Is the idea of natural rights merely a noble lie?

[Time Commander Bob]

Natural rights, the idea that people have rights independent of current society and law, seems to me to have no verifiable basis but nevertheless the idea can have a positive effect on societies and individuals (especially those with less power). Though this is a consequential perspective of an idea that is supposed to apply regardless of consequence (meaning they wouldn't be natural rights at all).
It has been said that natural rights are self-evident, but I see no contradiction in the statement "I have no right to life" as opposed to other self-evident statements that do contradict when the inverse is applied (eg, 1=!1 or stating that "I do not exist"). Since natural rights is a commonly held idea for some in these forums and for me the burden of proof lies upon the claimant, this thread is an invitation for those who disagree to state their basis for natural rights (and please do not just state "they're granted by God" without justifying how one can know that).

[saxdude]

Natural rights is merely an idea of modern human society and it isnt even present in all societies, at least not nearly in the same manner, in nature one could say that we dont have the right to live and rather that we earn it by surviving.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Natural rights are bullcrap, however positive rights tend to stay more or less the same in many cases(within a single society that evolves during a period of time), especially regarding murder and rape.

[Nietzsche]

Natural rights, the idea that people have rights independent of current society and law, seems to me to have no verifiable basis but nevertheless the idea can have a positive effect on societies and individuals (especially those with less power). Though this is a consequential perspective of an idea that is supposed to apply regardless of consequence (meaning they wouldn't be natural rights at all).
It has been said that natural rights are self-evident, but I see no contradiction in the statement "I have no right to life" as opposed to other self-evident statements that do contradict when the inverse is applied (eg, 1=!1 or stating that "I do not exist"). Since natural rights is a commonly held idea for some in these forums and for me the burden of proof lies upon the claimant, this thread is an invitation for those who disagree to state their basis for natural rights (and please do not just state "they're granted by God" without justifying how one can know that).

This is one of the most thoughtful posts I've seen in the EMM in some time.

In response, I believe that natural rights are still "verifiable."

I have a natural right to liberty. Why? Because infringement upon that liberty robs me of some aspect of my development or self-determination. Only I know what my interests are. Only I know my abilities and desires. No one can tell me what they are. Thus the right to liberty begins with myself. The only alternative is that someone make my decisions for me (slaves).

I have a right to property. Why? Because ownership is the basis of any exchange. I cannot give, what I don't have (such as my labor). Therefore in order to function among others and create any community I must be able to "trade" what I have for what I don't. The only alternative is stealing or borrowing and neither of which can create any economy of scale capable of supporting multitudes of people.

The right to life should be obvious. If someone robs me of that, I have nothing, and the argument is moot. Right to life should primary. Without it all other rights are invalidated.

The real importance of natural rights stems from it's opposition to an idea of Rousseau's Social Contract. In a social contract, I am only given rights (positively) by contractual arrangement. I have to "give" certain rights or powers to the state in "exchange" for some benefit. But those rights I am given are positive; all other rights are implicitly denied.

This is why the US Constitution is written as negative liberty: Congress Shall Make No Law... Negative liberty protects us against such implicit denials and thrusts more freedom into the hands of the people. That is a very important distinction that has been ignored by the SCOTUS for years.

The difference between this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and this:

The People shall have freedom of religion, religious practice, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

... should be obvious. The first, Government explicitly cannot make any law regarding any of the practices. In the second, they can which means the government then decides what "free exercise" means.

[Time Commander Bob]

The main problem I have with your verification of natural rights is one that whilst I can see your reasoning, I think it falls under the famous is-ought fallacy in that it is thought to be impossible to derive a moral ought from what is. I'll explain this as I critique each one.

I have a natural right to liberty. Why? Because infringement upon that liberty robs me of some aspect of my development or self-determination. Only I know what my interests are. Only I know my abilities and desires. No one can tell me what they are. Thus the right to liberty begins with myself. The only alternative is that someone make my decisions for me (slaves).

Ok, so basically what is being said is:
1-People have desires and interests that they wish to fulfill that are determined by themselves
2-People have the physical capacity to make some of these interests happen
3-Therefore, people ought to be able to fulfill these interests so long as they do not conflict with the interests of others.
The problem lies in whilst I may accept premises 1 and 2, I do not think they form a valid basis to arrive at the conclusion (3). Statements 1 and 2 are descriptive statements about people whilst the conclusion (3) is different in that it is a normative ethical statement about what should people be allowed to do. You need to explain how these empirical observations allow one to arrive at a normative ethical conclusion.

I have a right to property. Why? Because ownership is the basis of any exchange. I cannot give, what I don't have (such as my labor). Therefore in order to function among others and create any community I must be able to "trade" what I have for what I don't. The only alternative is stealing or borrowing and neither of which can create any economy of scale capable of supporting multitudes of people.

The issue with this explanation is that whilst I broadly agree with it, I agree with it because I don't think it outlines a natural right as such. It seems to be a consequential approach in that "in order to achieve trade and economies, people require the ability to have property", which is different from "people have an inherent right to property". As our ideas of trade and economics is dependent upon the current society we live in, the existence of past collectivist societies without individual property I think shows that the idea of individual property is a product of cultural relativism rather than a natural right. One could argue that societies that have embraced the idea of individual property are more successful, but this cannot be used as a basis for a natural right as it is dealing with consequences and is more in line with a utilitarian perspective rather than natural rights.

The right to life should be obvious. If someone robs me of that, I have nothing, and the argument is moot. Right to life should primary. Without it all other rights are invalidated.

Since the explanation of this is structured similarly to your first two rights which I have already dealt with, I'll ask this question instead of the implications of this right to life: do you think that people ever lose this right to life under certain circumstances and if so what circumstances?

[basics]

" Natural rights, the idea that people have rights independent of current society and law......."

Time Commander Bob,

Should they exist the question begs what are they? By that I mean what is natural? It seems to me that societies' laws long ago replaced what was natural and quite rightly so were men to advance their stature. That being the case natural rights as depicted by them that have introduced them are as deluded as them that draw comfort from them.

[BNS]

The way I approach this as an atheist and a libertarian is that natural rights are not something that we are inherently born with. Rather they are a set of rationally conceived morals and political principals based on our inherent natural drive to survive. They come from our independent reasoning on how to objectively act with what is present in our environment to best satisfy our biological material needs. Any forceful interference our ability to express or act on what we see as objectively rational, with the claim of ownership of our labor or what it creates then goes against this natural aim which is our survival, these rights. Hence their association with negative and property rights.

I like how Ayn Rand puts it:

"If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational."

[Bovril]

Natural rights are clearly a matter of faith. If I assert that all people have the right (qua right) to, say, freedom of speech, I assert this as an article of faith. If I assert that it is convenient but contingent that people have freedom of speech, I do not assert a right at all. Human rights are those structures of interaction that we assert above and aginst the realities of our experience as a result of our (often disturbing) encounter with our neighbour/the other to use the Christian and Existentialist (etc.) terms respectively. The idea that our encounter with others should be purely predicated on some reified 'logical self interest' is undermined by the very structure of our encounter.

In conclusion, human rights represent a certain commitment as an existential orientation to the other made manifest.

[bushbush]

natural rights are not exactly "natural" (otherwise why most of the world don't have it?), it's a result of complex evolution of legal and political institutions over many centuries in certain parts of the world where the common men had gained compromises from the elites, who decided to give up some powers in exchange for legitimacy of their rule.

[BNS]

The idea that our encounter with others should be purely predicated on some reified 'logical self interest' is undermined by the very structure of our encounter.

How?

natural rights are not exactly "natural" (otherwise why most of the world don't have it?)

The most harmonious and complex societies generally appeal to this code do they not?

[Bovril]

How?

On every level, but most viscerally on that of experience. I challenge anyone to experience the encounter with the other in purely logical terms. Humans simply do not function as calculating automatons, and any atempt to do so alienates us desperately in a way that compromises our mental health, our hapiness, and our very humanity.

[BNS]

On every level, but most viscerally on that of experience. I challenge anyone to experience the encounter with the other in purely logical terms. Humans simply do not function as calculating automatons, and any atempt to do so alienates us desperately in a way that compromises our mental health, our hapiness, and our very humanity.

I have not claimed that humans are cold calculating machines but that it is natural to first and foremost put their survival (interests) first. An adherence to objectivity is needed to act in ways to meet this end.

So why would an interaction between individuals necessarily result result in a breakdown of these rights?

[bushbush]

The most harmonious and complex societies generally appeal to this code do they not?

not really, that's only after they have reached certain wealth status after years of development. Unless you are saying 30000+ gpa per capita based on colonization, slave trade, industrialization is "natural", these rights aren' t either.

[BNS]

not really, that's only after they have reached certain wealth status after years of development. Unless you are saying 30000+ gpa per capita based on colonization, slave trade, industrialization is "natural", these rights aren' t either.

You have this backwards, for developed countries the right to property came first. I can't imagine why you are bringing in imperialism there is nothing moral by those standards about that and it certainly did not help those on the receiving side.

Natural rights are natural in that they adhere best to our realities as a biological being. This goes hand in hand with technological innovation and industrialization, or a better use of the planet's resources. Acts of force unless in defense are antithetical to natural rights but not because they are any less a part of human nature but because it acts against the aforementioned ends.

[bushbush]

You have this backwards, for developed countries the right to property came first. I can't imagine why you are bringing in imperialism there is nothing moral by those standards about that and it certainly did not help those on the receiving side.

like what? universal rights to vote? rights to education? rights to healthcare (nowadays)? all these before reaching a certain economic standard? even rights for property, rights for representation came gradually.

[Djûn]

I'm inclined to agree with bushbush on this topic. The theory of natural rights (or the natural law basis of human rights) appears to me to have been a theory which has been largely developed and manipulated over time ever since its (apparently) original proposal by Aristotle. These rights are obviously enforced by the idea of Social Contract, that people submit power to a government which will protect the rights that they determine should be protected in (virtually) all situations). The idea that Natural Law governs this seems to have a rather unsatisfactory process of coming into being when one considers that the theory was interpreted and popularised largely by Thomas Aquinas, a man evidently of rather differing social and moral background than Aristotle. Even in modern use one can see that certain rights have been altered or even added into the bundle of rights encompassed by the idea of Natural Law. Given this changing aspect of the rights, I find it difficult to subscribe to the notion that there is indeed a Natural Law - that is to say a bundle of inalienable rights which hold objective applicability.

[Nietzsche]

These rights are obviously enforced by the idea of Social Contract, that people submit power to a government which will protect the rights that they determine should be protected in (virtually) all situations).

Incorrect. Natural Rights are the anti-thesis of the Social Contract and exist outside any model of governance. This is Rousseau vs Burke, and Burke was clearly the victor.

The people don't "give up" anything to provide legitimacy to the government. The government is shaped to protect the natural rights, as already described, of the people. A government is formed to protect these rights, because it is easier to uphold such protection against enemies in a community or state system. The difference is striking.

On every level, but most viscerally on that of experience. I challenge anyone to experience the encounter with the other in purely logical terms. Humans simply do not function as calculating automatons, and any atempt to do so alienates us desperately in a way that compromises our mental health, our hapiness, and our very humanity.

I agree. Self interest needn't be logical or even reasoned. As a human quality, I would suggest at times they are not. However, our interests do come into play in your stated engagement. Making friends with my neighbor may be an enjoyable and purely social thing to do, but it also offers me the chance of protection and assistance if the need arises. It's the reason communities are formed. I believe that to be a better illustration of self-interest.

Ok, so basically what is being said is:
1-People have desires and interests that they wish to fulfill that are determined by themselves
2-People have the physical capacity to make some of these interests happen
3-Therefore, people ought to be able to fulfill these interests so long as they do not conflict with the interests of others.
The problem lies in whilst I may accept premises 1 and 2, I do not think they form a valid basis to arrive at the conclusion (3). Statements 1 and 2 are descriptive statements about people whilst the conclusion (3) is different in that it is a normative ethical statement about what should people be allowed to do. You need to explain how these empirical observations allow one to arrive at a normative ethical conclusion.

This is an excellent point. I'm paralyzed by it. I believe the answer may lie in accepting interests as a tradeable quantity. However, I'm at pains to describe how that trading could manifest itself in the way you require.

natural rights are not exactly "natural" (otherwise why most of the world don't have it?), it's a result of complex evolution of legal and political institutions over many centuries in certain parts of the world where the common men had gained compromises from the elites, who decided to give up some powers in exchange for legitimacy of their rule.

This is a variation of Social Contract theory. Because the rest of the world "doesn't have them" means nothing. Many world governments don't recognize even the very value of a human life, but that does not mean it doesn't have value. Or that it only has value in Brazil but not Botswana. Rights exists outside such framework. The refusal of those rights result in the horrors you are likely implying.

[Djûn]

Incorrect. Natural Rights are the anti-thesis of the Social Contract and exist outside any model of governance. This is Rousseau vs Burke, and Burke was clearly the victor.

I spoke not of their existence but of their enforcement. I realise that the Natural Law theory is based on the notion that these rights do exist regardless of their recognition, but one cannot deny that this bundle of rights is not enforced globally, nor are they recognised in all States as such. Thus, without their legitmisation through whatever process the people have determined should be used in enacting these laws (largely it appears to be either constitutionally or by simple democracy), then they hold no power in that society.

The people don't "give up" anything to provide legitimacy to the government. The government is shaped to protect the natural rights, as already described, of the people. A government is formed to protect these rights, because it is easier to uphold such protection against enemies in a community or state system. The difference is striking.

If this is the case then the Government clearly oversteps it boundaries in enacting anything which is not in the protection of the bundle of Natural Rights, is it not?

[Nietzsche]

I spoke not of their existence but of their enforcement. I realise that the Natural Law theory is based on the notion that these rights do exist regardless of their recognition, but one cannot deny that this bundle of rights is not enforced globally, nor are they recognised in all States as such. Thus, without their legitmisation through whatever process the people have determined should be used in enacting these laws (largely it appears to be either constitutionally or by simple democracy), then they hold no power in that society.



If this is the case then the Government clearly oversteps it boundaries in enacting anything which is not in the protection of the bundle of Natural Rights, is it not?

Yes.

[Denny Crane!]

Enacting them in a process designated by the state does not offer them legitimacy, their legitimacy lies in the philosophy and whether or not it can be rationally and logically worked through leading to a conclusive model of rights.

The governments by and large on a global scale have proven through their many actions past and present that rights are a convenient sop to the public will, that only so much will be given and as much taken back as possible in order for them to both maintain power (usually as a faction rather than as a grand machievellian scheme of a vizier or despot) and... well as the dairy farmer put it, ''to get the maximum amount of milk with the minimum amount of moo''