What "rights" does nature give us?

[Quantum Windbag]

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, and for stake of clarity, in my previous posts I was referring to what you've described as legal rights.

Which comes directly back to my problems with the term "rights" - the inherent confusion about what the definition of the term is.

What else would include as a "natural right", aside from the ability to think?

Natural rights are things that come to us from nature, life, liberty, and pursuing happiness. I know quite a few people that argue that anything that another person can infringe upon or take by force is not a right, but I disagree. Even if we accept that definition you cannot prevent me from thinking or the pursuit of happiness. As one of my favorite charactors put it once, you can make it damn hard to actually catch happiness, but you can't actually stop people from chasing it.

By the way, anyone that argues that the pursuit of happiness is a human construct has never watched a kitten play. That is why I know that rights are real, I can see evidence of them in things other than humans.

I can agree with all of this.

Lets stop arguing about the word rights then.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's completely possible that I'm not understanding you. It's also possible that you're not understanding me.

I'll try to back it up a little and explain what I'm talking about.

Everyone is born with free will. By that I mean the ability to think, make decisions, weigh consequences and act. Nothing can take that away, so in that sense I'm connecting it to your definition of a "right". Perhaps I got that wrong.

To me, the term "right" is applied in a way that implies a limit to how one's free will can be exercised - a "consequence", as I mentioned before. For instance, most people will agree on a "right" to free speech - but I doubt any will agree on a "right" to free action. I think of speech and action as essentially the same thing - just applications of one's free will.

First, you have to understand we are talking about three different things, natural rights, legal rights, and actions. Natural rights are inherent in every living sentient creature in the universe, legal rights are given to us by law and/or custom, actions are what we do.

I have an inalienable natural right to think about killing you.

I may, or may not, have a legal right to kill you depending on the circumstances.

If I chose to follow up on my thoughts about killing you society will judge whether it condones said killing by using law and/or custom to judge my actions.

My rights have no consequences, my actions do.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, and for stake of clarity, in my previous posts I was referring to what you've described as legal rights.

Which comes directly back to my problems with the term "rights" - the inherent confusion about what the definition of the term is.

What else would include as a "natural right", aside from the ability to think?

I gave a fairly lengthy post concerning the definitions of "natural rights" and "positive rights" (what you call "legal rights") earlier, and another one concerning "natural law" under which we have natural rights.

Thinking is an ability, but not generally considered a right, probably because it's not something anyone outside of you could ever directly change or affect, anyway.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nor does a lack of will to exercise your rights invalidate the fact that you have them. If I choose not to exercise my legal right to vote, for example, that doesn't mean I no longer have the right to do so.

I'm guessing you're not understanding me, because that simply doesn't make any sense in context with my comments.

Could have something to do with your comments not making a lot of sense, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the meanings of the terms "rights" or "natural rights". You're basically just raving about something totally unrelated. Perhaps you should figure out what words mean before you discuss them.

My comments have everything to do with the meanings of the terms "rights" and "natural rights". The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

On the other hand, MY comment quoted above related to Quantum's comment, which is why I quoted THAT.

But Quantum's comment was a direct response to mine. In context, your comment had nothing to do with our conversation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

None.

Really? There are no rights inherent to each person which cannot be abrogated by the government without rendering that government unjust and illegitimate?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

None.

Really? There are no rights inherent to each person which cannot be abrogated by the government without rendering that government unjust and illegitimate?

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone will have different criteria as to what is "unjust" and "illegitimate", making the definition of "rights" in this context meaningless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm guessing you're not understanding me, because that simply doesn't make any sense in context with my comments.

Could have something to do with your comments not making a lot of sense, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the meanings of the terms "rights" or "natural rights". You're basically just raving about something totally unrelated. Perhaps you should figure out what words mean before you discuss them.

My comments have everything to do with the meanings of the terms "rights" and "natural rights". The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Actually, the fact that you haven't stated a clear, let alone correct, definition for either "rights" or "natural rights" is what makes your definition irrelevant, not to mention the fact that personal definitions generally are irrelevant just because they're usually half-assed.

Also, the fact that you've been gibbering on about "free will" as though it has something to do with the topic of rights might tend to make the whole thing less than relevant to the topic of rights of any sort.

On the other hand, MY comment quoted above related to Quantum's comment, which is why I quoted THAT.

But Quantum's comment was a direct response to mine. In context, your comment had nothing to do with our conversation.

Actually, it had a LOT to do with what Quantum was saying, because Quantum has at least a grasp of what rights and natural rights are. You're correct that it had very little to do with your tangled and meandering diatribes about "free will", because I thought they were fairly stupid even relating to that topic, and possibly hallucinatory as related to the topic of rights.

Please, in the future, at least TRY to understand when someone is saying, "This guy's a moron with no idea what he's saying, and I am now going to contradict his entire premise to show how stupid I think it is." It's a pain to have to draw you a picture explaining it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

None.

Really? There are no rights inherent to each person which cannot be abrogated by the government without rendering that government unjust and illegitimate?

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone will have different criteria as to what is "unjust" and "illegitimate", making the definition of "rights" in this context meaningless.

No one ever said there was 100% unanimous agreement as to what our natural rights are. Where in my definition did you see THAT as a criteria? And no, it doesn't make the definition meaningless. The day that something stops existing just because human beings don't know about it, or because they don't all agree about it down to the last man, is the day the universe itself just disappears and takes us with it. Please try to think a little more outside the box of your square little head.

 

[Annie]

read John Locke

Indeed.

Locke's Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Annie]

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?

No. He's not wrong. You are, your failure to understand basic philosophy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Could have something to do with your comments not making a lot of sense, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the meanings of the terms "rights" or "natural rights". You're basically just raving about something totally unrelated. Perhaps you should figure out what words mean before you discuss them.

My comments have everything to do with the meanings of the terms "rights" and "natural rights". The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Actually, the fact that you haven't stated a clear, let alone correct, definition for either "rights" or "natural rights" is what makes your definition irrelevant, not to mention the fact that personal definitions generally are irrelevant just because they're usually half-assed.

My entire argument is that because there is no "clear" and "correct" definition for "rights", the term alone is completely meaningless. So of course I've haven't stated a "clear" definition for what "rights" are - I don't believe there is a "clear" definition of "rights".

Also, the fact that you've been gibbering on about "free will" as though it has something to do with the topic of rights might tend to make the whole thing less than relevant to the topic of rights of any sort.

Again, the fact that you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't invalidate it.

On the other hand, MY comment quoted above related to Quantum's comment, which is why I quoted THAT.

But Quantum's comment was a direct response to mine. In context, your comment had nothing to do with our conversation.

Actually, it had a LOT to do with what Quantum was saying, because Quantum has at least a grasp of what rights and natural rights are. You're correct that it had very little to do with your tangled and meandering diatribes about "free will", because I thought they were fairly stupid even relating to that topic, and possibly hallucinatory as related to the topic of rights.

Quantum and I were having a significantly more productive conversation than this one.

Please, in the future, at least TRY to understand when someone is saying, "This guy's a moron with no idea what he's saying, and I am now going to contradict his entire premise to show how stupid I think it is." It's a pain to have to draw you a picture explaining it.

There is no question that I understand what you're saying. It's the same thing that everyone says.

I think it's pretty clear that you don't understand what I'm saying, though.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Really? There are no rights inherent to each person which cannot be abrogated by the government without rendering that government unjust and illegitimate?

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone will have different criteria as to what is "unjust" and "illegitimate", making the definition of "rights" in this context meaningless.

No one ever said there was 100% unanimous agreement as to what our natural rights are. Where in my definition did you see THAT as a criteria? And no, it doesn't make the definition meaningless. The day that something stops existing just because human beings don't know about it, or because they don't all agree about it down to the last man, is the day the universe itself just disappears and takes us with it. Please try to think a little more outside the box of your square little head.

But the whole idea of a "right" is that it's an absolute thing, not a subjective thing.

If people don't agree as to what a "right" is, how is it anything more than a construct of society?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Although rights are inalienable, they are not absolute.

Government may restrict or preempt rights in accordance with Constitutional case law. For the most part, disagreement exists as to where the boundaries are drawn with regard to the extent the state may restrict or preempt a given right.

For example, we all agree there is a 4th Amendment right “of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” we disagree, however, as to what extent. We all agree that the 4th Amendment right to privacy is inalienable, but we disagree as to its comprehensive application. Does one have an expectation of privacy when communicating on his wireless device or when communicating online?

There are those who wish the state greater access to our private information for reasons of security and combating crime, and those who reject that premise fearing a loss of individual liberty and personal privacy, although both factions agree the fundamental right to privacy nonetheless exists.

 

[Politico]

None.

Really? There are no rights inherent to each person which cannot be abrogated by the government without rendering that government unjust and illegitimate?

Yes really. The question was about nature not government.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I never said God doesn't exist. I said we can't prove the existence of God.

It should be an easy concept to discern. If you can't, you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

I still say that step one is to define 'God'.

The only thing worse than Christians pushing their social agenda and defining list of God given rights and responsibilities is Sharia Law. What a social pain in the ass THAT would be. I'd be fracturing a few of those bad boys...

And I am still waiting for a definition of life.

Why? What's the context, here in this thread?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

Society allows me to live?

You're ass-u-me-ing you have a 'right' to life.

 

[SniperFire]

Natural 'rights' are completely illogical.

Silly, actually.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

An interesting thought I had last night that made me think of this thread.

Why is it that our government officials are sworn into office using this:

I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

And the same is done in courts of law. So the question I have is, if the constitution doesn't refer to God directly, and since natural rights in the context of the OP refer to rights granted inalienable by nature, why do we swear our allegiance to the constitution before god?

What does god have to do with any of this natural rights business? The constitution?

 

[Koios]

An interesting thought I had last night that made me think of this thread.

Why is it that our government officials are sworn into office using this:

I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

And the same is done in courts of law. So the question I have is, if the constitution doesn't refer to God directly, and since natural rights in the context of the OP refer to rights granted inalienable by nature, why do we swear our allegiance to the constitution before god?

What does god have to do with any of this natural rights business? The constitution?

Not a lot. Much as I, an atheist, might say goddamn, OMG, or pray to God this or that happens, it's become part of the lexicon and is not always speaking to a diety above.

So, "so help me god" is kinda like "come hell or high water" or "to the best of my ability."

Merely a figure of speech that affirms total commitment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

None.

Really? There are no rights inherent to each person which cannot be abrogated by the government without rendering that government unjust and illegitimate?

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone will have different criteria as to what is "unjust" and "illegitimate", making the definition of "rights" in this context meaningless.

That only makes sense if the government can control our thoughts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone will have different criteria as to what is "unjust" and "illegitimate", making the definition of "rights" in this context meaningless.

No one ever said there was 100% unanimous agreement as to what our natural rights are. Where in my definition did you see THAT as a criteria? And no, it doesn't make the definition meaningless. The day that something stops existing just because human beings don't know about it, or because they don't all agree about it down to the last man, is the day the universe itself just disappears and takes us with it. Please try to think a little more outside the box of your square little head.

But the whole idea of a "right" is that it's an absolute thing, not a subjective thing.

If people don't agree as to what a "right" is, how is it anything more than a construct of society?

I find it strange that the only people that think rights is a subjective term are the ones that are trying to redefine it in such a way that they all come from man. Humans are not the source of life, therefore humans are not the source of my right to life.