Discussion of rights — natural, societal, etc. (1 Viewer)

[V Chip]

This deserves its own thread. If other posts can be moved here or copied here that would be helpful.

Are there such things as “natural” or “god-given” rights? Which rights would qualify? Which rights that are very common wouldn't? Who/what grants or enforces such rights?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

OK, you have made a very competent argument and credit is due. However, this opens the door for so-called rights that require massive contribution from fellow citizens. In my opinion those are not rights, but benefits afforded to citizens (health care, shelter, good, transgender surgery, education, etc). The benefits exist because of the availability of funds to pay for them. Meanwhile basic rights stand on their own whether there is cash or not.

Do you believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights?

 

[coldseat]

I said the rights are a social construct. Is there something else you wanted me to say? I am agnostic. The right to life is basic, but it is still a social construct.

If all rights are only a social construct, then how can they possibly be inalienable as you state here? Inalienable means they can't be taken away but if right is a social construct then it can certainly be taken away if that society falls apart.

My point is that there is a difference between inalienable rights and benefits provided by society at large. I am trying to make a distinction between for example the right to free speech versus the so-called right to receive medical care.

 

[Paul]

If all rights are only a social construct, then how can they possibly be inalienable as you state here? Inalienable means they can't be taken away but if right is a social construct then it can certainly be taken away if that society falls apart.

I used the term that is commonly used in the past with regards to rights. The founding fathers were for the most part believers.

Definition of inalienable Merriam Webster​

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

They were looking for a word that suggested the rights were intrinsic to the human condition. You are correct! The rights can be taken away by a tyrannical government. Are we shifting the discussion to this? If that is the case I do not disagree with that point

My only concern is that some rights are basic such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to petition, etc. Others think that medical care, food, and shelter are rights and that is where I find disagreement.

We could agree by consensus that medical care is a right, however, it is not in the same category as freedom of speech because it requires manpower and money. In other words this right may go away if there is no money or the willing support by others.

 

[Paul]

These are all constructs of man and differentiating between them is merely rhetorical fluff. To say a right to healthcare is different from a right codified in the actual Bill of Rights based on whatever criteria you want to insert is meaningless.

I agree! They are all social constructs, but there is a difference between freedom of speech and the right to medical care.

 

[Paul]

Do you believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights?

I am agnostic. Those rights can be taken away.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am agnostic. Those rights can be taken away.

Is the right to free speech inalienable?

 

[Paul]

Is the right to free speech inalienable?

A tyrannical government may decide to execute the person that speaks freely. However, that right seems intrinsic to the human condition and it is not the same a the government providing shelter, food, cash, and health care. I see the latter as benefits provided by society at large.

You want to make a point. Go ahead and make your point.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

A tyrannical government may decide to execute the person that speaks freely. However, that right seems intrinsic to the human condition and it is not the same a the government providing shelter, food, cash, and health care. I see the latter as benefits provided by society at large.

You want to make a point. Go ahead and make your point.

I want to have a conversation, so calm down. How do you define the 'human condition'?

 

[RobF]

I want to have a conversation, so calm down. How do you define the 'human condition'?

While I admire the effort, the argument is clearly incoherent, and you've all already shown that. He's just throwing out arbitrary, and contradictory, criteria - "doesn't cost others money", "intrinsic to the human condition", etc. - without thinking it through at all.

The argument that "speaking" is intrinsic to the human condition and hence "freedom of speech" has to be a right but "eating" isn't, so access to food isn't? How would needing to eat not be intrinsic to the human condition? Rights are things that "don't cost money"? Speech might not cost money, but being able to speak clearly does. For one thing, you can't speak if you don't eat, what with being dead and all. And as others have pointed out, for being free to speak to be a right, it has to be enforced, which means consequences for those who would impede that freedom, which costs. If there's no consequence for the right being breached, it's meaningless.

You could make an argument that natural rights are those that derive naturally from the formation of a society (and you could extend this beyond human society too). But this would clearly include rights that have collective costs.

I just don't see the point in going round in circles, while someone repeats themselves, while refusing to define their terms or be pinned down to any specific line of reasoning, and occasionally says 'good point' while not taking the point on board in the slightest.

 

[MT15]

So, in order to have any sort of discussion we need to define the terms. If that has been done I have missed it. Paul has given one attribute of what he considers a “natural” right: that it doesn’t cost money to society. We have seen that rights such as free speech do cost money, however. If an entity tries to take away this “natural” right, which is possible and has been done many times in this world, it costs a lot to defend it and if you cannot defend a “natural” right I would suggest it isn’t really a natural right at all.

Some questions I have. Is a natural right inalienable? It seems like it should be. It should apply to anyone upon birth and up until death. Ideally, it should apply equally to everyone. This is why the “no cost” argument falls apart, IMO. These things are hella expensive to defend, in terms of time, money and humanity.

Who decides what is or is not a natural right? Who defends those rights from those who would take them away? Do these rights always have restrictions, when interfering with other human’s rights?

The first one I thought of was simple “bodily autonomy”. Each person should have say over their own body. What course of medical treatment, whether they get tattooed, what sort of nutrients they choose to ingest, so forth. Obviously, if you are doing something with your body that endangers other people, like spreading a disease, then you should be confined until you no longer pose a threat to others. This right has also basically only been extended to adults, children are usually subject to their parents’ authority with a few exceptions.

The second one was freedom to worship the god of their choice, or to abstain from worship. If you use your religion to restrict other people’s choice of worship or their choice to not worship, then obviously this doesn’t apply.

After that, I am open to others.

 

[SystemShock]

Some questions I have. Is a natural right inalienable?

There is no such thing as a natural right. Nature doesn't grant rights.

This is why the “no cost” argument falls apart,

The "no cost" argument falls apart because it is a stupid argument, completely lacking of the understanding what a right is.

 

[Paul]

I want to have a conversation, so calm down. How do you define the 'human condition'?

​

Human: relating to or characteristic of people or human beings.
"the human body".

The human condition is all of the characteristics and key events that compose the essentials of human existence, including birth, growth, emotion, aspiration, conflict, and mortality. This is a very broad topic which has been and continues to be pondered and analyzed from many perspectives, including those of religion, philosophy, history, art, literature, anthropology, psychology, and biology.

WIKI

 

[Paul]

There is no such thing as a natural right. Nature doesn't grant rights.

The "no cost" argument falls apart because it is a stupid argument, completely lacking of the understanding what a right is.

Are you able to have a dialogue in good faith? Or do you want to play gotcha with snarky remarks? It is your choice.

The framers used a lot of words to describe certain rights that were part or intrinsic of the human condition. These rights do not cost money.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

Constitutional Rights Foundation

The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights Thomas Jefferson (Library of Congress) Thomas Jefferson, drawing on the current thinking of his time, used natural rights ideas to justify declaring independence from England. Thom, The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights...

www.crf-usa.org

Could you explain in your own words what is a right?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

​

Human: relating to or characteristic of people or human beings.
"the human body".

The human condition is all of the characteristics and key events that compose the essentials of human existence, including birth, growth, emotion, aspiration, conflict, and mortality. This is a very broad topic which has been and continues to be pondered and analyzed from many perspectives, including those of religion, philosophy, history, art, literature, anthropology, psychology, and biology.

WIKI

As RobF pointed out, How many key events can one experience if they starve to death or die of a treatable illness at age 7?

 

[Paul]

As RobF pointed out, How many key events can one experience if they starve to death or die of a treatable illness at age 7?

I hear you but it is not my job to feed or cure the illness of others. I will do that on a voluntary basis and not under coercion. Any "so-called right" that requires me to work for the well bing of someone else is not a right. Don't get me wrong I think that as an advanced society we should help others, but that need should not a burden on my life.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Are you able to have a dialogue in good faith? Or do you want to play gotcha with snarky remarks? It is your choice.

The framers used a lot of words to describe certain rights that were part or intrinsic of the human condition. These rights do not cost money.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

Constitutional Rights Foundation

The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights Thomas Jefferson (Library of Congress) Thomas Jefferson, drawing on the current thinking of his time, used natural rights ideas to justify declaring independence from England. Thom, The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights...

www.crf-usa.org

Could you explain in your own words what is a right?

You said life and liberty were not inalienable rights, now you are arguing that they are. Your inconsistency is astounding.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I hear you but it is not my job to feed or cure the illness of others. I will do that on a voluntary basis and not under coercion. Any "so-called right" that requires me to work for the well bing of someone else is not a right. Don't get me wrong I think that as an advanced society we should help others, but that need should not a burden on my life.

You are all over the map. Paul. You say that inalienable rights are those that relate directly to the human condition, yet now they aren't.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I agree! They are all social constructs, but there is a difference between freedom of speech and the right to medical care.

There is a difference but I don't think the distinction you are drawing is a particularly compelling one because they are all social constructs. It's what people decide they want to guarantee. That one is more 'affirmative' and requires government funding while the other is more 'passive' isn't that important for any purpose other than the sake of categorizing them.

I think the discussion of whether it's more valuable to a society to ensure a minimum of healthcare or ensure unlimited access to firearms is the more substantive and relevant debate than whether a society should have rights that require funding versus rights that don't.