Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Zero]

My "thing" hangs naturally to the right.

j/k

[Berzerker]

"Natural rights" are moral claims of ownership - a "gift" from that which created us. It doesn't matter if you call this creator "God", nature or the Big Bang, but this source of life lies beyond human endeavor. How do we determine what these rights are? One must start out with only those natural rights that are self-evident before speculating about other potential rights.

1) Life
2) Liberty

From these self-evident rights derive all other natural rights (as opposed to "civil" rights).

For those who say there are no natural rights, only "societal" rights, you've put yourself in the position of defending the actions of state sponsored genocide and every other crime against humanity committed by nation-states. If, for example, the millions of people slaughtered by the Nazis and Commies had only those rights granted by those societies, then the Nazis and Commies took nothing from their victims and genocide and slavery are moral if "society" says so.

[Ramo]

One must start out with only those natural rights that are self-evident before speculating about other potential rights.

1) Life
2) Liberty

Why are they self-evident?

genocide and slavery are moral if "society" says so.

No, a society considers genocide considers genocide and slavery immoral if this society says so. That has no bearing on what I might consider immoral. Individuals and groups of indiviudals tend to subscribe to different moral systems to at least some extent. I'm sure some there are things I might consider immoral that you consider moral, and vice-versa.

[mrmitchell]

Natural rights, I guess, come from man's need to give input. It makes 'em feel useful.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I would think so, a Kantian view of natural rights. That of course begs the question, what is the optimal functioning of society to everyone's mutual benefits? And if these things can be deduced a priori, why have some cultures strayed from what some believe to be natural rights (if they really are natural rights).

Clearly there are no natural rights per se but a set of rights agreed upon by the society which are necassrily for the society and its constituents to function properly in a particular historical time frame.

Since societal conditions continually shift and drift, such rights will be expanded or limited as well.

[Agathon]

Natural Rights cannot be deduced a priori for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a priori knowledge and no such thing as the a priori.

Read: Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empricism", and Davidson; "Radical Interpretation."

[Bereta_Eder]

From nature and that's why they are called "natural".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
"Natural rights" are moral claims of ownership - a "gift" from that which created us.

So, your form of "natural rights" is positive rights (freedom to), not negative rights (freedom from). Why are positive rights superior?

Originally posted by Berzerker
How do we determine what these rights are? One must start out with only those natural rights that are self-evident before speculating about other potential rights.

1) Life
2) Liberty

From these self-evident rights derive all other natural rights (as opposed to "civil" rights).

Even if I grant you that the right to life is a basic belief, atomic and taken to be true, it does not apply to the right to liberty. For one thing, liberty is not atomic.

Originally posted by Berzerker
For those who say there are no natural rights, only "societal" rights, you've put yourself in the position of defending the actions of state sponsored genocide and every other crime against humanity committed by nation-states. If, for example, the millions of people slaughtered by the Nazis and Commies had only those rights granted by those societies, then the Nazis and Commies took nothing from their victims and genocide and slavery are moral if "society" says so.

Not necessarily, it depends on the foundation of said rights. In a society where all humans have natural rights, certain peoples could still be denied such rights by defining them as "non-humans."

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Also, do these Natural Laws really improve the efficiency of society, particularly freedom of religion?

Golly, I see what you mean! The United States for instance should have Episcopaliainism as its state religion because (1)it was proposed at the foundation of the country and (2)more of our power elite have been Episcopalians than any other single denomination. We'll get right on it. I suggest you Canadians get right on re-establishing the Church of England.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why are they self-evident?

Damn you beat me to it

For those who say there are no natural rights, only "societal" rights, you've put yourself in the position of defending the actions of state sponsored genocide and every other crime against humanity committed by nation-states. If, for example, the millions of people slaughtered by the Nazis and Commies had only those rights granted by those societies, then the Nazis and Commies took nothing from their victims and genocide and slavery are moral if "society" says so.

Defending, no. Remember we have our own moralities, which although may have no weight, still exist.

However, if you are asking if the Nazi's and Communists that you speak of had just as valid a claim they were following 'natural rights' as present society, I must agree. As UR stated, you can easily deny people rights by claiming them to be non-human, or in the Nazis case, sub-human.

And yes, slavery and genocide are moral if the 'society' says so. After all, morallity is simply a societal construct of how people SHOULD act. This differs based on how many people in society agree with the idea.

Some groups may decide that the 'right to liberty' isn't natural at all, but societally made. They might decide to follow Hobbes instead and say that life is simple the only natural right.

Clearly there are no natural rights per se but a set of rights agreed upon by the society which are necassrily for the society and its constituents to function properly in a particular historical time frame.

I can agree with you on that. Of course the set of rights agreed upon will vary from society to society.

[Kramerman]

"natrual rights" are arbitrary to any given society.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Why are they self-evident?

You live, and you live with no "divinely" fabricated leash leading to my hand. Life and liberty are self-evident "gifts" from that which created us. Does not your life and liberty emanate from that which created life?

No, a society considers genocide considers genocide and slavery immoral if this society says so.

And if this "society" says these are moral? I'm not sure what you mean there by "this" society, but those who deny natural rights are stuck in the position of either defending the Nazis or rationalising away why their behavior was immoral without explaining why. If genocide is immoral, why? If "society" decides what is moral and whom has rights, then the Nazis did no wrong, true?

That has no bearing on what I might consider immoral.

Then the opinions of individuals, including individuals making up the majority, are not the basis for determining morality - that's where natural rights enter the picture.

Individuals and groups of indiviudals tend to subscribe to different moral systems to at least some extent. I'm sure some there are things I might consider immoral that you consider moral, and vice-versa.

True, a good clue for objectively defining morality is by identifying universal views instead of relying on the conflicting opinions of individuals. The Golden Rule encapsulates this by urging us to treat others as we would have others treat us. No one wants to be murdered, so this universal view may make up a solid basis for asserting the immorality of murder. But why? Do people have an inherent sense that they belong to themselves? Yes, albeit a sense that criminals and cultures try to subvert for their own motives.

UR -

So, your form of "natural rights" is positive rights (freedom to), not negative rights (freedom from). Why are positive rights superior?

I make no distinction between a freedom to and a freedom from.

Even if I grant you that the right to life is a basic belief, atomic and taken to be true, it does not apply to the right to liberty. For one thing, liberty is not atomic.

If liberty was not a self-evident natural right, where are the chains placed around your ankles by that which created you subjugating you to my will?

Not necessarily, it depends on the foundation of said rights. In a society where all humans have natural rights, certain peoples could still be denied such rights by defining them as "non-humans."

Based on what? Their conviently ignorant opinions, not any scientific standard used to define humaness. Many in this country justified slavery by using the Bible, not natural rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You live, and you live with no "divinely" fabricated leash leading to my hand. Life and liberty are self-evident "gifts" from that which created us. Does not your life and liberty emanate from that which created life?

Why should life and liberty emanate for that which created life? Life, I can see, but why liberty? What basis is there for that? Who gives this gift and where does it arise from?

And if this "society" says these are moral? I'm not sure what you mean there by "this" society, but those who deny natural rights are stuck in the position of either defending the Nazis or rationalising away why their behavior was immoral without explaining why. If genocide is immoral, why? If "society" decides what is moral and whom has rights, then the Nazis did no wrong, true?

If the society says those acts are moral, then they are moral within that society. And where have Moral relativists rationalized behavior without explaining why . We have explained why it may be immoral: because society today says it is immoral. Though to certain individuals it may be moral and to them it is so.

The Nazis did no wrong to those that believe in that morality. To most Germans in the 1930s, the Nazis did no wrong and they agreed with their morality.

Then the opinions of individuals, including individuals making up the majority, are not the basis for determining morality - that's where natural rights enter the picture.

The individual, collectively with other individuals decide what morality is. Of course this changes over time and who is doing the deciding. I don't see where Ramo's point invalidates that individuals do not make up morality. His immorality is in no way, shape, or form connected to what was immoral or moral of earlier people (except perhaps his view of history shaped his morality).

The Golden Rule encapsulates this by urging us to treat others as we would have others treat us.

And does this always work? No. Because we would like to treat some people in ways that we ourselves would not like to be treated (ie, death penalty.. hardly anyone wants to be killed, but some believe that people that perform heinous crimes should have their lives terminated).

If liberty was not a self-evident natural right, where are the chains placed around your ankles by that which created you subjugating you to my will?

Society has determined that slavery isn't what we value anymore. Though that is mainly western morality, in Sudan, it is quite different, and what is moral there is different.

Oh, and as for the chains around your ankles... without a parent (or guardian) to take care of you, you would surely perish, so you must follow them. How is that for chains?

Many in this country justified slavery by using the Bible, not natural rights.

The Bible has been the ultimate symbol of natural rights. You yourself referenced the Golden Rule, which was spread by the Bible mostly.

Their conviently ignorant opinions, not any scientific standard used to define humaness.

What makes humans so special? Because society decides we are better than other animals. This may change in the future, and then future natural right moralists can doom our generation to Hell for eating animals.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Defending, no. Remember we have our own moralities, which although may have no weight, still exist.

So whose morality is correct? Yours that says genocide is immoral or the Nazis who said cleansing "society" of undesirables is a worthy goal? In an earlier thread you said slavery was moral if %51 said so. Why is slavery moral if %51 says so and it becomes immoral if %51 say it is immoral? You're now claiming that morality depends on the opinions of 2 people, the people who effectively create this majority/minority split at %50 + 1 and %50 - 1.

However, if you are asking if the Nazi's and Communists that you speak of had just as valid a claim they were following 'natural rights' as present society, I must agree.

Huh? Where did I say they had a valid claim to do what they did in the name of natural rights? Natural rights are why their behavior was immoral regardless of what Nazi society said on the matter.

As UR stated, you can easily deny people rights by claiming them to be non-human, or in the Nazis case, sub-human.

So? Criminals often try to justify violating the natural rights of others, their self-serving opinions are not the basis for defining humanity.

And yes, slavery and genocide are moral if the 'society' says so.

So are they or do you need the majority to tell you first?

After all, morallity is simply a societal construct of how people SHOULD act. This differs based on how many people in society agree with the idea.

Does that mean you believe the Nazis committed no crimes against humanity?

Some groups may decide that the 'right to liberty' isn't natural at all, but societally made.

Did "society" create you?

They might decide to follow Hobbes instead and say that life is simple the only natural right.

Why would life be a natural right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So whose morality is correct?

NO ONES!

Why is slavery moral if %51 says so and it becomes immoral if %51 say it is immoral?

Because morality is a democratic process. The morals that prevail are those people that have the power. After all every law is legislated morality.

Of course this depends on a democratic society. An authoritarian society doesn't require this majority, only that the people in charge agree with a moral position.

Natural rights are why their behavior was immoral regardless of what Nazi society said on the matter.

Who says their defintion of natural rights is less valid than yours? Because we won and told them what natural rights mean?

So are they or do you need the majority to tell you first?

Society telling you is, in modern parlance, the majority telling you. They are one and the same.

Did "society" create you?

Technically, yes... because it brought together my mother and father.

Biologically, I have no idea what created me, so I cannot correctly claim any made up right from ti.

Does that mean you believe the Nazis committed no crimes against humanity?

Personally I believe they didn't. According to them they did not do so. My belief is no more valid than theirs, however my belief does have more weight behind it, because society (which is the majority) believes that is the right path.

Why would life be a natural right?

Ask the Hobbesians .

I can understand people calling life a natural right, because it comes from things that are not understood (unlike liberty, equality, or property).

Seeing how different societies treat life, I cannot say it is natural right. If it were a natural right, then every society would value it above all else.

--

Natural rights are simply, like morals, societal constructs to explain why people should have certain rights. They are in no way valid except to the people that created those rights. There is no special entity that 'gifts' you with rights.

Why should biology give you societal rights? Only society can give you societal rights and take them away if it wishes.

I may have my own morality, but it only matters if likeminded people are in power, which in democratic countries MEANS the majority. IF I were in a despotism, my morality would not matter at all, unless I was in the government and making law. Then my morality would have great weight.

Of course my morality is no better or worse than anyone else's, just different.