Natural rights: Do they exist? Where do they come from? Are they relevant today?

Thanks for stating the issue so clearly, and calling attention to Shy's modus operandi. She started the natural rights debate on the "What is Religion/" thread. It seemed to be what she was leading up to all along. But when I asked her how she knew natural rights existed, she said "They exist by definition, therefore they are real." When I mentioned that unicorns can also be defined, and asked if they exist, she produced an article in National Geographic showing that they once did exist. (Dang! I shudda asked about werewolves.) And on, and on, and on. By selective citation of definitions and quotations from miscellaneous snippets she treats as gospel for her premises, she has woven an elaborate , though not clearly articulated, system in which rights exist outside of government, governments have no rights, and governments can't create rights but only privileges. I gather that the main purpose of her OP on the "What is Relgion?" thread was to invest individual claims to natural rights with some sort of sacred aura. She has a large vocabulary but lacks the qualities I'd call common sense, good judgment, and a sense of relevance. She has yet to define clearly what these rights she's talking about are, where they come from, or where she's really going with all this. Having seemingly revealed herself as conspiracy theorist and an anarchist makes me wonder where we are headed.

Natural rights theories were an advance back in the Enlightenment. Social contract theory expressed the view that governments were expected to perform certain functions for their constituents, to provide basic conditions for human flourishing in order to be worthy of the name "government". Even Saint Augustine saw this in the fifth century when he asks: "Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?" Jefferson identified them as including "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness' They entered the due process clause in more Lockean language as life, liberty, and property. And they are ideals most Americans seem to revere. I certainly do. So far, so good.

But I don't think they're metaphysical entities in Plato's heaven, and in a secular society like ours I think it's unproductive to invoke God as their author. They are values. Like other values, they guide my decisions about who and what to vote for in elections, along with utilitarian considerations about what policies are likely to produce the greatest happiness for he greatest number. As I said previously, contractarian metaphors may be useful in putting the brakes on sacrificing minorities to the "greatest number".

I happen to think our government is pretty impressive relative to most others in world throughout history. It is fragile and currently plagued by polarization of the populace, but that's the price of liberty and democracy. Shy, however, thinks our government is illegitimate, and has been so for centuries, because barely out of the starting gate it somehow violated its commitments under the Social Contract. Jeremy Bentham's celebrated essay addressed natural rights under the category of "anarchical fallacies". Having witnessed their progression during the French Revolution, he was convinced that, taken literally, no government could possibly meet the standards they demanded. Specifically addressing the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, he called natural rights "nonsense on stilts". "Rights are", he said, "the fruits of the law, and of the law alone. There are no rights without law—no rights contrary to the law—no rights anterior to the law. Before the existence of laws there may be reasons for wishing that there were laws—and doubtless such reasons cannot be wanting, and those of the strongest kind;—but a reason for wishing that we possessed a right, does not constitute a right. To confound the existence of a reason for wishing that we possessed a right, with the existence of the right itself, is to confound the existence of a want with the means of relieving it."

Natural rights are important today to the extent they are enshrined in positive law, the U.S. Bill of Rights in our Constitution, which are enforceable in courts. We enjoy them to the extent we have an effective government to protect them, and one which allows us the right to criticize it. The ideals of natural rights theory remain useful in evaluating governmental performance, but not as absolutes. And there can be no rights in any meaningful sense without government to back them up. Anarchic societies are usually small-scale and short-lived, and to the extent they are successful, they rely on informal authority from charismatic leaders, organized sub-groups, accepted norms, and /or a strong willingness of the members to make it work. 10 Instances Of Anarchist Societies That Actually Worked - Listverse No human government is capable of perfection, and to hold up natural rights as absolutes makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

We haven't heard from Shy any idea of what government she'd like to put in place, if any. A perfect one?. The specter of that violent motley rabble that invaded our Capitol on Jan.6, 2021, shouting "1776!', is still fresh in my mind.Can we imagine what our lives were like if that ignorant, violent bunch of lunatics had power over us? Like other ideals and values, natural rights can guide our lives, so long as we remember that in the real world such lofty abstractions are unlikely to be fulfilled to perfection to everyone's satisfaction.

 

We were/are talking about natural rights.

Here I will clarify this for you and T.

Choosing best fit and identifying inappropriate words are part of philosophy.
I explained word usage because the words t used does not represent and zoom in on the issue, meaning most appropriately fit the issue.

I think its important to have an understanding of the words being used in a debate.

I am arguing that the word 'theory' is a far better fit than idea, metaphor, or hypothesis.
Meaning is horribly skewed today by misuse of words, I prefer to best categorize what is being discussed with the best description.

Otherwise as I have seen so much already, it winds up as garbage in garbage out.

You did not say it T did, you agreed with T and that is how you got involved.


Rights?

1. Theory stating that everyone has rights arising simply from being born—the right to life, maximum individual liberty, and human dignity are all fundamental rights. This theory is the basis for the “Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.”

What is Rights Theory | IGI Global
https://www.igi-global.com › dictionary › rights-theory


The contemporary doctrine of human rights is one of a number of universalist moral perspectives. The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism.

Human Rights | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu › hum-rts

The difference between an idea and a theory is that the first can generate an agenda — a call to action — and the second cannot.May 2, 2011

Ideas and Theory: The Political Difference - The New York Times
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com › 2011/05/02 › i...

A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data.

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory
https://www.merriam-webster.com › words-at-play › diffe...

Models are metaphors, relative descriptions of the object of their attention that compare it to something similar already better understood via theories. Models are reductions in dimensionality that always simplify and sweep dirt under the rug. Theories tell you what something is.Nov 30, 2010

METAPHORS, MODELS & THEORIES - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org › conversation › emanuel_derma...

 

I think metaphor is the better term:"a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable." if any of the natural rights philosophers actually thought that there was a time when individuals got by on their own without authority, came together to enter into a contract with each other to form a government to protect such rights, and made the government's authority conditional upon the the government protecting these rights, they were awfully naive or excessively reliant on their imaginations and inferences, as opposed to actual historical and prehistorical data.

 

yeh they always manage to forget the 4th branch of government, 'people'.
MOB RULE! Theirs!

Its a label, I will buy that, otherwise metaphor is no different than you claiming (above) the equivalent that 'math' is merely a figure of speech.

 

What people? All of them collectively? How do you know what they want? What do you think of Hamilton's observation that “The people, sir, are a great beast.” He was one of the authors of The Federalst papers, you know, and a very influential figure in getting our Constitution passed. Do you agree? Is it your opinion that the motley horde of demented insurrectionists who invaded our Capitol on January 6 were representing "the people". If not, howl.does "the people" express itself in any meaningful way?

Surely you aren't comparing Social Contract theory with math! Is it too much to ask for your to step outside your tangled web of verbiage and answer a few basic questions. What is the source of these rights you are claiming? Do you think people are born to be 5 ft. two, eyes of blue and a certain number of natural rights you can detect by observation? If so, what are they? Am I right that you consider our government illegitimate and that it's been in that condition for at least a couple of centuries? If so, when did this breach of contract occur, and what should we do about it? Are you calling for insurrection? And if so, what would you put in its place? Anything? If it's another government, what makes you think it wouldn't go the way of the previous one? Would the ultimate outcome be something most people would regard as an improvement?

 

you seem to have extreme difficulties in comprehending whats being said when what is being said does not ruin lock step with your protocol.

I simply pointed out the function of a label and how silly your categorical fallacy really is. You know what is nothing more than a label for 100?

Sure, he represented the Rothchild banking cabal. Not that he did not make a few good points here and there but then even a broken clock is right twice a day, if its a 12 hour clock.

Lets start with your source.
Lawmakers with crystal balls?

 

Oh, no. Not the Rothschild conspiracy theory. Are you an Anti-Semite too? Whadda bout the Elders of Zion? The Illuminati? The Trilateral Commission?

Nice try at deflection. You're the one putting out juicy genralizations about "the People" and "Natural and Inalienable Rghts". Who do you think your are? The Delphic Oracle? Still no answers, and it's been what? 180 posts, counting both threads?

 

Yes Im a semite, you have a problem with that?
Oh wait, I know, next you are going to call me a self-hating Jew.
I see where this is going.

seems a bit wacky to claim everything is a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory when I never said so much as one word about a conspiracy, apparently you dont know what a conspiracy is either.
Crying antisemite and conspiracy theory is how amateurs debate when they have no subject matter knowledge.

You seem to be so uninformed its hard to even have an intellectual conversation with you.

Its pretty clear though from the OP that you think ALL rights come from your overlords!

Irrespective of the what you have bolded below!

(cannot be repealed by human laws).

would have been much better said if it were:
(cannot be repealed by legislated laws).

The governments duty is to protect our rights not dictate them

 

As far as conspiracy theories go, this never happened;

White House Suppressed Information from Medical Experts About COVID-19

The latest findings of Elon Musk's controversial "Twitter Files" confirms the U.S. government pressured former executives to censor information about COVID-19 that was "true but inconvenient."

Journalist David Zweig released a 40-tweet thread Monday titled "How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate."

Musk, Twitter's new owner and CEO, has released several internal documents for select reporters to analyze and release to the public. This latest installment, popularly named "The Twitter Files", was reviewed by Zweig for the Free Press.

Related
The 'Twitter Files' Part 7: FBI Paid Platform $3M to Censor Information, Influence the 2020 Election


'Twitter Files' Show Platform Helped Biden Win in 2020; GOP Vows to Investigate, Trump Calls for a Re-Do


Musk calls Twitter 'Crime Scene,' Says Virus 'Disinformation' Revelations Coming

So far, the findings have revealed that the FBI not only pressured the social media site to suppress reports about Hunter Biden's laptop, but that it also paid Twitter employees millions of dollars to do so. Additionally, reports have also confirmed that conservatives were shadow-banned from the site despite not violating any rules or policies.

Now, a new report reveals how Twitter "rigged the COVID debate" by discrediting doctors, and medical experts, and suppressing users whose opinions were inconvenient to the government's pandemic policy.

Zwieg shares that both the Trump and Biden administration pressured Twitter and other social platforms to moderate content according to "their wishes."

According to internal data, the Trump administration was concerned about panic buying, conspiracies around 5G cell towers, and runs on grocery stores.

But when the Biden administration took over they became focused on taking down users with an "anti-vaxxer" message.

"In the summer of 2021, president (sic) Biden said social media companies were 'killing people' for allowing vaccine misinformation. [Alex] Berenson was suspended hours after Biden's comments, and kicked off the platform the following month," Zweig explained.

"Berenson sued (and then settled with) Twitter. In the legal process,

Twitter was forced to release certain internal communications, which showed direct White House pressure on the company to take action on Berenson," he added.

They did, however, suppress the viewership of many doctors and scientific experts whose opinions conflicted with the official positions of the White House and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), or were "contrarian but true."

"As a result, legitimate findings and questions that would have expanded the public debate went missing," Zweig notes.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School, tweeted views at odds with U.S. public health authorities, Zweig's notes reported.

Kulldorff tweeted that not everyone should be vaccinated, especially children or those who had already contracted COVID.

[Oh yes but the vaxed numbers look so much better when vaxing people who caught it that are already immune!]

But Twitter moderators flagged the tweet as false even though it was an expert's opinion and in line with vaccine policies in numerous other countries.

"Yet it was deemed 'false information' by Twitter moderators merely because it differed from CDC guidelines," Zweig reported.

Zweig adds he found several instances of tweets labeled as "misleading", taken down, or accounts suspended because the opinions differed from CDC guidelines.

'Twitter Files' Exposes White House Suppressed Information from Medical Experts About COVID-19


Im so glad evil government conspiracy theories are nothing more than just a figment of imagination, otherwise I would have to think we live in a despotic kleptocratically governed society.

thanks Tish!
I feel much better now.

 

nature
noun
1 the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.

2 the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization: In nature, wild dogs hunt in packs.

3 the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers: The abandoned power plant was reclaimed by nature, covered in overgrowth and home to feral animals.

4 natural scenery: Tourists at the resort are surrounded by nature.

5 the universe, with all its phenomena: Conservation of energy is a universal law of nature.

6 the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.

7 reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature.

8 the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.

9 the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.

10 character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.

11 characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature;an evil nature.

12 the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.

13 the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.

14 a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.

15 a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature.

16 (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism.

17 Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace.
Definition of nature | Dictionary.com


Natural rights come from nature.
12

 

I wish I would have gotten the same consideration in my thread.
Especially since I started the thread with a definition!


9 would work too

combination of 9 and 12
I suppose 11 works too lol

where do you think they come from?

 

1,8,9,11,12 all work.
So those are your choices unless you think others apply.

The word nature is borrowed from the Old French nature and is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally meant "birth".

Nature - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Nature


Nature, in the broadest sense, is the physical world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.[1]

 

Ok so from your definition that you posted:

natural law vs. positive law
natural law
noun

1. a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.

positive law
noun

1. customary law or law enacted by governmental authority (as distinguished from natural law).

Right Reason

The moral virtue that inclines us to lead good, ethical, and moral lives of action; "right reason in action", as St. Thomas Aquinas said. Prudence is necessary for correct judgment. forms our character and helps us to more easily make good choices and then act on them.

Right Reason in Action Flashcards - Quizlet
https://quizlet.com › right-reason-in-action-flash-cards

We dont know what the best description for religion is because people refused to stick to the OP and side racked it anyway they could, tish.

 

[

That's the problem. "The material world' is just that; the world around us; the facts of life. But how do you get from that to "rights"--claims based on moral status. How do you get an "ought" out of an "is"? What is a naturalistic fallacy? The Ethics Centre Article
Naturalistic Fallacy Concept & Examples | What is a Naturalistic Fallacy? - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacyo do so, is to commit the "naturalistic fallacy": Even 9 doesn't really work, since as Bentham explained. One way around this is to assume that nature is a creation of God, and that (S)he has a master plan or purpose revealed in the facts. That gets us into a theological debate in an area that must ultimately be decided by faith. What's your approach?

 

This is characteristic of your approach: an elaborate digression from the topic at hand, leading us down a semantic rabbit hole.

 

After over 100 or so posts on the religion site giving us definitions of this or that, you could never focus on the issue at hand. And here you go again. I really don't think any of us are in doubt about how natural rights are defined, and the difference between them and positiive law. The questions are: Do they exist? and How do you know?

 

"To put things bluntly: Natural rights theory is wrong, useless, and unnecessary.

The natural rights position is based on a claim about the requirements of human flourishing. Humans are by nature free individuals in need of an autonomous sphere of private choices. The only appropriate political order is one that respects this fact, and the rights thus entailed are “natural” insofar as they are required by human nature. Rights, in their contemporary secular version, are not commands from God or ghostly entities but normatively meaningful abstractions emerging from the requirements of human life." Natural Rights Don't Exist | Brad Taylor

"The natural rights debate leads us down a false road. The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make. The "perfect freedom" Locke described "to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit... without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man", does not dictate the existence of rights; instead it leaves us perfectly free to legislate them.

I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe." Natural Rights Don't Exist

 

So are you troubled by some is ought in the bill of rights?
Do you have an example of this?
Oh I have no problems with faith, anything not proven by scientific method is based in faith, and even things that they 'believe' are proven are based in faith.