Do we have "natural" rights?

If they only exist as a result of the constitution then they wouldn't be natural now would they? If you choose to call the 'rights' specified in the constitution natural then go ahead, I just think it is a poor moniker.

 

What are you talking about? animals kill each other all the time. Males kill each other over territory and females and eat the young of other males, to make the female need to breed again.

 

The same goes for justice, equality, and many others.

 

The only true rights are life and liberty.......Anything else is not a right, but a privilage that is taken away or added to whenever there is a need of it in society.....

 

We have rights (claims) which arise, or are derived from, nature, hence they are "natural" rights.

They are derived by humans observing nature and using their reason.

Like a math equation, they are abstractions, but abstractions, like a math equation, are (a) useful and (b) based upon observations, which means they are important human concepts.

 

Based on "What"?

I can tell you we have rights based on the Creator, but men sometimes don't follow our Creator and in that our rights are just based on the Creation which when evil is mostly selfish, claiming godhood, over others.

Here is the base of US claims...our birth form, which today has changed.

Sir William Blackstone
(Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law was the recognized authority on the law for well over a century after 1776)

. http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/founding.html#swb


We have no rights if evil men in power deny them, and we have no rights if we agree with the evil men.

 

We don't merely want to survive, we need to survive.

Deriving ought statements from is statements can be accomplished using simple reason.

Because 'ought' is an organic human construct. It is part of our biological makeup. Asking "why" we should have such statements is like asking "why" we should distinguish between edible and inedible or light and dark. We make those statements and those distinctions because it is in our nature to do so.

Of course, there is absolutely no reason I should have to explain something that is self-evident to sane people. You know exactly "why" there ought to be ought statements. You are a being of "ought".

 

We do not 'need' to survive. Why do we 'need' to survive? You can only state that we need to survive if you have some value-judgement. 'Ought' statements cannot be derived without an initial value-judgement.

Sigh, just because we have biological impulses does not mean that we should. This is elementary. It is obvious as to why we have subjective impulses towards food etc., evolution.

 

Natural rights are a nice concept, but in reality, your rights are largely dependent on your ability to defend yourself and the nature of the government you live under.

 

Natural rights exist in the absence of the state. The state can only protect or remove them.

 

To any sane human being, it is self-evident as to why humans need to survive. No explanation is necessary.

It has nothing to do with "should". It is inherent to our nature. Asking why we should have something that is inherent to our nature makes no sense. It's like asking why should we have opposable digits.

Yes, the truth is often obvious to those who bother to look. The truth is that we are inherently moral beings. Statements of "ought" are an organic human construct. No explanation is necessary. You already live your life according to the dictates of human nature.

 

Say not "dictates" - I agree insofar as human nature predisposes people to actions, but is not always the ultimate determinant.

 

No it is not self-evident, it is not even true. We can easily explain why humans want to survive in terms of evolutionary theory but it does not follow that they need to survive, why do we need to survive? In fact we die all the time, clearly we don't need to.

?????? Asking why we have opposable digits is a perfectly reasonable question. We find the answer lies in evolution in the same way morality lies in evolution. Your entire argument is the naturalistic fallacy, something occurs in nature therefore it is good.

So, your explanation is 'no explanation is necessary'. And one wonders why I can't take you seriously.

 

Evolutionary theory is just a construct of the human mind, like morality. Why put any stake in it?

It's self-evident to rational humans. How could I explain something which is self-evident? All humans adhere to this dictate in one way or another, even if they obtusely deny it on internet forums.

Then we don't even "need" to eat.

I never said otherwise.

You're asking why we should have them, not why we have them. Big difference. Asking why we should have 'ought' statements is like asking why we should have a brain. It makes no sense. We have it because nature put it there - there is no "should".

Never said that.

It wouldn't make much sense for me to explain something that is self-evident to sane, rational beings.

 

Evidence my dear boy, it is borne out by evidence.

Clearly isn't self-evident. It is wrong.

We don't need to eat. Unless you want to live of course, but you don't need to live either.

You did say that asking why we have opposable digits is not a perfectly reasonable question. See below;

"Asking why we should have something that is inherent to our nature makes no sense. It's like asking why should we have opposable digits. "

No ought statements are justifiable in any objective sense.

You are saying "Man is capable of forming ought statements, therefore we should". This is an illogical statement and is clearly the naturalistic fallacy which you deny below:

Don't get angry with me, you are making nonsensical statements.

 

WHO would grant you your "natural rights"?

 

"Evidence" is just a construct of the human mind. Why put any stake in it?

Only on internet forums where the obtuse machinations of pseudo-nihilists reign supreme...

Is there anything we "need" to do?

Note the difference between my question and your version of my question.

Give me an example of a statement that is "justifiable" in an "objective" sense.

No. I'm eliminating "should" from the equation altogether. There is no "should" because it is inherent. It simply is. We are beings of "ought".

I could never get angry with you, precious!

 

They are not "granted" by anyone. They are derived using pure reason.

 

A right that isn't protected by authority isn't much of a right.

 

I'm not sure how this pertains to what I said.

 

I understand the concept behind natural rights. I agree with them in theory, but my point was just that rights only exist in practicality if they are protected by either a government or by self-defense.

 

You just contradicted yourself. If it is "almost" unknown, then obviously evolution does allow it.

 

Of course, but they cannot be protected unless we acknowledge them. Some people want to deny them as being acknowledgeable in an "objective" sense, which is what I am seeking to rebut.

 

So are your ought statements are they not?

We are a troublesome bunch.

Nope.

My apologies you did intend say should.

A if B
C if A
leads to
C if B

Now of course one could question whether or not logic is 'justifiable' but that is my starting point.

We are beings of 'ought'. However, why 'ought' we choose one ought statement over another? This is what you are asking us to do.

 

Ah... carry on then.