Legal rights make sense. They are the rights that are given/allowed to people by the government because either the population or an elite power has decided it would be ideal...But what the hell is a natural right?
There is no evidence for the existence of natural human rights. They don't exist, and even if they did, we clearly don't know what they are. For example, the statement "all humans are inherently entitled to life, liberty, and property" doesn't actually mean anything, and another person could just as easily make a contrary claim without any more evidence that it's actually true.
Instead of making arbitrary claims about what we feel like people are naturally entitled to (natural rights), we should be deciding what they should have (legal rights).
Sign In
Natural rights | Forum
nith
Sep 17 '14
First off, there are no real rights but those taken by the person's own action (closest thing to natural rights). Anyone who calls for rights that where won by someone else is simply protected or even pampered.
Anna
Sep 17 '14
You've already answered your own question. There is only one natural law of fang and claw. All others are legal rights given by those in power to the rest of the society and they can be taken away at any time, if there is a social consensus or if the system of government changes.
Actually, it means something in a democratic society. What it means is that if someone kills you or steals your property, he will be held accountable for that before the law, provided he will be caught. It also means that the police has no right to arrest you without a reason, you can't be imprisoned without a trial or be someone's slave. That's a theory. In practice, various things happen. The police can be corrupted, the criminals are often more clever than the police and can outwit the legal system. It sometimes happens that innocent people are put into prisons and that criminals have more rights than their victims.
But as you said, these are not natural rights but legal rights which vary from country to country. They also depend on culture and religion. I think the reason for some people calling these basic legal "rights" natural "rights" is their belief they are derived from the Bible or that they come from God, that they are somehow sacred. This is fallacious thinking because different cultures with different religions and different gods have their own "natural rights".
For example, the statement "all humans are inherently entitled to life, liberty, and property" doesn't actually mean anything,
Actually, it means something in a democratic society. What it means is that if someone kills you or steals your property, he will be held accountable for that before the law, provided he will be caught. It also means that the police has no right to arrest you without a reason, you can't be imprisoned without a trial or be someone's slave. That's a theory. In practice, various things happen. The police can be corrupted, the criminals are often more clever than the police and can outwit the legal system. It sometimes happens that innocent people are put into prisons and that criminals have more rights than their victims.
But as you said, these are not natural rights but legal rights which vary from country to country. They also depend on culture and religion. I think the reason for some people calling these basic legal "rights" natural "rights" is their belief they are derived from the Bible or that they come from God, that they are somehow sacred. This is fallacious thinking because different cultures with different religions and different gods have their own "natural rights".
SirGlag
Oct 19 '14
Evolutionary systems and game theory dictates that the things we call rights are necessary.
Any replicating system will get to a point where the parts of the system acknowledge that self-preservation, and things that make self-preservation easier, is the key to happiness. Rights, as a concept, is a trade-of-agreements you make with your fellow man to enhance this preservation.
Entitlement to life:
Will we be able to preserve ourselves if there is no agreement against killing each other? We can trash this agreement but we will spend a large percent of our time looking over our shoulder at every step we make. We will lose all the time and mental capacity to do anything that will benefit ourselves, the people we care about, the species, and the system. We will surely lose the time and capability to ponder this question (think Maslow's pyramid).
Entitlement to liberty:
How are we going to preserve ourselves if we don't let each other be? We are all different. The fact is there are various cultures, beliefs, rituals, state-of-minds, histories, and many other things we don't have control over, but here we are. Liberty allows you exercise these personal traits of yours. Liberty is there to relieve you of the preoccupation to conform. For if you are preoccupied with changing your nature, you will spend less time preserving yourself and the rest of the species. It's detrimental to the system.
Entitlement to property:
How are we going to preserve ourselves if we have no where to preserve ourselves and practice our liberty? Would you do anything if the concept of having something didn't exist? What is the point of working and preserving the well-being of the environment you live in (which will in turn lead to self-preservation) if you aren't going to have the ability to call something yours at the end? This is mainly for the evolution of the human system for the better, where better is something that leads to easier self-preservation.
Are these arbitrary? Maybe, but then what isn't? What makes something not arbitrary? Only one thing, a creator where absolute reality stems from. I think almost any complex evolutionary system (biological or not) will, at some point, develop rules and agreements that will preserve the perpetuation of the system. This happens blindly.
Any replicating system will get to a point where the parts of the system acknowledge that self-preservation, and things that make self-preservation easier, is the key to happiness. Rights, as a concept, is a trade-of-agreements you make with your fellow man to enhance this preservation.
..."all humans are inherently entitled to life, liberty, and property" doesn't actually mean anything, and another person could just as easily make a contrary claim without any more evidence that it's actually tru
Entitlement to life:
Will we be able to preserve ourselves if there is no agreement against killing each other? We can trash this agreement but we will spend a large percent of our time looking over our shoulder at every step we make. We will lose all the time and mental capacity to do anything that will benefit ourselves, the people we care about, the species, and the system. We will surely lose the time and capability to ponder this question (think Maslow's pyramid).
Entitlement to liberty:
How are we going to preserve ourselves if we don't let each other be? We are all different. The fact is there are various cultures, beliefs, rituals, state-of-minds, histories, and many other things we don't have control over, but here we are. Liberty allows you exercise these personal traits of yours. Liberty is there to relieve you of the preoccupation to conform. For if you are preoccupied with changing your nature, you will spend less time preserving yourself and the rest of the species. It's detrimental to the system.
Entitlement to property:
How are we going to preserve ourselves if we have no where to preserve ourselves and practice our liberty? Would you do anything if the concept of having something didn't exist? What is the point of working and preserving the well-being of the environment you live in (which will in turn lead to self-preservation) if you aren't going to have the ability to call something yours at the end? This is mainly for the evolution of the human system for the better, where better is something that leads to easier self-preservation.
Are these arbitrary? Maybe, but then what isn't? What makes something not arbitrary? Only one thing, a creator where absolute reality stems from. I think almost any complex evolutionary system (biological or not) will, at some point, develop rules and agreements that will preserve the perpetuation of the system. This happens blindly.
The Forum post is edited by SirGlag Oct 19 '14
Shawn
Jul 9 '15
@4: The concept of natural rights is based on personal boundaries. It's easy enough to explain psychologically. Google it. :)
