I just left class after a discussion about natural rights

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by 7960

So the answer is................ yes? .......no?

I suppose I would have to say yes. Obviously I don't want that to be the case, and would much rather say no. But what I want to be true and what is true doesn't always (or even usually) match up with one another.

Though I also think that when it comes to acting in a rational manner, self-interest would suggest that going around killing each other is not the best thing for someone. societies wouldn't really be able to form or function properly and your life expectancy would probably drop given the characteristics that such a violent society would have.

So we make agreements with one another. Let's not kill each other so that we can all profit from a decrease in violence etc. . .

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Publius

The problem with your theory, tkg, is that you're mixing up the OPPRESSION of rights with the REMOVAL of rights.

Natural rights are those rights with which we are born; rights which are ours by virtue of being human beings. The right to free speech/expression/thought, the right to some measure of property ownership, etc.

I'll give you an example of both of those...

Free speech/expression/thought - unless another person lobotomizes you and thus destroys your ability to think, this right can never be taken away. Even if you aren't free to express it due to oppression, you still have the ability to do so. But by virtue of humans being thinking creatures, that right can only be oppressed rather than destroyed (unless, like I said, you go to the lengths of lobotomizing someone and making them no longer a "thinking creature").

Right to ownership of some measure of property - even if you are never allowed to own land or a home or anything else, you will always own your own body. You can again have your body's ownership oppressed through slavery or other means, but it is literally impossible for someone to take your body away from you. It is and will always be your property.

Now, I personally don't subscribe to the idea that natural rights are wide-ranging and cover pretty much everything. There ARE man-made rights, but there ARE also several rights that you have simply by virtue of being a living, functioning human being. The expression of those rights can be oppressed (and have been throughout human history), but they can never actually be given or taken away by another person.

The only person that "gives" you natural rights, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, are your parents by producing you. But even they have no right to actually take them away once you have been brought into the world.

I suppose the question this brings up is what makes the oppression of these rights immoral? Is it God, natural law, or man.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Dylith

I suppose the question this brings up is what makes the oppression of these rights immoral? Is it God, natural law, or man.

Morality is, in my opinion, a man-made construct. So thus it is man which makes the oppression of natural rights immoral.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

Morality is, in my opinion, a man-made construct. So thus it is man which makes the oppression of natural rights immoral.

Morality isn't static though, what was moral in one generation becomes immoral in a later one...SLAVERY is ownership of a persons body - what to do with it (ie work) even who to have kids with (slave owners trying to make stronger slaves) - I don't see how you can argue it is not. And it was viewed as moral in Greece, Rome and America for their own reasons so how can property be an inherit right when its not morally recognized?

No right is natural, it is through law and equal application of justice for it to have a right.

Its like taxes in that way, we might not like it but taxes are asserted as a right of the government through law but if we overthrew government or reformed it to a point where there is a law forbidding taxes, soon later generations would assert that no taxes is a "natural" right of the people just like ownership of property.

[ballz2wallz]

No, there are some morals that never change. I'll write more on this later.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

cliffs: rights are something that we, as people, created. They don't really exist any further than you ability to make them exist.

You are absolutely, 100% correct.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, there are some morals that never change. I'll write more on this later.

Say there is one person in the world........or make it more realistic, there is one person on a huge island with everything he'll need for the rest of his life.

What are his moral obligations?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 7960

Say there is one person in the world........or make it more realistic, there is one person on a huge island with everything he'll need for the rest of his life.

What are his moral obligations?

What do you mean by 'obligations'? Are morals nothing but obligations to someone else?

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What do you mean by 'obligations'? Are morals nothing but obligations to someone else?

let's not get stuck on semantics



Say there is one person in the world........or make it more realistic, there is one person on a huge island with everything he'll need for the rest of his life.

What morals exist?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 7960

let's not get stuck on semantics



Say there is one person in the world........or make it more realistic, there is one person on a huge island with everything he'll need for the rest of his life.

What morals exist?

Like I said earlier, I'll explain when I get home. Just because someone else isn't there to see those morals doesn't mean they don't exist.

[bheld]

I think this is similar to the debate about free will. We really don't have free will but it is important to behave as if we do.

We may not have natural rights but it's important that we act as if there are inalienable rights that apply to every living person.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

I just have one question........are you saying if it wasn't for rights a society creates then it'd be ok for me to kill you?

that is a moral question, but if you were the decision maker you could make it "legal". The state decides when it is ok to legally kill someone.

ie, was it during a war, as punishment for a crime etc.

My point is that taken to an extreme, lets say a prison riots because the people want their freedoms back that were taken by the state. The only way they could get their freedom and maintain is to defend themselves from the state.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

I believe there are certain inherent rights within us, granted to us only by God. The rest can be created or taken away by man.

Do you think that the State can take away life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If these are inherent and inalienable, how can that be?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't even think it's worth wasting breath on whether or not you believe you have these natural rights. It's irrelevant. If you believe you have the rigths but are unable to defend or exercise them... who cares?

if you are unable to defend or exercise them, then you don't have them

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Publius

The problem with your theory, tkg, is that you're mixing up the OPPRESSION of rights with the REMOVAL of rights.

Natural rights are those rights with which we are born; rights which are ours by virtue of being human beings. The right to free speech/expression/thought, the right to some measure of property ownership, etc.

I'll give you an example of both of those...

Free speech/expression/thought - unless another person lobotomizes you and thus destroys your ability to think, this right can never be taken away. Even if you aren't free to express it due to oppression, you still have the ability to do so. But by virtue of humans being thinking creatures, that right can only be oppressed rather than destroyed (unless, like I said, you go to the lengths of lobotomizing someone and making them no longer a "thinking creature").

Right to ownership of some measure of property - even if you are never allowed to own land or a home or anything else, you will always own your own body. You can again have your body's ownership oppressed through slavery or other means, but it is literally impossible for someone to take your body away from you. It is and will always be your property.

Now, I personally don't subscribe to the idea that natural rights are wide-ranging and cover pretty much everything. There ARE man-made rights, but there ARE also several rights that you have simply by virtue of being a living, functioning human being. The expression of those rights can be oppressed (and have been throughout human history), but they can never actually be given or taken away by another person.

The only person that "gives" you natural rights, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, are your parents by producing you. But even they have no right to actually take them away once you have been brought into the world.

Is state execution not the complete removal of rights?

[ballz2wallz]

The inability to exercise rights does not trump the ownership of those rights.

Let's simplify this a bit. Let's say I'm walking down the sidewalk near home. I have ever right to do that, granted to me by the state. Now, I'm currently exercising my right to do so as I'm walking. Let's say someone comes up and knocks me off the sidewalk, and ties me to a tree. Have they taken away my rights to be on the sidewalk? Certainly not, I still have those rights, but I just am unable to exercise them, at the moment.

Having certain inalienable rights gives people hope and something to strive for, particularly when the ability to exercise those rights freelky has been removed.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

And I got into it will like 98% of the class because I don't believe in them. I think the idea of natural rights, which come from natural law were created by men to oppose law from kings. The only rights or freedoms do not come from God or nature, if that was so they why didn't people have these "rights" until we, as human beings create them.

Your rights and freedoms come from your self defense abilities, the better you are able to protect yourself, the more rights and freedoms you and your society will enjoy. The example I gave was free speech in Europe versus free speech in the United States. I know it violates but I talked about how in Germany nazi stuff is banned, because the powers to be are afraid that they cannot defend themselves against the "Fourth Reich". While we as a country are much more capable of defending ourselves against white supremacists.

What does everyone else think about this?

The concept of rights endowed by a creator is a legal fiction. If the legal fiction of the 'Creator' did not exist, then legal arguments would have all people as chattel and not self sovereign. With the legal creator, even someone born in a slave camp and raised off of the resources owned by another person is his own owner.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The inability to exercise rights does not trump the ownership of those rights.

Let's simplify this a bit. Let's say I'm walking down the sidewalk near home. I have ever right to do that, granted to me by the state. Now, I'm currently exercising my right to do so as I'm walking. Let's say someone comes up and knocks me off the sidewalk, and ties me to a tree. Have they taken away my rights to be on the sidewalk? Certainly not, I still have those rights, but I just am unable to exercise them, at the moment.

Having certain inalienable rights gives people hope and something to strive for, particularly when the ability to exercise those rights freelky has been removed.

if you can't exercise the right, then it is not inalienable.

[kinggovernor]

Look at how our government prosecutes civil rights violation, as where people have their rights taken away and they cannot defend themselves. So the government has to step in and defend their rights for them