Natural Rights

Berzerker · July 7, 2003, 22:35

What are they and from where did they originate?

1) Natural rights are expressions of shared, universal desires.
1a) Not wanting to be enslaved and murdered are universal desires.

2) Natural rights are moral claims of ownership beginning with oneself and his labor, but moral claims consistent with universal desires.
2a) If you "own" yourself, then you own your labor.

3) Natural rights are limited to human interaction, not interactions with other life forms.
3a) If a lion eats you, we don't say the lion has deprived you of your natural right to life.

4) They come from existence, i.e., by virtue of your existence, you have natural rights given by that which created the universe and life. In other words, the only evidence we have of this creator's "will" or "design" is what we can see in nature, and since we don't see chains around us leading to those self-appointed "leaders" of our destiny, they have no moral claim to make our decisions about how we live.

If you see a flaw, please post it so I can fine tune my philosophy. Just make sure the flaw is not negated by one of the other criterion.

Dis · July 7, 2003, 22:36

There are no natural rights.

We just pretend there are to allow for a more civilized society.

Urban Ranger · July 7, 2003, 22:42

There are no natural rights. All rights are artifical constructs granted to individuals by a society.

Berzerker · July 7, 2003, 22:43

There are natural rights.

We just ignore them to allow a more civilized society to violate them in the name of morality.

But seriously, I'm asking for flaws in my argument...

Drake Tungsten · July 7, 2003, 22:44

To join the chorus, natural rights don't exist.

Sava · July 7, 2003, 22:44

Quote:

There are no natural rights. All rights are artifical constructs granted to individuals by a society.

correct... in nature... there are no rights.

Berzerker · July 7, 2003, 22:50

Quote:

All rights are artifical constructs granted to individuals by a society.

So a society like Iraq or Afghanistan can simply deny a right to life and murder people free from any valid moral condemnation? I thought human rights were a cause celeb of the left...

Urban Ranger · July 7, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
There are natural rights.

We just ignore them to allow a more civilized society to violate them in the name of morality.

You need to make an argument, not by simply stating your position.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
But seriously, I'm asking for flaws in my argument...

1. You failed to show how "natural rights" come from these "universal, shared desires."

2. This does not follow from [1]

3. This is just a limitation on [1]

4. I am not sure what you are trying to get to. Since there are no rights in nature, appealing to nature to support your argument of "natural rights" does not work.

Urban Ranger · July 7, 2003, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
So a society like Iraq or Afghanistan can simply deny a right to life and murder people free from any valid moral condemnation?

Complex Question Berzerker. Tripping over so soon?

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
I thought human rights were a cause celeb of the left...

Just because we hold that humans should have rights does not mean we see these rights the same way you do.

Sava · July 7, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

So a society like Iraq or Afghanistan can simply deny a right to life and murder people free from any valid moral condemnation? I thought human rights were a cause celeb of the left...

the "right" to life is granted by society... not nature.

loinburger · July 7, 2003, 23:04

Regarding (2): Ownership is not "natural," but is social -- life (and the desire to live) exist independently of social interaction, but property can only exist as a result of an implicit/explicit contract with others (e.g. "I was here first, so I own this land" or "I was here first and I have improved this land through my labor, so I own this land" or "My father owned this land, so now that he is dead I own this land" or "I'm big in the trousers, so I own this land" etc.).

Urban Ranger · July 7, 2003, 23:07

Hi loin, long time no see. How was your b-day?

Good point, btw

Berzerker · July 7, 2003, 23:12

UR -

Quote:

You need to make an argument, not by simply stating your position.

That was a somewhat humorous response to Diss who did the same thing. I was hoping to show him that what he did was what you noticed.

Quote:

1. You failed to show how "natural rights" come from these "universal, shared desires."

I don't need to, their origin was dealt with in #4. These universal desires simply show that natural rights are "expressions" of shared desires.

Quote:

4. I am not sure what you are trying to get to. Since there are no rights in nature, appealing to nature to support your argument of "natural rights" does not work.

I'm not appealing to nature, but nature's creator. Since natural rights are moral claims, we don't attribute their recognition to less sentient creatures that may not be able to understand them.

Quote:

Complex Question Berzerker. Tripping over so soon?

No answer?

Quote:

Just because we hold that humans should have rights does not mean we see these rights the same way you do.

No, but from where do they originate? You said "society" but didn't answer my question about societies that ignore these rights.

Sava -

Quote:

the "right" to life is granted by society... not nature.

Then "society" can take it away and murder people free from moral condemnation, true? Upon what would you base your condemnation of human rights violations in a society that denied these rights?

Berzerker · July 7, 2003, 23:16

loinburger -

Quote:

Regarding (2): Ownership is not "natural," but is social -- life (and the desire to live) exist independently of social interaction, but property can only exist as a result of an implicit/explicit contract with others (e.g. "I was here first, so I own this land" or "I was here first and I have improved this land through my labor, so I own this land" or "My father owned this land, so now that he is dead I own this land" or "I'm big in the trousers, so I own this land" etc.).

Contracts to protect property rights are another matter. If you own a plot of land and I walk in and take it and there is no government or "society" to help you protect your land, do you still have a moral claim to that land?

loinburger · July 7, 2003, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Hi loin, long time no see. How was your b-day?

My birthday went pretty well, I consumed many a margarita . I even gave my grandparents a call, but they hung up on me. Typical.

Gotta disappear again soon, though. Well, after one more thread...

Sava · July 7, 2003, 23:17

Quote:

Then "society" can take it away and murder people free from moral condemnation, true?

Sure... Nazi Germany did it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong in a moral sense. This isn't about morals. Nature does not provide us with any rights... government is the only insitution that provides us with liberties and rights. Not nature.

Zero · July 7, 2003, 23:20

There are no natural rights. (also joingin the chorus)

Berzerker · July 7, 2003, 23:21

Sava -

Quote:

Sure... Nazi Germany did it.

Nazi Germany wasn't condemned for it's actions?

Quote:

I'm not saying it's right or wrong in a moral sense. This isn't about morals.

But natural rights are moral claims of ownership, so morality must be involved.

Quote:

Nature does not provide us with any rights... government is the only insitution that provides us with liberties and rights. Not nature.

I just said it isn't nature that gives us rights, but nature's creator.

Berzerker · July 7, 2003, 23:23

C'mon guys, I asked for flaws in my argument and all I'm getting are "society gives us rights" - an argument that certainly does have flaws.

loinburger · July 7, 2003, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Berserker
Contracts to protect property rights are another matter. If you own a plot of land and I walk in and take it and there is no government or "society" to help you protect your land, do you still have a moral claim to that land?

Why would I have more of a moral claim to the land than the other person? My name isn't "naturally" written on the land, so I can't claim to have a "natural" right to own it (similarly to how nobody can claim to have a right to own me). Even if I've worked the land, then what gave me the natural right to work it? What level of working the land "naturally" constitutes ownership?

Sava · July 7, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Nazi Germany wasn't condemned for it's actions?

not by nature...

Quote:

but nature's creator.

despite your belief in a creator... a creator didn't grant any rights to me... the founders of the US government did... the SCOTUS does... the federal government does... but not any creator. Humans grant rights... God may exist, but he doesn't work for the US government.

Rights only exist because they can be protected or recognized as legitimate.

Spiffor · July 7, 2003, 23:28

IIUC, the Arborigines didn't know about private property. Yet, they were far more close to nature than we are. Take the conclusion you want...

Sava · July 7, 2003, 23:30

Quote:

"society gives us rights" - an argument that certainly does have flaws.

that's like saying 2+2=4 has flaws...

imagine there is no society... but complete anarchy... or for that matter... you find yourself in the dinosaur's time period. Do you think a velociraptor cares whether or not you have "natural rights". No... the whole notion is silly.

Urban Ranger · July 7, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
I don't need to, their origin was dealt with in #4. These universal desires simply show that natural rights are "expressions" of shared desires.

First of all, this seems to be quite circular. Secondly, even #4 is not an argument, it's just stating a premise.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
I'm not appealing to nature, but nature's creator. Since natural rights are moral claims, we don't attribute their recognition to less sentient creatures that may not be able to understand them.

1. Appealing to "nature's creator" turns the argument into a metaphysical one instead of remaining a philosophical one.

2. Why are natural rights moral claims? For if these rights are "natural," they must be amoral - there are no morals in nature, afterall.

3. If rights are natural, there's no need to "understand" them, no? Isn't it a bit like eat, sleep, and pee?

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
No answer?

No need to answer, Berz. Afterall, Complex Question is a logical phallacy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
No, but from where do they originate? You said "society" but didn't answer my question about societies that ignore these rights.

Societies don't "ignore" rights, some just grant less to their citizens. Asserting rights as "natural" means that they are intrinsic, which is something you still need to establish.

David Floyd · July 7, 2003, 23:43

This is Berz's argument, but I wanted to make one comment...

Quote:

God may exist, but he doesn't work for the US government.

That's precisely the point - natural rights have nothing to do with government

Sava · July 7, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

That's precisely the point - natural rights have nothing to do with government

Exactly.... since natural rights DON'T exist... it does have nothing to do with the government.

Freedom isn't free. It's granted and protected by those willing to fight for it.

Dr Strangelove · July 7, 2003, 23:51

I learned something interesting watching TV a few weeks ago. There was a show on called "Walking with Cave Men". Judging from collections of fossilized bones the earliest hominids seem to have had a socal structure similar to that of most of the other higher anthropoids, i.e., they lived in groups of about a dozen individuals consisting of a dominant male, a few subservient males, a somewhat larger number of females, and their children. Our most direct ancestor, Homo ergaster (or was it Homo erectus?) seems to have made the switch to monogamy based upon the shift to a one-to-one ratio of adult males to females in their groups. This in turn allowed larger groups, and probably reduced internal friction. These larger, more cohesive groups probably shoved the old single dominant male groups right off the map.

I believe that the validity of natural rights can be traced to this human property, that sharing and empowerment within a group of people permits a more productive group. If you look through human history I think you'd find that prior to the evolution of civilization people generaslly lived essentially without much in the way of formal leadership. As humans adopted a stationary form of agriculture, which permitted and perhaps even demanded the evolution of larger communities more definitive social hierarchies evolved. I'm not sure whether this occured because at this stage a dictatorial structure was required in order to keep order, or because the structure of society at this level simply made such power structures possible. Regardless, from about the time of the evolution of the first cities (though there may have been a few exceptions), until just before the industrial age dictatorial government was the general rule. What began to reverse this trend at the end of the eighteenth century?

Of course it goes without saying that there is still a need to lock up gun toting, dope smoking wild men.

Urban Ranger · July 8, 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's precisely the point - natural rights have nothing to do with government

That's correct - that's why there are no "natural rights."

Urban Ranger · July 8, 2003, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I believe that the validity of natural rights can be traced to this human property, that sharing and empowerment within a group of people permits a more productive group.

From your premises, more and more rights had been granted to individuals inside a group precisely because doing so would allow for increased productivity for the group as a whole. Thus, as I see it, this is an overall societal concern, as these rights are codied and emshrined by various laws, treaties, accords, and constitutions.

Velociryx · July 8, 2003, 00:14

Natural Lights....simply awful beers....

-=Vel=-