Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[RGBVideo]

[Az]

GePap:
I don't believe in natural rights.

I do feel that there is a certain way that things should be done by humans. as much happiness for as many people as possible for as much time as possible.

[Boris Godunov]

You guys do know you can respond without parsing out every sentence. Unless of course you are using it as a deliberate tactic to make gobbedy-gook of the other's arguments. Try to respond in coherent paragraphs for pete's sake.

Imran, most Germans did not think it was morally acceptable to commit genocide. While most Germans harbored varying levels of anti-Semetism (as did everyone in the Western world at that time), the more extreme types of opression of Jews and other "inferior" races was not generally supported. That's why the Nazis perpetrated the lie that the Jews and Slavs were being transplanted to the East. Even at the end of the war, most Germans refused to believe the death camps really existed and insisted that the Jews from their areas were sent to the East.

Even those who knew what the camps were didn't necessarily support it. They weren't exactly at liberty to object, after all. When the American soldiers forced the nearby civilians to walk through Auschwitz and see it for themselves, the reactions were of disbelief and horror. Yes, they knew what was going on, but the full reality of it hadn't grabbed them until then, because no one wants to believe their country is perpetrating such an atrocity.

Bezerker seems to be designating "society" rather narrowly as the extent of national borders. That's a fictional barrier, however, in today's world. Modern society and values transcend national borders. Nuremberg was just precisely because of this--the Nazis had violated a basic moral princep of world society, not just German. Saying that societal values stop at an arbitrary geographic border is patently silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did this "creator" that gave you your life also put chains around you mandating I rule over you?

Perhaps... if I was born a slave he did.

So morality is defined by majority rule?

In democracies... in authoritarian states, it is defined by what the leader says it is.

Were they moral? You say yes, but also say they were immoral because we today say so. That makes morality - arguably the most important philosophical concept ever discovered by humans - a meaningless idea.

Exactly... morality is meaningless. That is the point.

Well, when having to choose between a system in which slavery and genocide can be morally justified and a system in which they cannot, I'll choose the system in which they cannot be justified. That pretty much sums it up for me. I believe in natural rights because they provide a mechanism for ensuring liberty that no other system can provide.

As long as you admit that natural rights don't majically arise, and you perfer to believe in them because they provide a 'just' society. That's fine, as long as you know it.

----

You guys do know you can respond without parsing out every sentence.

We are talking to bezerker... it's kinda going down to the lowest determinator.

As for the Germans in WW2, it may as well be true that they did not support that acts. But in that society did the people really matter? Since it was an authoritarian regime, the people that determined morality (and thus societal 'rights') were the leaders, who made the decision to exterminate.

Society can indeed be within state borders; however, you are correct. Morals and 'rights' today are international in nature. There are some morals which are purely within the country, but they are getting fewer and fewer. Of course modern society transcends boundaries of states because society believes that is the 'moral' thing to do.

GePap: Spot on!

[Az]

Imran:
this is what I call "local morals", like "thou shall not mastrubate". It's a code that is created to be a way of doing things in a certain society, sometimes having some philosophy underneath, and sometimes not.

I believe they're fluid, and one cannot judge a person for commiting a crime that wasn't considered a crime in his society, in some ancient time.

I do have global morals, which are basically, well, not the purpose of life, because there is none, but the way humans everywhere should behave, a single moral standard by which humans should be judged, in a good, not to say perfect society, imo.

[Ben Kenobi]

I also question whether Monotheism really gives you some sort of self-evident evidence for them either. Just cause God tells you not to take another mans vase doesn't mean God approves of a right of property. Maybe it is just another way for Him to protect his turf: God giveth, God taketh away: not larry, but God. God gives man choices and responsibilities. Those are not the same as rights.

-GePap

With a spot of Ramo:

I define my morality.

Finally, with Jon Miller:

we have no right to liberty, property, or life

All these points are connected. I agree with GePap that the right to property enshrined under the constitution is not necessarily the same as the Natural Right promulgated by God.

However, I must disagree with Ramo, and Jon Miller. One of the Natural Rights that people have, I would say the most fundamental is the right to life. Without the right to life, we cannot exercise any other rights, to property, or to liberty. One cannot be free unless one is first alive.

Where does this right to life come from? If it comes from people, as Ramo sums up, " I define my morality," why does this force us to respect the rights of others to live? Would it not be proper to say that I could kill Ramo because my personal morality agreed?

Yet we do believe that it is wrong to kill others arbitrarily. Where does this belief come from? One could say that society requires an agreement between parties to respect each others rights in order to prosper. You cannot form a functional society while killing people for sport.

There are several problems with this definition. It is not clear that while some people may be protected by society, that others who are not quite the same should also be protected. For the society to function, a mere majority must protect themselves, while the minorities will be exposed. A society that kills those who differ so long as they preserve the majority, will survive.

Secondly, not everyone is equally prosperous, nor productive. Why should a society protect the weak and the injured, the old and the enfeebled at cost to itself without a right to life?

[SnowFire]

Well, I believe in God, so this debate is mostly moot for me. I will say though that I buy Ramo's defense of relativism more than Imran's. Imran, you say:
So whose morality is correct?

NO ONES!

This isn't good, in my mind. You're saying that you can't condemn the Nazis (ignore for a moment that they were "right" according to their morality, which does make sense under relativism). The proper answer to "Who's Morality is correct?" is what I think Ramo is giving: MINE! If you simply say that morality is something each person defines for themself, and then they each have full grounds to condemn others who do not live up to that morality, you're consistent while being able to condemn the Nazis, Ted Bundy, and whoever else you think is evil. Saying that there is no such thing is morality might also be consistent, but then you've just constrained yourself to a wet paper bag in terms of views you can hold, since apperantly you don't care about right or wrong and choose your own actions via coin-flips or something.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

"Morality" 'means' something in so far as human beings have created the notion of values and vices and a methods of trying to classify social actions within this framework, and that this framework informs their future actions. Outside of that morality is meaningless.

Of course human beings thought up the notion of morality, but morality must be based on something more than just our differing opinions or morality is meaningless. Was it immoral for the Nazis to slaughter millions of Germans? If so, why? If you say they were immoral, is that a meaningless statement? According to some people in this thread, the Nazis were not immoral because their "society" defined morality and whatever they did to others qualifies as moral.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I think that morals are defined by the society in which they are applied to. By saying that there is one set of morals and that it is you who believe in them is just dismissing everything else without giving it a look. thats arrogant.

[Sava]

Rights are created by humans.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Any mother has created life.

No, she has perpetuated life. She didn't create the egg, fertilise it, or create the genetic code.

That's not relevent to the point. I may have been born as your slave.

It is relevant, you're trying to argue that natural rights don't exist because some people violate the rights of others. According to that argument, I could argue there are no civil rights either because somebody violated another person's civil rights. As for being born a slave, did that which created you enslave you or another person?

Why do I need a longer horizon? How is who created my mom relevant?

Because you cannot see that my argument is about that which created life, not life forms perpetuating life.

I still don't understand why who created me is relevant.

Because if I did not create you, I lack any claim over your existence. If you build a car, do I get to morally do as I wish with your labor?

No, you were asking a question about societal morality, and I answered it by saying that societal morality is societal morality (basically).

I don't even believe in "societal" morality. Imran says the majority (or plurality) defines morality.

Why is that relevant? I thought you just said the majority doesn't determine morality (which I agree with).

Because some people are willing to go to almost any length to deny natural rights, even defending the Nazis (although Imran says he wasn't defending them).

No one is claiming that the Nazi's are moral.

Imran did.

What's "right?" Right according to whom? My moral system is logically consistent with my philosophy, if that's what you mean.

Correct, true. Do you believe your view of morality is correct? If so, then opposing views are incorrect, true?
That means morality is not meaningless as some in this thread are claiming.

Why?

Because morality becomes meaningless if it depends only on opinions. Morality must be based on some standard or principle, not the ever changing winds of popular opinion.

Again, because they usurped the liberty of millions in the extreme. Which is "bad" in my moral system.

But liberty is a natural right! It certainly was not a "societal" or civil right in that country. This thread is a debate between those who claim rights are "societal" or natural, and since the victims of the Nazis had no societal right to liberty, the Nazis did nothing wrong to their victims. But you and I agree what they did was immoral because they violated the rights of their victims. So, why did those victims have rights such as liberty when "society" said they had no right to liberty? Because rights come from a source other than our fellow man.

Why?

For the same reason it is meaningless to claim 2+2 = 4 if 2+4 = 4 is also true. If you and I have competing views of morality, one of us is right and the other is wrong (assuming only 2 options).

No, you think murder is moral if you say so, and I think murder is immoral if I say so.

So who is correct?

What is inherent and what is conditioned, and how do you know which one is which?

Self-defense is inherent, non-resistance is conditioned. How do I know? Observing the world.

How is morality inherent to a person if it exists only within the context of a society?

Again, I didn't say morality is inherent, I said morality may be discerned by identifying universal characteristics shared by people. The Golden Rule identifies one of these characteristics, the desire to be treated a certain way.

Again, that's not true. What of people who are suicidal? And why is this relevant?

It is true, how do you equate suicide with attempted murder?

Not necessarily. If someone's really, really apathetic, this wouldn't be true.

So this really apathetic person wouldn't want to be saved from a murderer? C'mon...

But this doesn't imply that everyone believes we should all treat others as we would like to be treated.

Never said it did, but what it does say is that we want others to treat us a certain way even if there are people who murder others. The morality of the Golden Rule is that we should be consistent by granting to others what we want for ourselves.

It is if the state thinks so. Like ours does. Murder, like ownership, is an inherently legal concept.

Then suicide would be called murder. If I try to commit suicide and fail, does the state charge me with attempted murder? Of course not. Let's deal with ideas, not what some group of politicians tell us. Murder is intentionally killing another person without justification.

But I'll assume that instead of murder, you mean a nonconsentual killing. Yes, everyone by definition doesn't consent to a nonconsentual killing. You're arguing semantics again.

You are the one who offered suicide as a refutation of my argument that no one wants to be murdered.

Why not?

Survival instincts are not a product of natural selection.

You missed the whole point of that. What is ownership outside the context of society and state?

Do you need the state or "society" to tell you it's okay to defend yourself from attack before you act in self-defense? No, because self-defense ("ownership") is hardwired.

No, it isn't. The conditioning I was referring to is any sort of "non-natural" interaction. For instance, human interaction.

Why is human interaction "non-natural"?

What's the distinction? You're arguing that certain universal morals can be logically derived from these universal views, aren't you? Aren't you trying to argue that "Natural Rights" are universal morals?

Here is how you characterised my position:

But there aren't any universal moral views.

That isn't what I said, I said this:

there were universal views which may form the basis for determining morality.

The bold in your statement is my argument, but not that everyone shares the same view of morality.

I've cited the example of self-preservation as a universal trait, from this we can determine that self-ownership is a natural right. You don't like the word "ownership" claiming it is only a legal term. Fine, call it whatever you like, but self-ownership, self-determination, or fill in the blank, is a universal trait and is the basis of the natural rights to life and liberty. Slavery is conditioned, not life and liberty...

[Berzerker]

LoA -

I think that morals are defined by the society in which they are applied to. By saying that there is one set of morals and that it is you who believe in them is just dismissing everything else without giving it a look. thats arrogant.

So you believe the Nazis were moral? And who said there is one set of morals without looking at competing views? But once you've looked at these competing views, is it arrogant for you to choose the one you believe to be correct?

[Ramo]

Berz:

She didn't create the egg,

Sure she did. Are you suggesting a stork or a deity did?

fertilise it, or create the genetic code.

She didn't create the food that fed me either. She didn't create the house or city or the planet, or galaxy, or universe that housed me. What does this demonstrate? Are you trying to tell me that no one has created anything? If so, I would disagree with your definition of creation.

It is relevant, you're trying to argue that natural rights don't exist because some people violate the rights of others.

No, I am not. You're trying to claim that natural rights exist because I was not born your slave. Which just as easily could be false.

Because you cannot see that my argument is about that which created life, not life forms perpetuating life.

Why is the former relevant?

Because if I did not create you, I lack any claim over your existence.

Why? And why would you have a moral claim to me if you created me? If some deity "created me" (whatever that means), I certainly would not consider Him to have a moral claim over me. IMO, slavery is always immoral regardless of how much power the master has.

If you build a car, do I get to morally do as I wish with your labor?

Huh?

I don't even believe in "societal" morality.

I consider societal morality to be aspects of a moral system held in common within a society. I don't see what there is to believe or not believe in...

Correct, true. Do you believe your view of morality is correct? If so, then opposing views are incorrect, true?

Define correct. My morality is a belief, there's nothing objective about it.

That means morality is not meaningless as some in this thread are claiming.

I don't consider my morality to be "meaningless." There's no "Objective Truth" (not that I think any such thing exists) in it, but that doesn't make it "meaningless."

Because morality becomes meaningless if it depends only on opinions. Morality must be based on some standard or principle, not the ever changing winds of popular opinion.

Why?

For the same reason it is meaningless to claim 2+2 = 4 if 2+4 = 4 is also true. If you and I have competing views of morality, one of us is right and the other is wrong (assuming only 2 options).

Why do you assume there are only two options. Neither one is "correct." It's just as arbitrary to call 2 the additive identity of complex numbers (and reals, rationals, and integers) as 0. It's also just as arbitrary to define the function "+" as addition as any other function you want.

So who is correct?

Correct isn't a logically defined concept in this context.

Self-defense is inherent, non-resistance is conditioned. How do I know? Observing the world.

It's true that biological conditioning (natural selection) has given humans a propensity to survive. But of course not all humans have this propensity.

It's also true that biological conditioning has given humans a propensity to spread our genes. Does that make rape a natural right?

So this really apathetic person wouldn't want to be saved from a murderer? C'mon..

Sure. Are you disputing that such people have never existed?

Never said it did, but what it does say is that we want others to treat us a certain way even if there are people who murder others.

As opposed to not wanting others to treat us a certain way? Again, this isn't true if one is really apathetic.

The morality of the Golden Rule is that we should be consistent by granting to others what we want for ourselves.

How does the fact that some people aren't totally apathetic make the golden rule a universal moral?

It is true, how do you equate suicide with attempted murder?

I don't. Murder has a specific legal context. Murder is any killing that the state calls murder. Few if any states have considered attempted suicide attempted murder.

Let's deal with ideas

In that case, we need to use specific language to represent these ideas. Murder has a specific definition. But I did deal with what you intended to write.

You are the one who offered suicide as a refutation of my argument that no one wants to be murdered.

Again, please deal with what I've written. A nonconsentual killing is nonconsentual, I agree with that. But that's a definition (The fact that a logical assertion "A" implies "A", doesn't imply that "A" is true).

Survival instincts are not a product of natural selection.

I imagine just about every biologist in the world would disagree. Where do you think they come from?

Do you need the state or "society" to tell you it's okay to defend yourself from attack before you act in self-defense?

No, a state or any other authority can tell me what my morals are. They're products of my mind (and all that influence it), nothing else.

No, because self-defense ("ownership") is hardwired.

Again, natural selection has given us the propensity (which is NOT universal) to survive. I accept that. Now, what does this imply?

Why is human interaction "non-natural"?

I'm using your definition of natural as in "natural rights"; i.e. they don't come from humans.

I've cited the example of self-preservation as a universal trait, from this we can determine that self-ownership is a natural right.

Bad logic. I've cited the biological imperative to spread our genes is a universal trait, from this can we determine that rape is a natural right?

And you need to prove your assertion. Just stating it isn't a proof.

obiwan:

However, I must disagree with Ramo, and Jon Miller. One of the Natural Rights that people have, I would say the most fundamental is the right to life. Without the right to life, we cannot exercise any other rights, to property, or to liberty. One cannot be free unless one is first alive.
Where does this right to life come from? If it comes from people, as Ramo sums up, " I define my morality," why does this force us to respect the rights of others to live?

What is "this" that you refer to? My morality and my thoughts on the nature of morality don't force you to respect the rights of others.

Would it not be proper to say that I could kill Ramo because my personal morality agreed?

Barring the intervention of anyone else (including me), there's no reason that you couldn't kill me. I wouldn't consider it moral, though.

Yet we do believe that it is wrong to kill others arbitrarily.

Who is "we"? Did Stalin or Hitler believe this?

Where does this belief come from?

Biological and social conditioning.

One could say that society requires an agreement between parties to respect each others rights in order to prosper. You cannot form a functional society while killing people for sport.
There are several problems with this definition. It is not clear that while some people may be protected by society, that others who are not quite the same should also be protected. For the society to function, a mere majority must protect themselves, while the minorities will be exposed. A society that kills those who differ so long as they preserve the majority, will survive.
Secondly, not everyone is equally prosperous, nor productive. Why should a society protect the weak and the injured, the old and the enfeebled at cost to itself without a right to life?

1. During pre-civilization, or the during vast majority of the existence of humanity, there were no significant disparties in the wealth. And the old/"enfeebled" tended to have experience and knowledge that younger people had.
2. During most of civilization, groups with less power were indeed accorded fewer rights by the state. People with less authority were often slaughtered by people with more authority, and these ideas fit within the moral paradigm.
3. There tends to be an inverse relation between productivity and rights during most of civilization. A landless peasant was far more productive for society than a landed knight. Again, this fit within the moral paradigm.
4. Humans have brains. And we use them. Our moralities are not purely products of social need. Often moralities run contrary to social need (again, look at most of civilization).

SF:

Well, I believe in God, so this debate is mostly moot for me.

I've always wondered about this. Is it that you think God plants a certain moral system into every person, or that God has ultimate moral authority, so whatever he says is moral is by definition moral?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo... I do suggest you follow Boris' suggestion as well and stop nitpicking like Bezerker tends to do. It'll make the argument much easier to follow. I also now understand why debates involving berzerker turn into a one on one debate in the end.

---

Snowfire, you have to prove to me your morality is 'correct'. It may be correct to you, but it isn't to me. The question 'Who's Morality is Correct' I interpreted as 'which morality is best', because bezerker does believe that one moral code is superior.

That being said, I don't think you can say one moral code is superior to another. Your morals may work for you, but that doesn't mean anything. And it may just be like flipping a coin. After all, no one knows where our morals come from. Environment is part of it, but people can stray greatly from others in the same environment.

[Ramo]

Alright, here's a summary of my argument with Berz.

1. Berzerker seems to have the odd idea that if "something" created me, he morally has authority over me. This idea is antithetical to my personal moral views as I oppose slavery and any other form of human subjagation regardless of the power of this coercive authority. Futhermore, he seems to have a strange idea of what creation is. If I build a car, does this mean that I have not actually "created" it because I start out with parts that I haven't "created?"

2. Every assertion relies on assumptions (even this one). My moral system is built on a belief, just as everyone else's (including "objectivists." ). The premise behind my moral system is that the maximization of liberty is "good." That doesn't make all other moral systems objectively wrong as they are based on different premises. I, however, can use my moral system to declare certain kinds of social interactions as "wrong" (regardless of the moral systems the people involved subscribe to). That's the "meaning" of a moral system. No, it doesn't have any cosmic significance, but it's a useful philisophical construct.

3. The fact that humans have a propensity to survive doesn't prove that there's a "natural right" to life. Just as the fact that humans have a propensity to spread their genetic code doesn't prove that there's a "natural right" to rape. All this proves is that biological conditioning (natural selection) has given humans certain traits.

Furthermore, the fact that I wasn't born with chains to someone else doesn't prove I have "natural right" to liberty. If I was born in the Sudan or a few centuries ago, this may well have been true. Also, if this premise were true, the fact that I wasn't born with subservient to a landlord would prove that I have a "natural right" to my apartment.

And even if I couldn't find examples to the contrary, rigorous proof is needed to show why these nonintuitive assertions are valid.