The origins of Natural Law?

Not really, Natural Law , in its present conception, is merely an argument that certain behaviours come from before the establishment of social interaction, i.e. society, and so should be considered beyond social constraint, i.e. law. This is an appealling argument for sociopaths narcissists and megalomaniacs but any serious consideration leads to the inevitable conclusion that if everyone adopted this creed human interaction would degenerate to a state which will not enable large scale social interaction to be realized. In other words, society would quickly collapse.

 

Utter idiotic bunk. All I can say is that if you are from the US, our education system is doing a very poor job. With natural rights derived from natural law, you cannot oppress the same rights other individuals also possess so your claim that it is an appealing argument for sociopaths is garbage. If anything, natural law enhances social interaction since it protects everyone's rights where granted rights by government usually only benefit selected chosen classes or groups and not everyone and government oppression usually clamps down on natural rights.

You are also arguing that our Constitution, based on protecting natural rights from government oppression is a Constitution that appeals to sociopaths, narcissists and megalomaniacs.

 

Natural Rights as expressed by Locke and embodied in the US Constitution are not derived from the concept of Natural Law as it is expressed these days by people like Leo Strauss in his Natural Right and History, a sort of bible for contemprary thinking on Natural Law and rights.

There is Natural Rights and Natural Law, do not confuse them as they are profoundly different. The US the Constitution is based on Natural Rights from which the laws of the land are derived. Natural Law exponents turn this on its head and proclaim that Natural Rights must originate from laws of nature, Natural Law, so rights become subservient to the laws of nature, which they then proceed to define in their own particular way by a series of spurious arguments based on dubious assumptions with much of their argument coming from Darwinism, natural selection, and long ago debunked conceptions on the nature of humans and their phrehistoric behaviour, all of which appeared only long after Locke was dead and the US Constitution written.

More directly, modern day conceptions of Natural Law have nothing to do with the conception of Natural Rights as embodied in the US Constitution. Only a seriously confused or ingorant person would be able to think that, and there is a lot of that going around these days.

 

Your understanding of Natural Law is flawed. The Founders, probably some of the best read people compared to current politicians fully well understood Natural Law as outlined by the writings of Cicero, which they all had read. The Founders reference it often. Cicero defined Natural Law as "true law". The Founders wanted to lift mankind from the common depravity and chicanery of past civilizations, and to lay the foundation for a new kind of civilization built on freedom for the individual and prosperity for the whole commonwealth. This is why they built their system on Natural Law.

Argue if you can about some of the tenets of Natural Law.

Unalienable Rights
Unalienable Duties
Habeas Corpus
Limited Government
Separation of Powers
Checks and Balances
Self-Preservation
Contract
The right to self defense
No taxation without representation

All based on Natural Law.

 

I would argue that natural law is based upon the protection of our individual natural (inalienable) rights. Natural (inalienable) Rights are based upon the independent sovereignty of the individual person. In short, natural (inalienable) rights are those rights of individual person which do not infringe upon the rights of others. What can "I" do that doesn't infringe upon someone else's Rights? Natural rights are established, or recognized, by logical deduction based upon compelling arguments.

For example we can cite a natural law that prohibits murder which is the violation of the natural (inalienable) Right to Life. Murder is different than "killing" because killing can be justifiable based upon the Right of Self Defense against aggression. The natural law follows the establishment of the natural right of the independent sovereign individual person. Without natural (inalienable) rights there are no natural laws. Natrual laws are exclusively related to the protection of natural rights.

 

The moral philosophy of Natural Law, just like all moral systems, is a social construct. It does not come from gods or nature, but from people (since morality is a social construct, rights are also). In reality, there is nothing "natural" or "inalienable" about them. It would be nice, but its unfortunately only wishful thinking.

 

Do you have a right to life or is birth something granted to you by some moral philosophy?

 

Yes, it is based upon a social construct established by logic and compelling argument. The termonology of "natural" or "inalienable" rights is based upon the definitions of the words and they aren't necessarily intechangeable although for the most part they are used interchangeably. "Natural" implies that these Rights originate from our natural being and they are those things inherent in the individual which do not violate the "natural" rights of others.

Freedom of thought and expression of those thoughts is something we do as individuals which doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights. No one is forced to listen to our rambling thoughts and beliefs although they may choose to do so. Our individual Right to Life does not infringe upon anyone else's Rights and where it might then our Right ceases to exist (e.g. a zygote cannot have a "right to life" because it would be an infringement upon the Rights of the Woman).

Of course we can and should always question "natural" rights as they are based upon logical compelling arguments. Perhaps new information becomes apparent which changes the logic of a prior argument in which case the arguments must then be readdressed. I've often cited this with "anti-abortionists" in challenging them to provide a compelling argument as to why the preborn should have a Right to Life when that Right would be in conflict with the Rights of the Woman which are established. Arguments presented related to "natural" rights are a healthy way to both understand them as well as to establish them.

"Inalienable" refers to the nature of a "natural" right in that it cannot be taken away by others nor can it be given away by the individual. Natural Rights are inherent. They can obviously be violated or infringed upon by acts of tyranny but that does not disparage the fact that the right exists. The right is not granted by government but government can infringe upon it or it can protect the exercising of that natural right but the right exists in either case.

A perfect example can be provided related to the natural Right of Citizenship, often referred to as natural born citizenship, where the criteria and protections of it were finally established by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment established natural born citizenship, or the natural Right of Citizenship, based upon jus soli (Latin - The Right of Soil) and we are all natural born citizens based upon where we are physically born. This is a protected Right in the United States under the 14th Amendment and it protects certian things. For example, a natural born citizen does not have to swear allegence to the United States. In reality it is the government of the United States that swears allegence to the natural born citizen. We cannot be denied our Right to Return to the United States if we ever leave it. Yes, our government can give us a hard time if we don't have the proper paperwork (e.g. going to Canada without an enhanced drivers license or passport) but eventually they have to let us return. At the same time we cannot have our citizenship nullified. A natural born citizen of the United States is always a citizen of the United States. We can be naturalized as a citizen of another nation but that merely establishes that we have duel citizenship.

It is a good thing to understand what's going on related to both "natural" rights which are established by compelling logical argument and the nature of those rights which is that they are inalienable rights. It makes a significant difference in how we understand our nation which is unique in establishing that the purpose of government is to protect our inalienable (natural) rights.

 

Perhaps, but the contemporary undertanding of "Natural Law" is far removed from our founders or Cicero's understanding or intention in formulating its principles, particularly by somehow conveniently displacing their concept of unalienable duty, a public responsibility, with unrequited selfishness, a private duty; thus redefining the entire notion of "Natural Law" from a principle for collective organization and social cohesiveness to an excuse for rampant individualism.

 

there is as much natural laws as there are people on the planet and not a single law that coordinates it

 

Natural law is evolutionary over time based upon compelling arguments but the criteria for it provides the foundation upon which all compelling arguments are based.

The foundation of "natural law" are "natural Rights" which are the inalienable Rights of the Individual Person. An inalienable Right, by the genreally accepted philisophical definition, is that which is inherent in the individual, not dependent upon others, that doesn't infringe upon the inalienable Rights of others, and which imposes no involuntary obligations on others. It is upon this foundation that inalienable (natural) Rights can be established and that is the basis for natural law. As noted, over time there are new arguments based upon this foundation so natural law and identified inalienable (natural) Rights have expanded. That is how it should be.

When we address the disparity of what is and what is not "natural law" it really reflects that not all of society is "up to the minute" or even understanding of what is an inalienable (natural) Right and how it affects natural law. There is a time lag as well as a misnuderstanding in the world societies which creates the disparities in the development and expansion of natural law. If we were "all wise" then all of our inalienable (natural) Rights would have long since identified but we don't have that wisdom so we continue the slow process of identification of our inalienable (natural) Rights and the Natural Laws that support them.

 

If there is anything natural about Natural Law or Natural Right it should be naturally recognized by any human being upon description whether they agree with it or not. Your argument is the argument of the propagandist. Only a propagandist would claim misunderstanding or a lack of education to describe the failure of their idea, which they base on a particular description natural human behaviour, to fail in its ability to gain recognition when it is far more likely that most people simply do not find the description believable, unsupported by their experience or what they understand.

It is shameful what is espoused as Natural Law and Natural Right these days. It is twisted enough to turn Cicero, the founding fathers, and all those who argued for it who came before, in their graves.

 

Excellent analysis. To elaborate, the concept of natural rights also can be expanded to include freedoms which manifest from them. After all, liberty is merely the ability to act within the world, and freedom is the condition at liberty. Again, this is an elaboration rather than an original conception of natural rights. On the basic level, Locke conceptualized natural rights as being part of a social contract, whereupon they were inalienable, not unalienable. There is a difference between the two. While inalienable rights cannot be granted nor deprived by a government (they exist in the state of nature (human nature)), unalienable rights can be granted but not deprived.

 

The Stoics believed in God. Natural law is nonsense without God. How can morality be derived from our nature if God did not create that nature? If our nature is just the product of blind forces how can it instruct us on right and wrong?

 

cause we have a moral compass. its one of the things that makes us human, dont ever credit religion with morality it makes me sick.

 

where do you think religion came from ? man, the 'morals' put down in religions are man made religion didnt give them to us. such a stupid and offensive thing to say. and where do you think christianity stole the morals it passes off as its own anyway ? aristotle thats where and other early moral philosophers.

 

What would turn Cicero, the founding fathers, and all those who argued for inalienable Rights in their graves is that people today don't apply the simple criteria for inalienable Rights in establishing natural law. As I noted the criteria is very simple for making logical arguments as to what is and what is not an inalienable Right and I've presented this before.

This can be applied across the board and I can provide examples.

We have, in the 14th Amendment, the criteria for "natural born citizenship" established by jus soli (i.e. Latin for the Right of Land) where a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen. They are a natural born citizen because they are born in the United States and subject to the jursidiction thereof. This is not dependent upon any other person (e.g. their parents) nor does it infringe upon anyone else's Rights and it doesn't create any obligations by others. Natural Born Citizenship is an inalienable Right. The natural (inalienable) Right of Citizenship cannot be established by Jus sanguinis (Laitn for the Right of Blood) because it is dependent upon the parents of the child. We do, in the United States, establish citizenship based upon jus sanguinis for the children of American citizens born abroad under our statutory naturalization laws but that is "native born" citizenship and not "natural born" citizenship. John McCain is not a natural born citizen because he was born in Panama but he is a native born American citizen because his parents were citizens of the United States. The difference is between an inalienable Right of Citizenship and statutory citizenship based upon the citizenship of the parents (another person).

There are many countries that reject the inalienable (natural) Right of Citizenship because those countries don't recognize inalienable Rights nor are they dedicated to protecting those Rights like the United States. That doesn't imply that the inalienable (natural) Right doesn't exist but only represents the willingness of governments to violate the inalienable (natural) Rights of the individual. The failure of governments to respect and protect the inalienable (natural) Rights of the Person is government tyranny which is what the founders of America opposed.

 

One way to recognize rights is that they are universally recognized without condition, even by those who disagree with them, seek to oppress them, or actively work against them. Rights do not exist without obligation, universal rights cannot exist without universal obligations and inalienable rights require an inalienable obligation. It is a hallmark of tyrants to deny that any involuntary obligation accompanies their individual right to be tyrannical.

There is not a more responsible and obliged person than one who finds themselves in a place free of tyranny. There is nothing voluntary about it. Rights exist or they do not and it is your personal obligation and responsibility to uphold and defend them for everyone in every circumstance if you expect them for yourself. It is unfortunate that so many in the natural rights crowd these days seem to think that tyranny is necessary to uphold their peculiar views on rights. They are correct of course, because people are becoming less and less inclined to agree with them that property rights are more important than human rights.

 

I'm a huge advocate of inalienable Rights but I don't think I can endorse the idea that they come with an obligation. A person exercising their inalienable Rights would not infringe upon any other individual's inalienable Rights. That isn't an "obligation" but instead it is merely the criteria upon which inalienable Rights are founded.

There is a problem that I even find with many of my libertarian friends when addressing property Rights. Many like to think that taxation is a violation of property Rights but, in fact, taxes are based upon a voluntary contract and are not a violation of Property Rights. The US Constitution and State Constitutions, both of which are contracts, provide the criteria for taxation and if we follow them back to their inception then they were based upon contracts established by 100% of those that immigrated to the United States. Native-Americans are the only exception as they never provided 100% concurrence with the rules of society that are governed by the social contracts that formed the foundation for government in the United States. From the very first day when all of those agreed to the rules for boarding a ship to immigrate to America the foundation for our government was established. When "majority rule" was established in the local settlements by all of those living there it formed the foundation for all that has followed. Local communities established the rules which empowered the local communities for form states which, in turn, empowered the states to form a national government and all of this was originally based upon 100% concurrence of the population. We established the rules of government and those rules were used in creating all of our government institutions and also granted the authority to tax based upon the contracts we created.

 

Rights are the confluence of freedoms and obligations, one cannot exist without the other, they are the two sides of the same coin. It is only within the context of social interaction that rights can be achieved and individual obligation is an integral part of social interaction.

Without individual obligation there is no context for rights. Acceptance of this tenet on its face can lead to the dubious claim that rights somehow exist outside the social context, from which one can derive a claim that there are rights without individual obligations. Suspect reasoning all around.

The argument of the libertarians is that no one asked them personally. They take it as something of a personal affront and gross infringement of their personal liberties and freedoms that the government obliges them to pay taxes because of laws passed before they were born. They are of the opinion that because they were not around to vote when these laws were passed they are somehow the victims of gross violations of their rights.

It is an argument only a solipsist could love.

Besides that idiocy, the Constitution makes it very clear that individual property rights are not inviolable, or even protected, and that the government is free to give and take private property as it sees fit as long as just compensation is made. Also, except for the original colonies and a few other places the vast majority of land in the US was originally owned by the Federal government so it retains the primary claim to ownership and can place whatever obligations it pleases on the private ownership of those lands regardless of whatever anyone thinks. Those lands were granted by mere law and so can be just as easily taken away.

This is perhaps why there are so many rabid Libertarians in the western lands. They know their right to property is far less than absolute but they are trying to will it into reality.

 

The phrase 'obligation' is key to understanding rights. On a fundamental level, rights are nothing more than normative rules regarding what people should or ought to have, meaning we see that rights often involve obligation, but also duty, or correctness, namely in criticism of the actions of another. Given that rights are logically and empirically established through a human desire, belief, feeling, or perspective regarding obligation, duty, or correctness, we can conclude that not only are rights normative, but subjective, and are influenced by the constructs of society, and are therefore largely so social constructs. In effect, rights are nothing more than an illusion.

 

Having come to the conclusion that rights are nothing but illusionary social constructs, the following question comes to mind. Why did humans develop the concept of rights in the first place? The answer lies in history, and if you look at the earliest forms of legal code, you realize that the original intent of rights were to establish some greater social cohesion, conformity, unity, equity, and above all, order. Yes, fundamentally speaking, rights are truly meant to create greater social order, and henceforth, in analyzing the effectiveness of rights, we should bear such in mind.

 

I am sorry : I can take seriously , a scientifical philosophy attempt based on some apocryphal writing dating from ages of belief .

.All of "western civilisation " - as the "western people " call it - pretends to be based upon " reason" ! But the facts teach us that religion & cupidity are the only " reason" in our present civilisation.
Theory and speeches are valuable, only when acts are consistent with them .

One absolute base for human investigation is the common knowledge which - at any age of our history - can be checked

We must accept our human condition as the one of rather weak & fragile mammals , provided with an cosmos questionning's software .
Each time the humans have conquered a progress in civilisation , it was due to the formal acceptance of our basic status among nature. ( the first outing of man from his biological nest towards an other star , had been due to the absolute mastering of thousands of weakest points , such as one single screw of the Apollo11 rocket engines )

For 2000 years ,and for our greatest misfortune, we are wading in the quagmires of jewish lies which bases the religious mental disease. This is facts .
Two world wars , and within few time - if we don't wake up from this jewish hypnosis - a third World War is about stopping definitly the human destiny .
Whatever Aristote and the great Arab thinkers could say during the previous 3000 years..

 

I would go further, rights are nothing more than privileges granted by tyrants. The illusion is that so many are naive enough to believe that tyranny, while defending privilege, claims it is defending rights. Tyranny has many guises, from megalomaniac dictatorship to social democracy government is nonetheless tyrannical and the rights it grants, so easily abridged, are nought but temporary privileges. Privileges that are in line with the existing social construct tend to be accepted, considered and eventually asserted as universal rights.

Cynical actors prey on the naivety of believers in rights by asserting that attacks on particular privileges are attacks on the rights of all. Consider this, many of those who fought for the south in the US Civil War were convinced that they were fighting to protect their rights.Those who defend private property ownership are similarly defending a privilege of the few, not a universal right for everyone.

Those in the natural rights camp are doing nothing less than claiming that privileges granted by long ago tyrants have somehow become universal rights, immune from all current and future changes in the social construct and whatever tyranny it may impose. In other words, they seek nothing less than to force society to uphold their particular tyranny, to accept that less than 5% of the population holds 80% of the planet's property as a matter of right. Their situation will become increasingly untenable and their gambit to exert privilege as right will meet increasing popular resistance.

 

Well, given that the fundamental and original intent of rights, prior to the Hammurabi Code and under the earliest known legal code, that of the Babylonian city of Lagash was to guarantee social order, we can go one step further and posit were originally granted by tyrants. Natural rights advocates are adamant in their defense of the social construct as their selected political philosophers have developed it. Is it tyrannical to do so? No. But it is tyrannical to allow polities and civil society as a whole use legitimate or illegitimate force or coercion to do so, thereby not letting rights be as inalienable, self-evident, universally cognizant as they should be.