Philosophy of Rights

[luke23]

All right folks. I'm interested to see what you all believe about the idea of natural rights. Be advised this is a purely philosophical issue, not political and not legal.

Do you believe that humanity has any innate structure? Any kind of natural right? Or do you believe that rights stem from society?

Read More

 

[Dunerunner]

You are on an isolated tropical island. You have a water source, there is plentiful food if managed properly, and materials for shelter, fire making, and crude weapons.

You have the right to Freedom of Speech - because there is no one to hear a word you say.
You have the right to Life - as best you can live it.
You have the right to Freedom of Religion - Believe what you want.
You have the right to self defense - Nobody is there to protect you but you.
You have the right to the Pursuit of Happiness - as best you can.
You have the right to Freedom of Assembly - It is just you.
You have the right to Self Determination - After all you are telling you what to do.

everything else is on you and your abilities.

 

[luke23]

You are on an isolated tropical island. You have a water source, there is plentiful food if managed properly, and materials for shelter, fire making, and crude weapons.

You have the right to Freedom of Speech - because there is no one to hear a word you say.
You have the right to Life - as best you can live it.
You have the right to Freedom of Religion - Believe what you want.
You have the right to self defense - Nobody is there to protect you but you.
You have the right to the Pursuit of Happiness - as best you can.
You have the right to Freedom of Assembly - It is just you.
You have the right to Self Determination - After all you are telling you what to do.

everything else is on you and your abilities.

And what happens when other people are around? Humans don't exist in a vacuum.

 

[Dunerunner]

Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others as described above. There are no entitlements beyond what you can provide for yourself. Each person is granted these inalienable rights as a matter of natural law and common sense. You have the right to what you can provide for yourself. There is no right to your neighbors property, wealth, food, or anything that he or she has earned, created or developed through their own initiative and hard work.

 

[luke23]

So you think that if all societal laws, controls, and policing were abandoned, this would be maintained?

Personally I don't believe in natural rights. I believe rights are bestowed by society via the social contract. I subscribe to Hobbes' state of nature over Locke's. Life would be nasty, brutal, and short; simply because in nature the only right is conferred by power. The strong can prey on the weak with impunity as long as the framework is just individuals.

Society is created because that nature is so horrible, and to provide protection and justice.

 

[Dunerunner]

No, because I don't believe people are self regulating, I'm not that Jeffersonian. That is why you have the right to self defense and defense of your family and property. I don't want society dictating my rights to me. Germany tried that in the 1930's. Didn't work out too well for them. I believe that humans raise the bar above that of the rest of the animal kingdom, but that does not eliminate the presence of the predator mentality, or the aggressive nature of someone who cannot or will not do for themselves. Again this is why those who uphold the philosophy of basic rights need to be vigilant that those rights are not infringed upon by society's will.

 

[Dunerunner]

What protection does society provide? Justice only presents itself after an injustice has been committed. Not the utopian world, where justice prevails before you have been victimized.

 

[chariot13]

So you think that if all societal laws, controls, and policing were abandoned, this would be maintained?

"So you think that if all societal laws, controls, and policing were" here and mattered any bit right now, that people aren't gonna do what they do..........right now? You obviously are dillusional on your idea of granduer towards people caring about laws, either natural or legal. Natural law isn't enforced, its what ultimately happens no matter what 'safeguard' you put in place and no matter how much power you believe you have as either an individual or 'society' (ie: government). People do everything possible under the sun right now with your belief in " societal laws, controls, and policing" and they always 'will'. You can claim that there are consequences for the less than 1% that go through whatever consequences you believe in but my less than 1% figure is still overly generous.

 

[rick benjamin]

And what happens when other people are around? Humans don't exist in a vacuum.

You have the right to think the blues (but I dont want to hear it)

 

[jluck]

1.The strong can prey on the weak.

2.nature is so horrible.

1.As they should.
2. Nature is horrible? I think god has it figured out a little better than you might. Just because you bought in to the socialist liberal bull bubblegum don't expect to convert those reliant on common sense and real life experience.

You will reap what you sow. simple.

 

[PopsBdog]

This is how I see it.
It's not right or wrong or how it could/should be.
You have no rights.
You have all rights.
The in between is what I and the group I am part of agrees or not agrees upon.
That can change in minutes or miles.

 

[luke23]

"So you think that if all societal laws, controls, and policing were" here and mattered any bit right now, that people aren't gonna do what they do..........right now? You obviously are dillusional on your idea of granduer towards people caring about laws, either natural or legal. Natural law isn't enforced, its what ultimately happens no matter what 'safeguard' you put in place and no matter how much power you believe you have as either an individual or 'society' (ie: government). People do everything possible under the sun right now with your belief in " societal laws, controls, and policing" and they always 'will'. You can claim that there are consequences for the less than 1% that go through whatever consequences you believe in but my less than 1% figure is still overly generous.

You missed the point. The point is that if we have declared principles and abide by them, is that in and of itself a society? Society and laws can be strict or laissez faire easily enough, but ultimately aren't humans abiding by a shared set of principles still a society? In that case, is Locke's philosophy really a state of nature?

 

[luke23]

1.As they should.
2. Nature is horrible? I think god has it figured out a little better than you might. Just because you bought in to the socialist liberal bull bubblegum don't expect to convert those reliant on common sense and real life experience.

You will reap what you sow. simple.

1. So according to you, the strong should prey on the weak.

And then immediately you cite God? Try Psalm 82:3 for starters. And then try reading the rest of your bible.

Also, you didn't even quote me right. I'm talking about Hobbes' state of nature. Read Leviathan.

 

[U201491]

1. So according to you, the strong should prey on the weak.

And then immediately you cite God? Try Psalm 82:3 for starters. And then try reading the rest of your bible.

Also, you didn't even quote me right. I'm talking about Hobbes' state of nature. Read Leviathan.

There you go again interpreting people's thoughts again.
God gave us moral laws. Whether you abide by them is free choice.
Man reinforces those moral laws in a free society, but again it is free choice. If you don't abide by them you are free to suffer the consequences whatever they may be in line with the society you live in.
In America we have a set of laws with rights spelled out in the US Constitution and Bill or Rights spelled out by very intelligent men and the nation became strong and with moral principals until some men worked to twist and disregard them. Today we have Marxistss, Communists and extreme socialists that work to undermine and warp the purpose of both documents. We will fight to restore the basic principals of them both.
The beliefs you profess to have go against both documents also. Therefore in many of our eyes you are an enemy of the state by definition.
You speak of philosophical points, so I will also. You say you have rights to do this. You will pay the consequences for your belief.
If someone decides you have no rights and ends you, they will also pay the consequences.
There is nothing in life that does not have consequences related to actions.
Attempting to undermine the principals that made this a great nation will have consequences.
Its just the facts of life.

 

[Dunerunner]

The problem arises when there are conflicts within and between different societies. Established rights and behavior in one society conflict with the other, each claiming infringement. That instance is what our Constitution and Bill of Rights sought to avoid. Our current problem in America is that there is a faction within the country that doesn't accept the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the framework and wishes to infringe upon those guarantees of liberty through the legislative process and judicial interpretation.

Locke talked about this in "A Letter Concerning Toleration". He went on to address the issues with Government in "An essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government when he talked of the natural liberty of man is to be free. In that, the freedom from any superior power on earth but that freedom of men under government is to have a established set of rules to live by. Locke believed that every human behavior is learned, nothing being innate as he phrased it.

You have given me cause to revisit the writings of John Locke, George Berleley and David Hume. That should take me a few weeks as it's been over 44 years since I was in school.

Thanks!!

 

[luke23]

The problem arises when there are conflicts within and between different societies. Established rights and behavior in one society conflict with the other, each claiming infringement. That instance is what our Constitution and Bill of Rights sought to avoid. Our current problem in America is that there is a faction within the country that doesn't accept the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the framework and wishes to infringe upon those guarantees of liberty through the legislative process and judicial interpretation.

Locke talked about this in "A Letter Concerning Toleration". He went on to address the issues with Government in "An essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government when he talked of the natural liberty of man is to be free. In that, the freedom from any superior power on earth but that freedom of men under government is to have a established set of rules to live by. Locke believed that every human behavior is learned, nothing being innate as he phrased it.

You have given me cause to revisit the writings of John Locke, George Berleley and David Hume. That should take me a few weeks as it's been over 44 years since I was in school.

Thanks!!

You're welcome sir. I appreciate your responses, I feel confidence in your knowledge. Salted Weapon also had a good response.

For me, I feel like a lot of the Enlightenment thinkers were a bit naive and idealistic, and expect more order than there actually is. In a world full of genocides, tyrannies, murders, hunger, inequality, etc I think we have to reevaluate the ideas that there are fundamental natural frameworks. For me, saying there are no natural rights isn't any attempt to say no one should have rights. It's just an emphasis on why rights are such a vitally important part of society. They guarantee us something special we couldn't otherwise rely on.

 

[Martini_Up]

I was born with rights, same as all of you. The wise folks who made this country know this and wrote it into the charter of this fine nation. Those wise folks knew that some day Tyranny would come along and try to take away rights and change this fine nation into something They did not want it to turn into. As such they left us writings of how to identify and deal with Tyranny - same as they did. It is now incumbent upon us to understand what they wrote, know right from wrong and do what has to be done to keep this nation fine and not let the torch of liberty die thus plunging us into an abysmal darkness!

 

[CamoDeafie]

I personally believe morals can be taught at an early enough age; BUT this is entirely based on the family units' beliefs...

let us look at this family unit for an example...

the breeding pair; both are killers, they have killed people on their whims, believing themselves to be superior to every one else; and believing that killing is a way to maintain an order of power over other people; they teach their children that other people are just targets/subjects to control....clearly their morals are different, and clearly they believe they have the RIGHT to kill people without consequences...as a way to control and gain favor from other humans, and to gain tributes and give their children what they believe to be best for them.

and then let us look at another family unit;

the breeding pair, they believe in a greater power, uses that as a structure to explain things they don't yet understand...and live according to their beliefs, however that belief may be, and teach their children by example and such on how to live, and work to provide necessities and such for themselves, and believe they have the right to land on which they work, right to the resources from which they take, and use, right to use said resources how they see fit...

and then another family unit
this family unit believes they are superior to people, but they are not killers, they believe in using people to get their needs met, however, they use the threat of violence to gain favors, to gain needs, they believe they have every right to do so, since this provides them with their needs and a way to stay in power so to speak.

Myself...I personally am of the opinion that everyone is out for themselves. There may be some altruistic people out there, however, ultimately it is all to serve themselves or to gain favors from other people. Yes I realize it sounds Machiavellian; but this goes well with Game Theory as well as Social Darwinism.... If a group believe they were given UNALIENABLE rights by a greater power; then it is that group's responsibility to maintain that form of control.

To quote a series I like...Government is usually made up of a body of people notably not governed....

I can say this though, compare Western/Eastern Civilizations to those of aboriginal/native/tribal peoples who have not developed their histories, or whose cultures have stayed in stasis for the last few millenniums, clearly there are basic rights that are observed and abused across the spectrum of Human History; The right to live, (how one see fits), the right of speech, the right to assemble, the right to refuse quartering of foreigners/outsiders, the right to defend against enemies and predators (including those of their own kind),the right to be allowed to do what makes them happy (pursuit of happiness), the right to remain silent if it would protect themselves. The right to free exercise of religious beliefs without interference. These rights have been observed to have been exercised by every civilization, including those that appears to be barbaric or uncivilized...but we must remember, every group, every civilization may have had different views of things, and thus may appear to be barbaric/uncivilized to us who do not KNOW how life went for them, or know their societal rules.

I am of the opinion that every Human has been taught by experience and by their families, be it biological or governmental or societal, morals and norms of their specific societies, and on that basis, every Human has a set of rights that are natural, much like the castes and duties of bees being observed in nature as having a form of society and a form of definitions of rights/privileges.

 

[luke23]

I personally believe morals can be taught at an early enough age; BUT this is entirely based on the family units' beliefs...

let us look at this family unit for an example...

the breeding pair; both are killers, they have killed people on their whims, believing themselves to be superior to every one else; and believing that killing is a way to maintain an order of power over other people; they teach their children that other people are just targets/subjects to control....clearly their morals are different, and clearly they believe they have the RIGHT to kill people without consequences...as a way to control and gain favor from other humans, and to gain tributes and give their children what they believe to be best for them.

and then let us look at another family unit;

the breeding pair, they believe in a greater power, uses that as a structure to explain things they don't yet understand...and live according to their beliefs, however that belief may be, and teach their children by example and such on how to live, and work to provide necessities and such for themselves, and believe they have the right to land on which they work, right to the resources from which they take, and use, right to use said resources how they see fit...

and then another family unit
this family unit believes they are superior to people, but they are not killers, they believe in using people to get their needs met, however, they use the threat of violence to gain favors, to gain needs, they believe they have every right to do so, since this provides them with their needs and a way to stay in power so to speak.

Myself...I personally am of the opinion that everyone is out for themselves. There may be some altruistic people out there, however, ultimately it is all to serve themselves or to gain favors from other people. Yes I realize it sounds Machiavellian; but this goes well with Game Theory as well as Social Darwinism.... If a group believe they were given UNALIENABLE rights by a greater power; then it is that group's responsibility to maintain that form of control.

To quote a series I like...Government is usually made up of a body of people notably not governed....

I can say this though, compare Western/Eastern Civilizations to those of aboriginal/native/tribal peoples who have not developed their histories, or whose cultures have stayed in stasis for the last few millenniums, clearly there are basic rights that are observed and abused across the spectrum of Human History; The right to live, (how one see fits), the right of speech, the right to assemble, the right to refuse quartering of foreigners/outsiders, the right to defend against enemies and predators (including those of their own kind),the right to be allowed to do what makes them happy (pursuit of happiness), the right to remain silent if it would protect themselves. The right to free exercise of religious beliefs without interference. These rights have been observed to have been exercised by every civilization, including those that appears to be barbaric or uncivilized...but we must remember, every group, every civilization may have had different views of things, and thus may appear to be barbaric/uncivilized to us who do not KNOW how life went for them, or know their societal rules.

I am of the opinion that every Human has been taught by experience and by their families, be it biological or governmental or societal, morals and norms of their specific societies, and on that basis, every Human has a set of rights that are natural, much like the castes and duties of bees being observed in nature as having a form of society and a form of definitions of rights/privileges.

Excellent response sir!

I do think that nails it very well. Rights as a concept are a societal staple.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Excellent response sir!

I do think that nails it very well. Rights as a concept are a societal staple.

I beg to differ. The concept of Rights being endowed is a societal staple, maybe...but it is ALSO a natural set of laws, in which the person must look to itself for protection of its life, against whatever befalls it; therefore the right to life, the right to defend, the right to being happy, the right to assemble with like-minded/like kind, the right to exercise beliefs...can be considered natural rights, much like animals have the natural rights to their lives, if they are able....that predators will eat them, or natural sickness will take them..it is the same for humans.