the Revolutionary Period - mean "the way the animals live on the savannah". They didn't, and they don't.

Positive Law - Body of man-made laws consisting of codes, regulations, and statutes enacted or imposed within a political entity such as a state or nation. Contrasts with natural law.

Please note the bolded part. It's not that other people CAN'T violate or ignore our natural rights; obviously, they are more than capable of it. What makes them "natural rights", or "inalienable" as Thomas Jefferson put it, is that it is ALWAYS fundamentally wrong to do so, and that no government or society which does so can be considered legitimate, lawful, or just.

 

[Rocko]

Thanks for the laugh, Sallow.

 

[neomalthusian]

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

Locke said they were life, liberty, and property. Jefferson rewrote them as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Still don't see what's natural about them. It's a rhetorical ploy, because without a force to back them up, they really don't exist.

Natural rights are thought or even felt to exist regardless of the adequacy of their protection by the greater society. Someone who believes in natural rights would say that even people living in anarchy have a right to life, liberty and property, even though the societal structure that would defend them has broken down.

We see animals in nature defending their lives and what they would appear to regard as their property. They will defend their nests, dens, their young, their food sources.

We create laws to help defend each member's rights (rights they already had before the creation of the law around it) and to reduce chaos and infighting. Our laws are a function of our rights, not the other way around.

 

[SniperFire]

Let me cut through all the obfuscatory leftist bullshit, and muddleheaded "I listen to too many leftists" righty bullshit, and get right to the bottom line.

Natural Rights - Fundamental human rights based on universal natural law, as opposed to those based on man-made positive law. Although there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government. And that, whether or not these rights are enshrined in a national legal code, no government is lawful if it fails to upholds them. See also human rights.

For the lazy among us, I went ahead and looked up some of the confusing terms in there, as well.

Natural Law - Idea of perfect law based on equity, fairness, and reason, by which all man-made laws (see positive law) are to be measured and to which they must (as closely as possible) conform. Natural law is derived from the concept that the entire universe is governed by cosmic laws on which human conduct should be based, and which can be deduced through reasoning and the moral sense of what is right or wrong. See also laws of nature.

Where pretty much everyone here screws up is assuming that by "nature" and "natural", philosophers - particularly those of the Revolutionary Period - mean "the way the animals live on the savannah". They didn't, and they don't.

Positive Law - Body of man-made laws consisting of codes, regulations, and statutes enacted or imposed within a political entity such as a state or nation. Contrasts with natural law.

Please note the bolded part. It's not that other people CAN'T violate or ignore our natural rights; obviously, they are more than capable of it. What makes them "natural rights", or "inalienable" as Thomas Jefferson put it, is that it is ALWAYS fundamentally wrong to do so, and that no government or society which does so can be considered legitimate, lawful, or just.

That's all swell and noble, Cecil, but unless the 'rights' in question are supernatural, those arguing that said 'rights' are not absolutely endowed - that they are invented and pretended by man - are exactly right. That is the point of the godless OP.

Then they take their ridiculous contention further and pretend the Declaration of Independence is not a Founding document, trying to pretend that THE most important foundational principle of the United States of America is not that of inalienable rights granted by our Creator.

LOL

 

[dblack]

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

Locke said they were life, liberty, and property. Jefferson rewrote them as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Still don't see what's natural about them. It's a rhetorical ploy, because without a force to back them up, they really don't exist.

Sounds like you're importing a lot with your definitions. 'Natural' in this context just means "innate". And "right" means freedom. Freedoms exist, conceptually, whether or not they are protected.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me cut through all the obfuscatory leftist bullshit, and muddleheaded "I listen to too many leftists" righty bullshit, and get right to the bottom line.

Natural Rights - Fundamental human rights based on universal natural law, as opposed to those based on man-made positive law. Although there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government. And that, whether or not these rights are enshrined in a national legal code, no government is lawful if it fails to upholds them. See also human rights.

For the lazy among us, I went ahead and looked up some of the confusing terms in there, as well.

Natural Law - Idea of perfect law based on equity, fairness, and reason, by which all man-made laws (see positive law) are to be measured and to which they must (as closely as possible) conform. Natural law is derived from the concept that the entire universe is governed by cosmic laws on which human conduct should be based, and which can be deduced through reasoning and the moral sense of what is right or wrong. See also laws of nature.

Where pretty much everyone here screws up is assuming that by "nature" and "natural", philosophers - particularly those of the Revolutionary Period - mean "the way the animals live on the savannah". They didn't, and they don't.

Positive Law - Body of man-made laws consisting of codes, regulations, and statutes enacted or imposed within a political entity such as a state or nation. Contrasts with natural law.

Please note the bolded part. It's not that other people CAN'T violate or ignore our natural rights; obviously, they are more than capable of it. What makes them "natural rights", or "inalienable" as Thomas Jefferson put it, is that it is ALWAYS fundamentally wrong to do so, and that no government or society which does so can be considered legitimate, lawful, or just.

That's all swell and noble, Cecil, but unless the 'rights' in question are supernatural, those arguing that said 'rights' are not absolutely endowed - that they are invented and pretended by man - are exactly right. That is the point of the godless OP.

Then they take their ridiculous contention further and pretend the Declaration of Independence is not a Founding document, trying to pretend that THE most important foundational principle of the United States of America is not that of inalienable rights granted by our Creator.

LOL

You didn't understand a word I said, did you?

No one said anything about "supernatural", although admittedly earlier philosophers tended to take as understood that humans had a Creator, who had made us with reason and morality, and thus given us the ability to understand the right and wrong of a society respecting these fundamentals.

However, there's no requirement to believe any of that in order to believe that there exists an ideal state of "equity, fairness, and reason, by which all man-made laws are to be measured and to which they must (as closely as possible) conform", as seen in the definition of "natural law". I went back and bolded THAT part for you, too.

You're still laboring under the mistaken impression that "inalienable right" and "natural right" somehow mean "cannot ever be ignored or violated".

Atheists keep telling us that they don't need God to be moral. Okay, well, if that's the case, then they should have no problem with any of this, and don't need to be bothering us with contentions that rights come from the government merely because they are - hopefully - respected and defended by the government.

 

[SniperFire]

Let me cut through all the obfuscatory leftist bullshit, and muddleheaded "I listen to too many leftists" righty bullshit, and get right to the bottom line.

Natural Rights - Fundamental human rights based on universal natural law, as opposed to those based on man-made positive law. Although there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government. And that, whether or not these rights are enshrined in a national legal code, no government is lawful if it fails to upholds them. See also human rights.

For the lazy among us, I went ahead and looked up some of the confusing terms in there, as well.

Natural Law - Idea of perfect law based on equity, fairness, and reason, by which all man-made laws (see positive law) are to be measured and to which they must (as closely as possible) conform. Natural law is derived from the concept that the entire universe is governed by cosmic laws on which human conduct should be based, and which can be deduced through reasoning and the moral sense of what is right or wrong. See also laws of nature.

Where pretty much everyone here screws up is assuming that by "nature" and "natural", philosophers - particularly those of the Revolutionary Period - mean "the way the animals live on the savannah". They didn't, and they don't.

Positive Law - Body of man-made laws consisting of codes, regulations, and statutes enacted or imposed within a political entity such as a state or nation. Contrasts with natural law.

Please note the bolded part. It's not that other people CAN'T violate or ignore our natural rights; obviously, they are more than capable of it. What makes them "natural rights", or "inalienable" as Thomas Jefferson put it, is that it is ALWAYS fundamentally wrong to do so, and that no government or society which does so can be considered legitimate, lawful, or just.

That's all swell and noble, Cecil, but unless the 'rights' in question are supernatural, those arguing that said 'rights' are not absolutely endowed - that they are invented and pretended by man - are exactly right. That is the point of the godless OP.

Then they take their ridiculous contention further and pretend the Declaration of Independence is not a Founding document, trying to pretend that THE most important foundational principle of the United States of America is not that of inalienable rights granted by our Creator.

LOL

You didn't understand a word I said, did you?

No one said anything about "supernatural", although admittedly earlier philosophers tended to take as understood that humans had a Creator, who had made us with reason and morality, and thus given us the ability to understand the right and wrong of a society respecting these fundamentals.

However, there's no requirement to believe any of that in order to believe that there exists an ideal state of "equity, fairness, and reason, by which all man-made laws are to be measured and to which they must (as closely as possible) conform", as seen in the definition of "natural law". I went back and bolded THAT part for you, too.

You're still laboring under the mistaken impression that "inalienable right" and "natural right" somehow mean "cannot ever be ignored or violated".

Atheists keep telling us that they don't need God to be moral. Okay, well, if that's the case, then they should have no problem with any of this, and don't need to be bothering us with contentions that rights come from the government merely because they are - hopefully - respected and defended by the government.

That was not a claim I made, and I certainly did not say rights cannot be 'violated.'

What I said was that anything less than a supernaturally endowed right was just any man's opinion. Your view of an 'idea state' of equity and fairness and that held by Pol Pot differ considerable.

There is nothing immutable about a 'natural' right if it is simply an invention of a fertile imagination.

 

[neomalthusian]

Has this been posted yet? It must be seen by any skeptic of natural rights whose interest in the topic is genuine.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I[/ame]

 

[Cecilie1200]

In the age of enlightenment man discovered laws governed the heavens and earth-nature's laws. These laws were opposed to what religion taught, i.e. the sun revolved about the earth. Then some began asking did nature have laws regarding man and man's governments, they concluded nature did indeed have laws on how man was governed. The old divine right of kings, nobles etc. were not natures laws but man-laws. So what did nature have in mind for governments? Those laws are to be found in many places including Locke and the Declaration of Independence. Are they real laws like gravity or just what some men believe nature had intended?

The laws of nature were not in conflict with religion except in the minds of small minded modernists.

Tell that too Galileo.

1) You people are thinking of the "laws of science", which are different from the "laws of nature", at least in the context of political philosophy.

2) It wasn't the laws of science which conflicted with religion in Galileo's time. It was Galileo's arrogance and big mouth.