The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Talon, Apr 7, 2021.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Humans perceive a lot of things, time travel for instance, doesnt make it real, much less functional.

    In the real world humans have proven to be unreasonable all the time.

    In fact some morally bankrupt person might 'reason' its ok to blow new york off the map so they can plant their garden in its place.

    So much for reason!
    We did, less than 1% of the world population owns over 60% of the worlds wealth, while there are people starving and shelterless.
    Can you imagine living according to the do unto others of a masochist? :eek:
    Not the basis of, but based upon observing and identifying those characteristics in ourselves we observe and compare that mechanism in/to every other species taking note of its existence every where nonetheless.
    That is not the job nor purpose of guv. The job and purpose of the guv, at least in the us is to 'protect' our rights, not 'create' them.
    Absence of government is absence of government, not anarchy. Neither does absence of government or the absence or some form of iron fisted authority mean chaos ensues. You are suggesting authoritarianism.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The most fundamental of all rights are established by try to kill someone and watch what happens to you.

    Like I told rahl,to get a crystal clear understanding of inherent rights, give someone a loaded 44 and try to choke them, to see how long it takes for them to fill the perps head full of slugs.

    In other words inherent rights have been identified as those based in our core nature, that do not infringe on the inherent rights of others.

    Everything else is negotiable.

    Inherent rights exist with or without acknowledgement of their existence.

    iow they dont exist because philosophy took note of its existence as rahl claims, rather the philosophy exists because of our abilities to look inward at our core nature then put what we see into writing.

    Religion operates the same way, its the result of actions taken or believed in, not the other way around.

    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  3. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Inherent "rights" are based in instinct? How ridiculous is that statement?
    ...as the crocodile instinctively chomps on anything that crosses its path, including its own offspring...

    The manifestations of raw instinct certainly can be seen, as noted above. Human are different though, so let's read on..

    Yes...and?

    Crime maybe, but violence not always; resistance against injustice is reasonable.

    Yes, and? I thought we are talking about the basis of the human-created concept of "inherent rights", which don't exist in the non-human world.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you seem to have omitted consideration for " that does not infringe on anothers inherent right ".
    A crocagator chomping on everything in its path does not follow that prescription.
    However most species have some form of established rights within their own species to varying degrees of sophistication of course.
    Not according to guv policy, shoot first the doj will let you off the hook.
    academically they do exist, its especially apparent in primates.


    Though they were brothers, each chimp had a very different leadership style. While Freud maintained control through fostering strong alliances and grooming those he wanted to keep under his command, Frodo relied heavily on aggression and brute strength. In addition to perks like mating rights, and duties like patrolling territory and breaking up fights, an alpha male always needs to be watching for the next chimp who will try to take his place.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  5. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that somehow disproves my contention that humans have more choices, including more peaceful choices, in interacting with their fellows than other species?

    Yes, we are self-interested ***ts, but the first tentative steps to establish a better human civilization were taken in 1946, when that cloud over Hiroshima was still seared into everyone's brains...and all nation's agreed to create the UN for the first time in history. The first real attempt to manage the catastrophic effects of non-cortex instinct, on a GLOBAL scale.

    But reason DOES exist, and can be nurtured.

    I know your capacity to reason is limited. Fact is there are sufficient resources in the world to engage everyone in useful employment at above poverty level. Fullstop. That's "reason".

    Can you stop looking at how other subhuman species behave for a moment, and begin using the billions of neurons in your cortex, which animals don't have?

    Protect your "rights"? But I have just proved your concept of rights is utterly flawed; we are not animals; we are half 'freely thinking' beings - "homo sapiens" - and half instinct driven animals.

    So I say again the purpose, and the ideal, of government IS to best balance reason and instinct for the prosperity of all.

    Your premise that humans are like animals - in respect of survival instincts being the source of "rights" - leads you to that faulty conclusion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  6. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Note my underlined. How "sophisticated" (reasonable) can humans be? Well they could sign up to the UNUDHR and eradicate war and poverty, since reason tells us it CAN be done (ie the resources exist to achieve it) given humans' creative capacities.

    Yes that's an example of UNreason (non-cortex thinking) in human affairs, pure and simple.

    Yes...hence reason will conclude that good governance (as defined by me) in an age of ever-increasing advanced technology, is a goal worth pursuing, or rather MUST be pursued as we human 'chimps' are pushing the boundaries of the planet's ecological limits to the '6th extinction', because we are still insisting on free market "freedoms" when fair markets are required now, both for the planet's survival and the survival of all of us.
     
  7. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you base your concept of 'inherent rights' on the need for self-defense, and claim that as the CORE of our nature.

    Not very "sophisticated" of you; we could advance cooperation in our increasingly AI and IT assisted economies and thereby reduce the need for self-defense in our daily lives, as I have already pointed out.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes we can choose to create nooks and breed viruses to wipe out undesirables.
    If preventing total mutual annihilation is the criteria for 'a better human civilization' then I suppose you have a point.
    Sure it exists, never said otherwise, it used to be 'reasonable' to burn witches, so much for reason. I think the word you want is 'conscience'.
    Your personal dogma has nothing to do with the topic of 'reason'. When I was a young scrapper I read this:
    [​IMG]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

    I highly recommend it for anyone that desires to expand the limits of their reasoning ability.
    Hate to brak it to you , you are an animal.
    So you believe humans are the only creatures on this planet that 'thinks'?
    You can say it till you turn green, the us was intended to protect rights.
    see above
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nothing will eradicate war and poverty, certainly not the complete guv takeover and the stupid people that unwittingly accept it as we are experiencing today.
    Then why would you place your faith in guv when you know they are the source of the problem?

    Chimps dont use their tools to kill as many other chimps as they can for personal gain, human animals do.

    Dresden comes to mind.

    Your reason, the reason of the people not in power, which is vastly different than the reasoning of the guv., ie the people in power.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is hilarious is that you keep proving my point and disproving yours and you are unable to realize it lol.
     
  11. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry buddy, but you may want to read a couple of State Constitutions that specifically mention natural rights.

    1. New Hampshire Constitution (section Part 1 - Bill of Rights) =

    2. Massachusetts Constitution (Declaration of Rights, Article 1) =

    3. Maine Constitution (Article 1, Section 1) =

    4. Kansas Constitution (Article 1, Section 1) =

    5. Preamble of the Puerto Rico Constitution =

    6. Missouri Constitution (Article 1 , Section 2) =

    7. Vermont Constitution (Chapter 1, Article 1st) =

    8. Republican Party of Illinois 2016 Platform =

    9. Oregon Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) =

    10. Missouri Constitution(Section 5, Article 1) =

    11. Montana Constitution (Article II, Section 3. Uses the word inalienable instead of natural, a synonym) =

    12. Alaska Constitution (Article 1, Section 1) =

    13. Virginia Constitution (Article 1, Section 1. Uses the word inherent, instead of natural, a synonym) =

    14. North Carolina Constitution (Article 1, Section 1. Uses the word inalienable, instead of natural, a synonym) =

    The Progressive Origins of the Administrative State: Wilson, Goodnow, and Landis by Ronald J. Pestritto (2007)

    https://ballotpedia.org/State_constitution = common link to all references

    BTW, it seems that the Repubs are more vocal for natural rights than Dems are, based on their campaigns.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I think it is more than reasonable to see our consciousness, our ability to empathize, as evolutionary advances that were important in humans being so stupendously successful as a species.

    But, those are additions, not replacements, and we still do a crap job of applying them.

    I'm sure we're all aware that we resort to the law of the jungle at the speed of a synapse even whent there is absolutely NO immedicate threat.
     
    a better world and Cosmo like this.
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mentions are no more than handwaves to some actual philosophy somewhere. Look at our constitution. In NO POSIBLE WAY could one consider such mentions as more than a few selected references with no support other than a hand wave to our origins, no claim of completeness, no logic indicating importance, no guidance on application.

    Plus, what rights does the GOP fight for beyond the proliferation of guns and not paying taxes?

    The idea that guns could be considered a "natural right" is so crazy ridiculous as to indicate that the very notions of natural rights and government aren't understood.

    And, the right to not pay our bills is no more than childish irresponsibility.

    ==> Much more imporantly, when our government is FOUNDED on representation as it's most core principle, one has NO choice but to recognize the assault on that representation as being a fundamental assault on EVERY right we EVER thought our government should defend.

    We spent 4 years tollerating white supremacy and it's domestic terrorism as if those were acceptable as PRINCIPLES!!

    Then, YOU come along and suggest we're motiveated by some sort of natural rights, because of some claims in some documents!
     
  14. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It might be an imperfect system but the people who designed it specifically stated, in some cases, that people have such things as natural rights and that the government acknowledges that. The bureaucrats may not always observe them but they are certainly documented.
     
    Talon likes this.
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that our founders were aware of natural rights. They were well educated, having studied philosophy, government, law, and other significant topics in institutions of higher education, as well as having serious experience. They respected that educated thought.

    But, our documents are specific to forming a government, NOT a treatise on rights.

    A hand wave toward specific rights as seen in our declaration of independence, constitutional preamble, etc. are NOT a treatise on rights. They are reference to a field of philosophy that can hardly even be considered settled.

    And, they knew that. When they coined phrases such as "cruel and unusual punishment" they were clearly aware that their document could not address natural rights in that respect. And, it seems clear that they would know that such issues would change over time - our ideas of natural rights on this topic are clearly NOT theirs.

    Our founders made no reference even just to the issues of how conflicts between our various rights might be resolved. They left the issue of rights to be worked out by us.

    And, WE don't even give universal respect to the natural right considered most fundamental by our founders - the right of representation.
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what's hilarious is that your claim is precisely backwards and you fail to see it

    yep bingo that's organic law, will is trying to destroy our organic law by claiming it's nothing more than a bunch of useless words on a piece of paper.

    so you're trying to dismantle our organics law by falsely claiming they are mentions, not organic law. WTF!

    another thoughtless statement, it's not a right if you don't have the material and goods to support and enforce the right freely at your disposal, you don't seem to have any problems with the government philosophy that they have the authority and guns at their disposal and that they use every possible method of enforcement all of their self-prescribed authority against us.

    maybe that's because it's we the government nowadays rather than we the people you think?

    they're not claims will they are agreed upon organic law by those who have to live under it regardless if it fits your utopian agenda or not.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  17. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of this changes the fact that natural rights do not exist outside of a philosophical human construct.
     
  18. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    reality remains. Natural rights do not exist outside of a philosophical human construct. It’s why none of you can show us here they are written, where they came from, who gave them to us or where they exist in nature. Lol
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    false, by definition we are talking about variables, not theoretical or hypothesized constructs.
    sure, constructs versus variables 101
    http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/20899/1/Unit-3.pdf
    yours and wils attempts to frivolize the organic laws of the US fails even the sniff test.
    Inherent rights are based on centuries of observation of human nature.
    I do however disagree with the expansion of the word inherent to include education for instance, education is a tax payer funded affair and nothing to do with inherent right but to water them meaningless as you and will are attempting to do.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  20. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If there is an Origin that needs to be written about to have so called Natural Rights, I don't see how they can be Natural.

    Natural means it occurs in Nature and belongs to all humans at worst and all creatures at best and needs no discussing.
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    reality remains. Natural rights do not exist outside of a philosophical human construct. It’s why none of you can show us where they are written, where they came from, who gave them to us or where they exist in nature. Lol
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no one can 'show' or demonstrate anything to you because reading and reading comprehension is required to 'see' the show or demonsration.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  23. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The American government is not set in stone. The writers clearly said that the general people have the ultimate right to change the government and its form by whatever means they think best whenever they decide to do it for whatever reason. That is probably the most basic natural right outside of just living. That is one of the reasons the Confederates were not charged with treason.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Inherent [Human] rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status.
    https://www.ohchr.org › issues › pages › whatarehuman...


    Unless of course you rahl and wil want to argue we do not have the right to life etc? Is that what this is driving at? So far all I have seen to the contrary is examples of 'violations' of inherent rights, which does not infringe on the FACT that inherent rights exist. So where are you people trying to go with this?
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ALL you are doing here is giving a definition of the term.

    I don't believe there is much dispute about the definition of the term.

    But, that definition isn't a philosophy of what such rights might or might not consist of.

    Our founders were interested in forming a government. They had particular rights related issues that they saw as important.

    You can hardly call quartering soldiers as something you would find in a philosophy of natural rights.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
    dairyair likes this.

Share This Page