Many on the Left seem to have no regard for Natural Rights

But you're not going to oppose the concept of "natural rights" wholesale just because some people are taking it to try to make arguments against abortion, are you?

 

Many on the Right seem to have no regard for religious freedom in this Country - they want to make this Country a Theocracy

 

I'm suggesting that MAGA is reasonably consistent - opposed to natural rights on voting, personal bodily autonomy, healthcare, support for those who can't afford rent and food, etc.

I believe in natural rights RIGHT NOW. And denying a woman's personal bodily autonomy is not consistent with natural rights.

You are the one attempting to invade a woman's body and healthcare. Suggesting that is your RIGHT is just too horrific for words.

 

Okay, so you're saying conservatives are hypocrites.

Do you still oppose the fundamental notion of natural rights though?

Can you agree that those trying to tie the whole philosophy of natural rights together to things like abortion and LGBT issues are wacky and ridiculous?

 

this is referred to as sealioning. And this is the philosophy forum it's a philosophical discussion. That means evidence is generally not part of it.

Philosophy literally means love of wisdom.

So when you storm into a philosophical discussion and demand evidence you're not understanding the basic concept of the discussion.

I'm sorry I've just never heard of anybody conservative or otherwise creating a forced breeding program so you'll have to be more specific on what you mean by bodily autonomy.

 

How did you marry the quote above with "Christian Nationalism"? Where is the connection? Of course "Christian Nationalism" is at odds with rights of certain groups like gays.

 

It is those with power who determine what your rights are or are not.

I believe people should have the right to

• life
• liberty
• justice
• property
• the pursuit of happiness
• privacy
• freedom of speech
• self-defence
• freedom to pursue one's religion
• freedom from slavery

But I find the moment religion is used as a support or enforcement mechanism these rights become meaningless.

 

Given the self evident truth that bodily autonomy leads to and ends where conception begins, then conservative efforts at that point in the matter have nothing to do with intruding on bodily autonomy, and everything to do with ensuring our obligations to life and virtue. Had our founders not labored and sacrificed to bring our nation to fruition, we wouldn't exist as a nation. So we are obligated to sacrifice for the truth in the maintenance of our national interest.

Were Mother nature to say, "by my autonomy I will bear up no more fruit". Then the earth would become desolate, were that her right. Abortionists would then be singing a different tune if made subject to their own reasoning. But they want it all. They want to be godless and reap a godly harvest while being obliged to nothing but their own pleasure.

Rights without obligations is a fantasy, akin to believing you can commit crimes without consequence, as if our values were pulled from our butts rather than from our consciences in the presence and oversight of the light of God. So between the God of our Fathers and the slithering regress of perdition, we are bound to choose God as he is the cause of our nations existence and freedom as declared in our founding document.

 

Natural rights have nothing to do with a God

if a God can't keep children safe from preachers inside a Church, he is not protecting your rights outside the church

 

In practice throughout history, they're often cited by religious tyrants to justify being tyrants.

And since everyone has a different idea of what they are, it's clearly a nonsense concept. If they were actually self-evident, nobody would disagree about them.

As is illustrated here, those who push the concept of Natural Rights will almost always lie big and often.

Why are the Natural Rights people so often such shockingly immoral people? Because once someone can convince themself that God Himself wants them to act badly, they can and do justify any atrocity. Those convinced God is on their side are always the most dangerous people.

 

Personal bodily autonomy does not mitigate for any specific outcome in any specific situation.

If a woman with a serious disease refuses treatment that would harm her fetus, thus sacrificing her own life for that of her fetus. Or, the woman may choose life, so she and her husband may hope to build a family together. These are examples of personal bodily autonomy.

 

Natural rights to me is the wrong way to think of rights, even if I have to concede it often still arrives at the right conclusion. Rights are logically derived. Because they are logically derived, they are also context-dependent. I think this last part is where natural rights falls short. There is no natural habitat for humans other than being around other humans and breathing air. If anything, humans dedicate themselves to circumventing the natural. I think the central paradigm of logically derived rights is fairness. This is constructive because if people believe things are fair, they will strive in areas they have potential rather than suspect their effort will be in vain due to corruption.

People have a right to live, and to live in a world not spoiled by others, and to live free of persecution as they see fit so long as they aren't harming others. When there is something new and amazing, like healthcare now compared to healthcare back in the time of the founders, access to that should also be fair.

 

It's pretty clear that the far right started with their political and religious views and then tried to justify them by claiming connection to natural rights.

They want to control women's bodies, so they worked out how that is a "natural right"!!

There is NO possibility that a woman loses the right of personal bodily autonomy by having some right wing think tank come up with a way to call THEIR ownership of her body a "right".

And, this gross perversion means I can't buy into that far right definition.

 

I've noticed that myself, and from my own experience and observations, the Leftists you're talking about either don't believe in inherent, inalienable natural rights or confuse rights with privileges that the government can grant and take away.

If they studied the history of the development of natural rights doctrines they would know, too.

The man who is widely credited with developing the first rights doctrine during the Franciscan Poverty Controversy of the early 14th Century was William of Ockham, a member of the Order of Friars Minor (Franciscans), who also happened to be a great logician whose principle of parsimony - Ockham's Razor - is something many of us here are familiar with. The reason I bring up the great libertarian theologian is because in commenting about natural rights he noted that one need not subscribe to the notion that natural rights are granted by God, for regardless of one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) the natural rights that are inherent in each and every one of us are discernible through our faculty of Reason (or Right Reason), thus Faith is not a prerequisite or precondition. I think it's noteworthy that the man who developed the first natural rights doctrine was a man of God but didn't bind our natural rights to the existence and will of God - he bound them to Man's faculty of Reason. This may somewhat extraordinary coming from a Medieval friar, but it's easy to forget (or not know in the first place) that many theologians, most notably Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics, saw a role for Reason in Religion, or Faith (Ockham is alternately considered a Nominalist or Conceptualist).

Of course, Locke's conception of natural rights (and social contract) was developed centuries before he was even born, and we can see glimpses of it in everything from William of Ockham's Dialogus to the Great Charter of Freedoms (Magna Carta Libertatum) signed by King John of England in 1215.

That mentality is derived from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's crackpot "general will" theory where rights are alienable and subordinate to the caprices of the collective. Benjamin Constant refuted that and Gabriel Bonnot de Mably's contributions in his address/essay The Liberty of Ancients Compared to That of Moderns (1819):

"They believed that everything should give way before the collective will, and that all restrictions on individual rights would be amply compensated by participation in social power…"

https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/liberty-ancients-compared-moderns

I would attribute to ignorance as well, and of course, people who aren't inclined to acknowledge the existence of Natural Rights are content to remain ignorant.

Since you're obviously interested in these things I thought I'd recommend a great book to you and everyone else here on the subject written by the late Brian Tierney:



The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law 1150-1625
https://www.amazon.com/Idea-Natural-Rights-University-Religion/dp/0802848540

We are very fortunate to live in a country founded by men who acknowledged the existence of inherent, inalienable Natural Rights and formed a government that was instituted first and foremost to secure our rights.

 

Please tell us exactly what the Natural Rights are. Be very specific. Also be specific in how you know they're Natural Rights.

If they're not just made up, that shouldn't be a problem for you.

 

The idea that the personal bodily autonomy of people is not a right?

That is absolutely anathema to ANY concept of rights.

I don't care whose rights you want to talk about. If you don't have the right to your own BODY, then you don't have ANY rights AT ALL.

 

Is this you trying to make a flimsy excuse to defend why you oppose Natural Rights?

Or are you basically conceding what I said about those on your side is true, but you're trying to throw mud at the other side and say they're in the mud pit too?

I see numerous diversions in this thread, refusal to address the issue raised in the opening post.

It would be nice to hear some of you say "I support natural rights." But I don't hear that.

 

So are you claiming you don't really see "Natural Rights" as a real philosophy in the political arena, and think it's just being used by "the far right" to take away rights?

Is that what your argument is?

 

I didn't say that AT ALL.

Please reread before posting.

 

Then you seem to be saying a lot of stuff without actually saying much that has much to do with the topic of discussion.
So I am left to assume that you were insinuating things with what you did say.

This is what I don't like. People say things that insinuate things, but then they will refuse to admit that's what they were saying.

 

I've said that.

BUT, the far right is trying to twist "natural rights" into an excuse for denying rights of personal bodily autonomy.

That is the most absurd idea possible.

And, their "plan for 2025" is astoundingly disgusting for many other reasons as well. The idea of cutting back on access to healthcare? Good lord!

 

Do you have a question?

 

Is that an adequate reason for you to oppose the fundamental idea of natural rights?

 

It is an adequate reason for rejecting what the MAGAs are attempting to do with the fundamental concept of rights.

If you believe in natural rights, the policies that emanate from that belief would demonstrate recognition of such rights.

I don't accept the MAGA view of natural rights, because to them (and you, it would seem) it means DENYING rights that are central.

 

You seem to be trying to conflate and equate the concepts and ideas of natural rights with some of the things (you believe) the other side is trying to do with those ideas.

And as you know, even if natural rights were not a concept embraced by conservatives, it's not like that would really change their views on any of those particular issues you seem to be concerned about. (Surely you don't think conservatives take the position they do on abortion and LGBT issues simply because of the natural rights philosophy, do you?)

So what's the real reason so many on your side seem to hold such opposition to the philosophy of natural rights?

I have a difficult time believing the reason you don't like natural rights is all about abortion.