Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2003, 17:15

... assuming there is no God, of course (if there is, that makes this a very simple question

).

Where do these natural rights spring? Locke describes these rights as simply arising when people remove themselves from the State of Nature. The question that results is: aren't these rights formulated by what amounts to democratic election? And if so, then what makes them so important?

I can somewhat accept the idea that rules in the forumlation of society create the foundation of society and thus those rules must continue to be followed, but should this be the case? Should not the foundation be amendable?

However, what was the formulation of society? Can we trace it back? We can definetly trace back formulation of countries and states, but nations is incredibly hard to determine. If we do not know the status of societal formation, then how would we know the foundational rules?

Are not the 'natural rights' simply formulations that elite groups have made in the past for the promotion of their own rights? Since those groups have power, what they believe to be the 'best' rights was made to triumph over what others believed to be better rights.

Can anyone explain to me where natural rights sprang from and why those natural rights should be followed?

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 17:17

Hark, me thinks me see David Floyd approach! And lo, his faithful companions, Bezerker and Ramo!

But wait, here cometh their archnemesis, the villain loinburger! Booooooooo!

Caligastia · February 10, 2003, 17:19

Is anything man-made 'natural'? If not, then why should rights be considered 'natural'? It seems to me that the term 'natural rights' was just made up to make whatever rights that were being asserted seem more important.

chequita guevara · February 10, 2003, 17:21

"Natural rights" comes from the minds of thinkers. In other words, there are no such things. All rights are man-made.

I'm agreeing with Caligastia.

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2003, 17:26

And me, che, and me

.

Though instead of simply 'man-made', I'd assert all rights are government-made. Declared rights are for naught unless embraced by the elites or the masses, depending on the type of governmental system.

Lefty Scaevola · February 10, 2003, 17:36

A mystycal garden tended by the Illuminati.

Ben Kenobi · February 10, 2003, 17:41

Quote:

... assuming there is no God, of course (if there is, that makes this a very simple question ).

-Imran

No one cares for Aquinas?

I'll say that without the concept of God it is impossible to have Natural Laws applicable to everyone.

Agathon · February 10, 2003, 17:49

The minds of those who don't give a hoot if people suffer in poverty.

Well, you asked...

The Andy-Man · February 10, 2003, 17:51

there are natural rights goddamn it! Taking a p*ss for example....

Felch · February 10, 2003, 17:53

Your mom

loinburger · February 10, 2003, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But wait, here cometh their archnemesis, the villain loinburger! Booooooooo!

I thought that I felt my ears burning...

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 17:58

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger
I thought that I felt my ears burning...

I get the same thing, but that's usually from the fingernail marks.

mactbone · February 10, 2003, 18:05

A mandate from the masses...

Seriously, "Natural Rights" are only ideas that most people in a society agree are necessary. For example there are/wre tribes of cannibals and presumably they did not think there was a "natural right" to life, so there wasn't.

Ramo · February 10, 2003, 18:06

Quote:

Hark, me thinks me see David Floyd approach! And lo, his faithful companions, Bezerker and Ramo!
But wait, here cometh their archnemesis, the villain loinburger! Booooooooo!

You put me on the wrong side of the debate.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 18:17

I get mine from Publix.

Oh wait....that's Natural Light....

-=Vel=-

Agathon · February 10, 2003, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
A mandate from the masses...

Seriously, "Natural Rights" are only ideas that most people in a society agree are necessary. For example there are/wre tribes of cannibals and presumably they did not think there was a "natural right" to life, so there wasn't.

Um, that's not what's meant by "natural rights". Natural rights are just that - rights that you have purely by virtue of your natural constitution as a human being. What you are talking about are rights that arise by convention.

The best analogue to natural rights I can think of, offhand, is the so called "divine right of kings' which kings were supposed to have just because they were kings. I don't believe the latter, why should I believe the former.

As for natural rights theorists: Locke was basically inventing a set of rights that suited him and his nouveau riche mates. Same goes for the US constitution - "We hold these rights to be self evident, that all [white, landowning] men [yes, we mean men] are created equal."

The next sentence was omitted, it read something like this - "All you non-white, non-landowning, non-men can get stuffed."

Buck Birdseed · February 10, 2003, 18:39

I think some ideas can be derived a priori based on the optimal functioning of a society to everyone's mutual benefit. Would these be considered "natural" rights?

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
You put me on the wrong side of the debate.

And you call yourself a Libertarian. Cha!

Ramo · February 10, 2003, 18:43

I don't. I'm an anarchist.

VJ · February 10, 2003, 18:45

There is no such thing as "natural" rights. People form different artificial agreements
to get maximum benefit and minimum injury to themselves.

...or so do I think...

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 18:45

The only natural rights are those things one can as an individual can chose to do irrespective of societal consequences.

I have the natural right to rape my neighbor's wife and daughter. I have the natural right to succor and protect the innocent or the guilty. I have these rights because nature has given them to me. Natural rights are simply the things I can do if I choose to. There are no other natural rights. Beware people making up false concepts out of thin air.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
There is no such thing as "natural" rights. People form different artificial agreements
to get maximum benefit and minimum injury to themselves.

...or so do I think...

Your sig quotes me out of context. You have a natural right to do that. I have a natural right to deck you if I run across you in real life too.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 19:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't. I'm an anarchist.

How on earth could you be a Socialist Anarchist?

Dr Strangelove · February 10, 2003, 19:02

No one group can be considered superior to another simply because of the near impossibility of breeding the important traits in humans. It is rare for the child of a genius to be as gifted as his parent, and so on and so on simply because they are genetically too complex to accurately breed. Because desireable intellectual and emotional traits can't be bred true it follows that systems based on hereditary position ultimately will fail, as eventually the royal family will produce an heir who is an idiot. Natural rights, i.e., the rights of free speech, equal justice, assembly, equal representation, religious practice and the others, give a common grounds at least in part for everyone in the hopes that in a free society free people will be able to self-actualize their individual talents, thus improving the efficiency of society.

Ramo · February 10, 2003, 19:09

Quote:

How on earth could you be a Socialist Anarchist?

That's how it works. Anarchists are almost invariably Socialists. Anarchism is roughly the rejection of authority. Private authority isn't objectively different from public authority.

Ben Kenobi · February 10, 2003, 19:57

Natural rights, i.e., the rights of free speech, equal justice, assembly, equal representation, religious practice and the others, give a common grounds at least in part for everyone in the hopes that in a free society free people will be able to self-actualize their individual talents, thus improving the efficiency of society.

-Dr. Strangelove

That's a pretty good summary on what comprises Natural Law. However the problem is this: is the tendency of most people to allow others to self-actualise individual talents, at the expense of their own?

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

Agathon · February 10, 2003, 20:06

The question isn't whether natural rights/law are good or not, but whether there are in fact any such things, or good reason to believe in them. I can't see any reason which doesn't work as well for the divine right of kings or any other similar piece of religious crankery.

orange · February 10, 2003, 20:18

uh, nature?

Kramerman · February 10, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

That's how it works. Anarchists are almost invariably Socialists. Anarchism is roughly the rejection of authority. Private authority isn't objectively different from public authority.

I always thought anarchists were as hardcore as capitalists come, as it would be pure survival of the fittest, if there is no state to doll out hand outs... but this is what ive always thought, very liekly i thought wrong on this instance.

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2003, 20:42

Quote:

I think some ideas can be derived a priori based on the optimal functioning of a society to everyone's mutual benefit. Would these be considered "natural" rights?

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).

Quote:

Natural rights, i.e., the rights of free speech, equal justice, assembly, equal representation, religious practice and the others, give a common grounds at least in part for everyone in the hopes that in a free society free people will be able to self-actualize their individual talents, thus improving the efficiency of society.

Perhaps that is correct, but it seems to me that these rights arose from the minds of learned men. I don't see what is 'holy' (if you will) about them. They seemingly can be abrogated at will if other learned men (which, undoubtably seems in short stock these days) decide to follow a new path.