Do natural rights exist?

Do natural rights exist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • No

    Votes: 7 58.3%
  • Total voters
    12
tinfoil said:
in a cold universe, Nope! Your lucky if you get to live. There is no such thing as a right. There's also no such thing as good or evil. those are human constructs
Click to expand...

But moral behavior can result in being better at survival. Working together, we can achieve more for all of us. It's really too bad this form of mutual benefit is rarely practiced. What we have instead is a fascist panopticon created to delude into betrayal and hatred as a way of life.
 
tinfoil said:
in a cold universe, Nope! Your lucky if you get to live. There is no such thing as a right. There's also no such thing as good or evil. those are human constructs
Click to expand...

there is at least one right in that scenario, the right to self preservation. gives us the right to throw women and children off the titanic so we can take the life boats
 
AssHatZombie said:
But moral behavior can result in being better at survival. Working together, we can achieve more for all of us. It's really too bad this form of mutual benefit is rarely practiced. What we have instead is fascist panopticon created to delude into betrayal and hatred as a way of life.
Click to expand...

Even if you accept the notion that centralized economic control results in greater properity for the whole (which I don't because it doesn't), you are still left with the fact that there are some people who will be dragged down to raise others up.
 
Epicurus said:
Even if you accept the notion that centralized economic control results in greater properity for the whole (which I don't because it doesn't), you are still left with the fact that there are some people who will be dragged down to raise others up.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in centralized economic control.
 
Epicurus said:
Even if you accept the notion that centralized economic control results in greater properity for the whole (which I don't because it doesn't), you are still left with the fact that there are some people who will be dragged down to raise others up.
Click to expand...

this. at some point, you will be forced to drop the seriously dead weight in order to survive. Once you take that step, you might as well jump full on in to the logans run mindset
 
Natural Rights Theory is the belief that humans as creatures of Nature and/or Creations of God have certain Rights that should never be infringed by a government.

Pretty much the idea of inalienable rights and a list of human rights comes from the idea of the social contract put forward by John Locke who was a Natural Rights philosopher.
 
Mr. Conservative said:
I don't think they do. I think they were useful in an era when the primary justification for everything was "God wills it", but aren't useful in a rational world where we decide that rights are good for humanity with logic rather than mysticism.
Click to expand...

Yes natural "rights" exist. Some are just born that way. Victims of genetics.
I hope that one day gene therapy can cure them.
Do you remember the study about whiney children growing up to be "rights"?
 
Damocles said:
Natural Rights Theory is the belief that humans as creatures of Nature and/or Creations of God have certain Rights that should never be infringed by a government.

Pretty much the idea of inalienable rights and a list of human rights comes from the idea of the social contract put forward by John Locke who was a Natural Rights philosopher.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In general Locke was responding to Hobbes who spoke about 'social contract theory' as a defense against 'laws of nature.' While Hobbes saw man as a beast if not constrained government', preferably a strong king; Locke saw 'social contract' as a way to ensure the most rights by a mutually agreed system.

If memory serves, Hobbes was still alive when Locke was young, I think both their theories interesting and with merit, but what a difference a generation made when the older was writing on the cusp of medieval times; the younger within the Enlightenment.
 
Annie said:
Agreed. In general Locke was responding to Hobbes who spoke about 'social contract theory' as a defense against 'laws of nature.' While Hobbes saw man as a beast if not constrained government', preferably a strong king; Locke saw 'social contract' as a way to ensure the most rights by a mutually agreed system.

If memory serves, Hobbes was still alive when Locke was young, I think both their theories interesting and with merit, but what a difference a generation made when the older was writing on the cusp of medieval times; the younger within the Enlightenment.
Click to expand...


Wow. We did not know that. Thank you for elevating the discussion to new heights of boredom.:pke:
 
Mr. Conservative said:
Why?
Click to expand...
According to the theory, natural laws can be revealed by reason and are not the same thing as "divine laws" which are, of course, revealed in the books of religion and a different animal altogether.

Natural laws are those which extend from natural rights. Such as the "right to life". It doesn't matter where humans live, what religion they follow (or don't follow) there are laws against murder for example. While applied differently for different social contracts it is there in every case.

The "why" you ask is a question misapplied. Reason tells us that if you cut short a life without due cause you have taken something of value from that other person.
 
Damocles said:
According to the theory, natural laws can be revealed by reason and are not the same thing as "divine laws" which are, of course, revealed in the books of religion and a different animal altogether.

Natural laws are those which extend from natural rights. Such as the "right to life". It doesn't matter where humans live, what religion they follow (or don't follow) there are laws against murder for example. While applied differently for different social contracts it is there in every case.

The "why" you ask is a question misapplied. Reason tells us that if you cut short a life without due cause you have taken something of value from that other person.
Click to expand...

Why is value reasonable?

Damo, morality isn't derived from reason.
 
First of all, what is "natural" is the basest existence as animals. And there are no rights on that level.


But what is so appealing about what is natural?

Our intellect has evolved to the point that we can live more comfortable and productive lives. The use of our intellect has given us great benefits, and these outweigh whatever small losses we have suffered.


There are no natural rights. The "natural" world has man as an animal.
 
Solitary said:
First of all, what is "natural" is the basest existence as animals. And there are no rights on that level.


But what is so appealing about what is natural?

Our intellect has evolved to the point that we can live more comfortable and productive lives. The use of our intellect has given us great benefits, and these outweigh whatever small losses we have suffered.


There are no natural rights. The "natural" world has man as an animal.
Click to expand...
However, when speaking in terms of the theory it is defined as listed above.

Much like many other things, when speaking in context it can change the nuance of words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top