4 ms·

I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? For every right that most people hold evident, you'll find people wh

I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? For every right that most people hold evident, you'll find people who disagree. This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements.

white-flame 9y ago
I agree, and will expand with this: Codified rights are effectively statements of belief of a government, to which they are binding themselves. As a statement of belief, there's no legal structures or arguments upholding them. They are simply installed by declaration (either dictatorially or by some measure of consensus) as an official part of the government's world view.
dilippkumar 9y ago
> I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? The US was built upon the idea that rights are inherent and not granted to citizens by a government. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- manofstick 9y ago
  Which was exactly what the parent had said. i.e. > This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements. Which is what the US Constitution is. (Just because the say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't mean that they are) Mind blown huh?
  - Natsu 9y ago
    That's what they believed, but it isn't necessary. It's easier to see these arising out of very fundamental parts of human nature. Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Therein you have a basis for the first and second amendment, i.e. freedom to think and freedom to defend yourself.
    - bobwaycott 9y ago
      > Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Curious wording. The vast majority of even modern human history seems to provide an incredible amount of contradictory evidence—at least if you’ll grant that “forced” can also mean socialized into a certain cultural and ideological narrative from birth. Sure, there are notable moments when resistance forms quietly, and perhaps even makes its way into the public sphere. However, resistance does not appear to me to be a default human trait. That’s usually only found in a smaller portion of what is typically non-boat-rocking humanity—those who hope to convince their fellow citizens to join them. The majority of humans appear to rarely make it habit to question anything at all.
      - Natsu 9y ago
        Well, that's the interesting thing, isn't it? We only resist ideas that appear to be forced on us and there are plenty of sneaky ways around that.
        bobwaycott 9y ago
        I’m saying the vast majority of humans don’t even recognize when ideas are forced on them.
    - manofstick 9y ago
      > Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Well not that I'm Christian, but Christian teaching is basically the opposite of this (Matthew 5:39 - i.e. turn the other cheek). And Gandhi's resistance was also an example of the opposite. In fact the opposite is the only way to deescalate a fight (or, as the US chooses to do, create the biggest weapons, but isn't that then affecting the rights of the people on the other side of the argument?) > Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Really? Advertising, religion, nation states, even your belief that these are "natural" laws are examples of your inherent bias. As a smaller example, even politeness - civility - is a counter example.
      - 9y ago
  - jemfinch 9y ago
    > Which is what the US Constitution is. OP quoted the Declaration of Independence, which is neither law nor agreement.
- rebuilder 9y ago
  And yet the rights of US citizens appear to stem from a fairly elaborate system of humans interpreting the constitution of the United States.
freedomben 9y ago
John Locke talks extensively about Natural Rights (and he was the source of inspiration to America's founding fathers). His Second Treatise of Government goes deep into his explanation. There have been many thinkers that have challenged Locke. I am currently reading the Second Treatise to try and really understand Locke's position before I make up my mind.
harimau777 9y ago
My belief is that natural rights are defined by God and therefore exist regardless of whether people agree with them or not. Sort of the rights equivalent of divine command theory.
- paulryanrogers 9y ago
  IME there are as many interpretations of divine law as there are individuals who believe in a god.
- rebuilder 9y ago
  To me that's kind of like the sound a falling tree makes when no-one is there to hear it. As I see it, rights exist in the context of a social framework that defines the limits of acceptable behaviour. They can be seen as actually curtailing freedoms, since if we're defining rights, we're also implying there are things an entity does not have a right to. In any case, a right is not very meaningful to me if there is no system in place to ensure it is respected. This is, of course, not an argument about moral rigts and wrongs, just a pragmatic one about how rights work.
Natsu 9y ago
> I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? From our own human nature, actually. Think about this for a minute. Would a normal person be willing to believe something because you were forced to? If someone was violently attacked, would they not fight back? By recognizing these aspects of human nature as something fundamentally not controllable by laws, we can instead force government to work with that human nature instead of contrary to it. Now, the current conflict is being caused by pitting these against each other. Because people believe they are unsafe because of people who own guns or use hate speech, you now have two groups of people who believe that the other group is making them unsafe. This is ironic, because we're actually becoming statistically safer over time, but it does lead to some very real conflict because people believe there's another group out there that wants to harm them, instead of realizing that both sides really just want to protect themselves, barring a few fringe whackos on either side.
- white-flame 9y ago
  > By recognizing these aspects of human nature as something fundamentally not controllable by laws, we can instead force government to work with that human nature instead of contrary to it. If human nature is ultimately "not controllable by law", then that would certainly apply broadly, not just to cherry picked aspects of it. Certainly assault, murder, rape, theft, harassment, abuse, cheating, and the like are facets of feral humanity; just as much as positive traits like self-preservation, compassion, parental instincts, social bonding, etc. Law usually stands in a directly contrary position to the former list, to wide agreement.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    It's better to work with instead of against our natures. There are certainly things that can stand improvement.
- rebuilder 9y ago
  If there are natural human rights, what does that mean for, e.g., prisoners? Is the right to personal freedom not a natural right? If it is, can natural rights be taken away? Under what conditions? Or is imprisonment a breach of natural rights, and what does that imply? It's pretty hard to pin down what natural rights are. That a society ought to consider the limits of normal human behaviour I don't dispute, but that just informs the rights a society grants its members. Rights are still a human social construct.

white-flame 9y ago

I agree, and will expand with this: Codified rights are effectively statements of belief of a government, to which they are binding themselves. As a statement of belief, there's no legal structures or arguments upholding them. They are simply installed by declaration (either dictatorially or by some measure of consensus) as an official part of the government's world view.

dilippkumar 9y ago

> I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? The US was built upon the idea that rights are inherent and not granted to citizens by a government. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

manofstick 9y ago
Which was exactly what the parent had said. i.e. > This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements. Which is what the US Constitution is. (Just because the say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't mean that they are) Mind blown huh?
- Natsu 9y ago
  That's what they believed, but it isn't necessary. It's easier to see these arising out of very fundamental parts of human nature. Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Therein you have a basis for the first and second amendment, i.e. freedom to think and freedom to defend yourself.
  - bobwaycott 9y ago
    > Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Curious wording. The vast majority of even modern human history seems to provide an incredible amount of contradictory evidence—at least if you’ll grant that “forced” can also mean socialized into a certain cultural and ideological narrative from birth. Sure, there are notable moments when resistance forms quietly, and perhaps even makes its way into the public sphere. However, resistance does not appear to me to be a default human trait. That’s usually only found in a smaller portion of what is typically non-boat-rocking humanity—those who hope to convince their fellow citizens to join them. The majority of humans appear to rarely make it habit to question anything at all.
    - Natsu 9y ago
      Well, that's the interesting thing, isn't it? We only resist ideas that appear to be forced on us and there are plenty of sneaky ways around that.
      - bobwaycott 9y ago
        I’m saying the vast majority of humans don’t even recognize when ideas are forced on them.
  - manofstick 9y ago
    > Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Well not that I'm Christian, but Christian teaching is basically the opposite of this (Matthew 5:39 - i.e. turn the other cheek). And Gandhi's resistance was also an example of the opposite. In fact the opposite is the only way to deescalate a fight (or, as the US chooses to do, create the biggest weapons, but isn't that then affecting the rights of the people on the other side of the argument?) > Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Really? Advertising, religion, nation states, even your belief that these are "natural" laws are examples of your inherent bias. As a smaller example, even politeness - civility - is a counter example.
    - 9y ago
- jemfinch 9y ago
  > Which is what the US Constitution is. OP quoted the Declaration of Independence, which is neither law nor agreement.
rebuilder 9y ago
And yet the rights of US citizens appear to stem from a fairly elaborate system of humans interpreting the constitution of the United States.

freedomben 9y ago

John Locke talks extensively about Natural Rights (and he was the source of inspiration to America's founding fathers). His Second Treatise of Government goes deep into his explanation. There have been many thinkers that have challenged Locke. I am currently reading the Second Treatise to try and really understand Locke's position before I make up my mind.

harimau777 9y ago

My belief is that natural rights are defined by God and therefore exist regardless of whether people agree with them or not. Sort of the rights equivalent of divine command theory.

paulryanrogers 9y ago
IME there are as many interpretations of divine law as there are individuals who believe in a god.
rebuilder 9y ago
To me that's kind of like the sound a falling tree makes when no-one is there to hear it. As I see it, rights exist in the context of a social framework that defines the limits of acceptable behaviour. They can be seen as actually curtailing freedoms, since if we're defining rights, we're also implying there are things an entity does not have a right to. In any case, a right is not very meaningful to me if there is no system in place to ensure it is respected. This is, of course, not an argument about moral rigts and wrongs, just a pragmatic one about how rights work.

Natsu 9y ago

> I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? From our own human nature, actually. Think about this for a minute. Would a normal person be willing to believe something because you were forced to? If someone was violently attacked, would they not fight back? By recognizing these aspects of human nature as something fundamentally not controllable by laws, we can instead force government to work with that human nature instead of contrary to it. Now, the current conflict is being caused by pitting these against each other. Because people believe they are unsafe because of people who own guns or use hate speech, you now have two groups of people who believe that the other group is making them unsafe. This is ironic, because we're actually becoming statistically safer over time, but it does lead to some very real conflict because people believe there's another group out there that wants to harm them, instead of realizing that both sides really just want to protect themselves, barring a few fringe whackos on either side.

white-flame 9y ago
> By recognizing these aspects of human nature as something fundamentally not controllable by laws, we can instead force government to work with that human nature instead of contrary to it. If human nature is ultimately "not controllable by law", then that would certainly apply broadly, not just to cherry picked aspects of it. Certainly assault, murder, rape, theft, harassment, abuse, cheating, and the like are facets of feral humanity; just as much as positive traits like self-preservation, compassion, parental instincts, social bonding, etc. Law usually stands in a directly contrary position to the former list, to wide agreement.
- Natsu 9y ago
  It's better to work with instead of against our natures. There are certainly things that can stand improvement.
rebuilder 9y ago
If there are natural human rights, what does that mean for, e.g., prisoners? Is the right to personal freedom not a natural right? If it is, can natural rights be taken away? Under what conditions? Or is imprisonment a breach of natural rights, and what does that imply? It's pretty hard to pin down what natural rights are. That a society ought to consider the limits of normal human behaviour I don't dispute, but that just informs the rights a society grants its members. Rights are still a human social construct.