Do we have "natural" rights?

*shrug* Sugar can exist without being natural, it doen't invalidate a person's question as to where that bowl of sugar came from. If people can discriminate between natural salmon and farm raised salmon, I see no reason why folks can't use a similar label to differentiate between rights provided by the natural world and those that must be provided by our neighbor.

I'll put aside the discussion as to whether survival of the fittest is natural justice or not (maybe you can start another thread?). Your comment is off topic, but intriguing.

 

There are no natural rights. That is the point.

 

I believe we do have "natural rights" which are derived from "natural law." I follow the Aquinas/Locke philosophical concepts which say that the State (or government) should exist first, to maintain the peace, then "protect the common good" for which both men differ as to what constitutes this common good. Locke feels that includes "to preserve the rights of life, liberty, health, and property of citizens and to prosecute and punish those who violate the right of others" while Aquinas states Natural Law should include "organizing and harmonizing the activities of citizens, by providing for the resources to sustain life, and precluding or thwarting obstacles and hindrances to the good life."

As both agree that Natural Law takes priority over human law, so too does natural rights have priority over legislatively enacted rights. Also both men agree that only "human reason" can make us aware of these "Natural Rights."

 

Who said anything about validation? Something can still be valid even if it is not natural.

"Natural" implies something that exists outside of society or opinion. There are no rights that are objective or natural. All rights are defined by individuals or societies.

 

You did. I think it was here:

 

It does? It's not the definition I offered... but I can see how you could argue that. My guess is you would feel a right to your liberty and the life God or nature gave you, even if you renounced your U.S. citizenship. I expect you would recognize your right to vote would stop existing though.

Still, I think a better definition is simply to recognize the source of the what you believe is your due. Did your life come to you naturally or because you entered into a contract?

​

 

It does.

And it would not change anything I just said above. Rights are defined socially. They are not objective.

It is irrelevant what I would recognize...if the state didnt agree with me, I couldnt vote.

It is impossible for it to come naturally since rights do not occur in nature. They are social constructs. So they are the result of (what amounts to) a contract.

 

That has nothing to do with validation. What am I validating?

 

Invalidating. But perhaps I'm mistaken: you agree then that there is a valid distinction between natural rights and legal rights?

 

It is impossible for a distinction to exist if natural rights dont exist.

 

I disagree. Rights are defined by people. People assert their rights -- often in defiance of societies. A right is something we are due. People often assert they are due what came to them naturally, these are natural rights. Other people cannot provide that right, only deny it. This is distinct from the rights we claim under contract, the things we believe we are due from other people because of agreement. These things are only ours if other people provide them for us.

 

So tell me, who gets to define rights if not the majority?

If I say I have a right to your property, what makes me wrong?

 

Do believe the right to life does not exist or that it is not valid to distinguish it as "natural"?

 

There is no natural right to life. Look at nature, not much letting live. Don't point to Apes either, because they are tribalistic and they also fight amongst themselves. Even if all of nature lived in harmony it still would not lead to a natural right.

 

If you said the killing of Osama Bin Ladin was justice, what makes you right?

I'd need to hear your argument as to why you believe something is just or right, before I could explore your logic and find out if we could agree or if you and I would have to go to war to protect our rights.

 

Find a dog. Imagine you tie him down and slowly take his life. Imagine the look in his eyes as you do. I expect you'll believe that dog felt he had a right to live. I imagine you'll believe you had no right to kill him.

 

There's a point in the discussion of natural rights where one comes up against Hume's "is-ought" gap. It really comes down to the core principles one holds. Either one holds that everyone has natural rights, and from there we who philosophize on the subject can define what those rights are consistent with the principle, or one holds that there are no rights and we are all just uncivilized barbarians but for the civilizing influence of the politicians and their enforcers.


Empathy and the Source of Rights

September 6, 2006 by Stephan Kinsella

I often tire of people asking (usually in a self-contradictory, petulant tone, more demanding than asking), “Okay, so what is the source of rights?! Where do they ‘come from’?!” My reply is usually that the questioner either respects my rights, or he does not. If he does not, he can go to h*ll–I’m not wasting time talking to an uncivilized thug, any more than I would treat with a rampaging elephant, bandit, lion, or hurricane. And if he does respect rights–then my stance is: how dare you demand of me that I justify your own views? Look inside–and figure out for yourself why you believe in such and such.
The rest at: http://blog.mises.org/5573/empathy-and-the-source-of-rights/



Source of Rights

by Frank Chodorov, June 1996

The axiom of what is often called "individualism" is that every person has certain inalienable rights. For example, "individualism" holds that property as such obviously has no rights; there is only the inherent right of a person to his honestly acquired property. . . .

The axiom of socialism is that the individual has no inherent rights. The privileges and prerogatives that the individual enjoys are grants from society, acting through its management committee, the government. That is the condition the individual must accept for the benefit of being a member of society. Hence, the socialists (including many who do not so name themselves) reject the statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence, calling it a fiction of the eighteenth century.

In support of his denial of natural rights, the socialist points out that there is no positive proof in favor of that doctrine. Where is the documentary evidence? Did God hand man a signed statement endowing him with the rights he claims for himself, but denies to the birds and beasts who also inhabit the earth? If in answer to these questions you bring in the soul idea, you are right back to where you were in the beginning: How can you prove that man has a soul?

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0696e.asp

 

It would still not be objective. If I honestly believe I have the right to make that dog suffer like that, does that make it so?

If I believe I have the right to take your property, is it a natural right simply because I think it is?

In both cases it just comes down to opinion. It is not objective.

 

There are natural rights. That is the point.

it appears we're at an impasse...

 

My belief is irrelevant in this context, because it is not objective.

If I sincerely believed that you dont have the right to live, would that make it so? If not, why?

If natural rights are really objective, you should be able to answer those questions.

The fact that I am stronger than he is. And nothing more.

My specific argument would be irrelevant. Because it is subjective. I could give you the specifics, but it would not matter what they were.

"rights" are a social construct. They original from the opinions of individuals. The opinions of the strongest people (or their proxies) become "rights".

 

What are they and where do they come from if not the majority?

 

What is this a picture of?

If you call it a Dog, but most people call it a Tree...what's the reality??

 

of course...the majority of human consensus over thousands of years of human societal evolution.

 

That doesn't alter the argument.

That is precisely what I criticise Libertarians for. They claim that there is no "is-ought" gap, something I've been trying to point out.

Ultimately it comes down to the value-judgements of the individual. Now the problem with libertarians is they insist that the only possible conception of rights is their own.

 

Natural rights imply something outside of consensus. They imply 'god-given', 'inherent', 'objective'.