4 ms·

> Rights are a social construct. I strongly doubt this. You might make a case that our conception of them is tied to our biology and evolution, but that also

> Rights are a social construct. I strongly doubt this. You might make a case that our conception of them is tied to our biology and evolution, but that also means these ideas and concepts have obviously existed well outside and over society for much of history. > It's fair to describe their delineation as creation. I strictly disagree. What gets created is a collective enforcement mechanism. The right, recognized or not, exists separately from this. > Natural rights don't really work without a deity bestowing and defending them Your reference, in the very first paragraph, contradicts you with `all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason.'

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> these ideas and concepts have obviously existed well outside and over society for much of history So have most social constructs. From marriage to slavery. > What gets created is a collective enforcement mechanism. The right, recognized or not, exists separately from this Sure. Fine. Kant said the same about mathematics. Like undiscovered math, unrecognised rights do jack shit until they're codified. At this standard of evidence we might as well start debating ghosts. (Which is fun and fine. But not the business of a lawmaker.) > Your reference, in the very first paragraph, contradicts you with `all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason Yes, that is what someone who believes in natural rights believes. I am disagreeing with it. (I believe it's quoting Aquinas, a famous philosopher and priest.)
int_19h 3y ago
A deity cannot confer any rights if it doesn't exist. That nature doesn't in and of itself confer any rights to anyone is rather self-evident from observations of said nature. Even wholesale genocide of species is something that happens routinely in nature over sufficiently long timescales. Reason cannot confer rights because you can't reason from nothing. You have to pick a set of ethical axioms first to reason from, but the choice of those axioms is largely arbitrarily. There's some amount of biologically-induced restrictions on the practical choices of those axioms (e.g. basic survival of species in a state capable of implementing them, but also various hardwired biological responses such as altruism), but even with those in place there are still infinitely many drastically different options. The very notion of "natural rights" is fundamentally religious in nature. They don't require deities or worship etc - you can just omit that step as unnecessary, with the rights themselves being the object of faith - but if you're honest about it, it's still a (non-theistic) religion. And there's nothing wrong with that, and I personally embrace such an interpretation as someone who cares deeply about natural rights. But we should be aware that it is a belief, not something objectively following from the very nature of reality.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > he very notion of "natural rights" is fundamentally religious in nature. They don't require deities or worship etc - you can just omit that step as unnecessary, with the rights themselves being the object of faith - but if you're honest about it, it's still a (non-theistic) religion. That’s an apt way to put it. We started with “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” And then we silently dropped the “Creator” but maintained the framework of “rights” as if they’re God-granted. Ironically, “rights” are an area where liberals sound more theistic than conservatives. For conservatives, rights are rooted in social tradition and practice. Aliens could deduce them from observation. For liberals, rights are something that exist in the aether until humans discover them.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Rights that are rooted in social tradition and practice are mostly about protecting that social tradition and practice. An example of such traditional customary right that was pervasive in human societies, and is still pervasive in some of them, would be the right of husbands to rape their wives. But, of course, that is still a fundamentally religious position; in this case, the implicit axiom is that the current social tradition and custom is something valuable - for theistic conservatives, because it is divinely ordained, or at least has its origins in something that was, and for non-theistic ones, because it has value in and of itself. In that sense, they are not different from theistic or non-theistic liberals. There's still nothing particularly objective about it, as evidenced by the fact that different societies have wildly different traditions and customs. As a non-theistic liberal, I prefer to start with the axiom that human suffering is bad in general, and that every person has absolute and inviolable ownership of their own mind and body, then derive the natural rights (bodily autonomy, right to self-defense etc) from there. That is, of course, also a religious position, since nature itself doesn't care one bit about suffering, so my assertion that it is bad is a matter of faith, not of reason.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  Our largest debates are over such: Eg, at present one of the most contentious is between a group who thinks we need more people and a group who thinks we need fewer people.
rayiner 3y ago
How does “nature” confer upon you rights? Can I observe rights via scientific techniques? I don’t think so—to nature you’re just meat. The concept of individual “rights” that can’t be infringed by the government arose from religion—specifically Christianity. That concept makes no sense absent some supernatural order. Because otherwise, “rights” are just what society agrees not to do to individuals. Those choices can be completely arbitrary.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> these ideas and concepts have obviously existed well outside and over society for much of history So have most social constructs. From marriage to slavery. > What gets created is a collective enforcement mechanism. The right, recognized or not, exists separately from this Sure. Fine. Kant said the same about mathematics. Like undiscovered math, unrecognised rights do jack shit until they're codified. At this standard of evidence we might as well start debating ghosts. (Which is fun and fine. But not the business of a lawmaker.) > Your reference, in the very first paragraph, contradicts you with `all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason Yes, that is what someone who believes in natural rights believes. I am disagreeing with it. (I believe it's quoting Aquinas, a famous philosopher and priest.)

int_19h 3y ago

A deity cannot confer any rights if it doesn't exist. That nature doesn't in and of itself confer any rights to anyone is rather self-evident from observations of said nature. Even wholesale genocide of species is something that happens routinely in nature over sufficiently long timescales. Reason cannot confer rights because you can't reason from nothing. You have to pick a set of ethical axioms first to reason from, but the choice of those axioms is largely arbitrarily. There's some amount of biologically-induced restrictions on the practical choices of those axioms (e.g. basic survival of species in a state capable of implementing them, but also various hardwired biological responses such as altruism), but even with those in place there are still infinitely many drastically different options. The very notion of "natural rights" is fundamentally religious in nature. They don't require deities or worship etc - you can just omit that step as unnecessary, with the rights themselves being the object of faith - but if you're honest about it, it's still a (non-theistic) religion. And there's nothing wrong with that, and I personally embrace such an interpretation as someone who cares deeply about natural rights. But we should be aware that it is a belief, not something objectively following from the very nature of reality.

rayiner 3y ago
> he very notion of "natural rights" is fundamentally religious in nature. They don't require deities or worship etc - you can just omit that step as unnecessary, with the rights themselves being the object of faith - but if you're honest about it, it's still a (non-theistic) religion. That’s an apt way to put it. We started with “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” And then we silently dropped the “Creator” but maintained the framework of “rights” as if they’re God-granted. Ironically, “rights” are an area where liberals sound more theistic than conservatives. For conservatives, rights are rooted in social tradition and practice. Aliens could deduce them from observation. For liberals, rights are something that exist in the aether until humans discover them.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Rights that are rooted in social tradition and practice are mostly about protecting that social tradition and practice. An example of such traditional customary right that was pervasive in human societies, and is still pervasive in some of them, would be the right of husbands to rape their wives. But, of course, that is still a fundamentally religious position; in this case, the implicit axiom is that the current social tradition and custom is something valuable - for theistic conservatives, because it is divinely ordained, or at least has its origins in something that was, and for non-theistic ones, because it has value in and of itself. In that sense, they are not different from theistic or non-theistic liberals. There's still nothing particularly objective about it, as evidenced by the fact that different societies have wildly different traditions and customs. As a non-theistic liberal, I prefer to start with the axiom that human suffering is bad in general, and that every person has absolute and inviolable ownership of their own mind and body, then derive the natural rights (bodily autonomy, right to self-defense etc) from there. That is, of course, also a religious position, since nature itself doesn't care one bit about suffering, so my assertion that it is bad is a matter of faith, not of reason.
zmgsabst 3y ago
Our largest debates are over such: Eg, at present one of the most contentious is between a group who thinks we need more people and a group who thinks we need fewer people.

rayiner 3y ago

How does “nature” confer upon you rights? Can I observe rights via scientific techniques? I don’t think so—to nature you’re just meat. The concept of individual “rights” that can’t be infringed by the government arose from religion—specifically Christianity. That concept makes no sense absent some supernatural order. Because otherwise, “rights” are just what society agrees not to do to individuals. Those choices can be completely arbitrary.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]