• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do 'rights' come from?

Unrein

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
67
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Generally speaking, the two primary camps are 'natural rights', that rights are derived from something inherent, or 'positive rights', that rights are simply a guarantee provided by society itself, as a contract or whatever form of purely human power that would bestow it.

Looking at nature, from a plainly secular and materialist perspective, it's obvious, to me anyway, that there are no inherent, 'natural' rights. There is only natural power; darwinism. In a climate with no communication between agents, it becomes nothing more than physical strength that effects your safety and ability to live according to your will. Nothing in nature gives you the 'right' to live. However, where we as humans have been able to communicate, with language, complex ideas, we have also forged the ability to facilitate rights as a form of agreement, or contract if you will.
 
I fall in with the opinion that all rights are given by people undo themselves as part of society, I don't like to bring inherent rights or "God given" rights into the equation because then you set up that is supposed to be infallible or unchangeable. A Saudi Arabian man may consider it his God given right to stone his wife if he thinks she has been with another man, challenging that perspective now means challenging God which makes it all the more difficult to change. Of course rights given by people to themselves have flaws as well, if a right isn't natural or given by God then why not just change it at a whim?
 
Unrein said:
Generally speaking, the two primary camps are 'natural rights', that rights are derived from something inherent, or 'positive rights', that rights are simply a guarantee provided by society itself, as a contract or whatever form of purely human power that would bestow it.

Looking at nature, from a plainly secular and materialist perspective, it's obvious, to me anyway, that there are no inherent, 'natural' rights. There is only natural power; darwinism. In a climate with no communication between agents, it becomes nothing more than physical strength that effects your safety and ability to live according to your will. Nothing in nature gives you the 'right' to live. However, where we as humans have been able to communicate, with language, complex ideas, we have also forged the ability to facilitate rights as a form of agreement, or contract if you will.
Click to expand...

No, there are natural rights that can be inferred from observing nature.

One key natural right is the right against enslavement. You don't see one bird forcing several other birds to perform labor without recompense. Nor do you see fishes do it to each other, or cats. Therefore, we can infer that slavery is unnatural and so we have natural rights against it.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
No, there are many natural rights that can be inferred from observing nature.

One key natural right is the right against enslavement. You don't see one bird forcing several other birds to perform labor without recompense. Nor do you see fishes do it to each other, or cats. Therefore, we can infer that slavery is unnatural and so we have natural rights against it.
Click to expand...

Yes enslavement happens in nature. Ants do it. So do some mammals. Dogs for example. The low dog is the slave to the alpha.
 
samsmart said:
No, there are many natural rights that can be inferred from observing nature.

One key natural right is the right against enslavement. You don't see one bird forcing several other birds to perform labor without recompense. Nor do you see fishes do it to each other, or cats. Therefore, we can infer that slavery is unnatural and so we have natural rights against it.
Click to expand...

Then cannibalism, rape and infanticide are right, because they're observed in nature?

Drawing your morality from observing non-sentient beings is flawed.
 
spud_meister said:
Then cannibalism, rape and infanticide are right, because they're observed in nature?

Drawing your morality from observing non-sentient beings is flawed.
Click to expand...

That would be lack of morality.

Humans invented morals.
 
Unrein said:
Generally speaking, the two primary camps are 'natural rights', that rights are derived from something inherent, or 'positive rights', that rights are simply a guarantee provided by society itself, as a contract or whatever form of purely human power that would bestow it.

Looking at nature, from a plainly secular and materialist perspective, it's obvious, to me anyway, that there are no inherent, 'natural' rights. There is only natural power; darwinism. In a climate with no communication between agents, it becomes nothing more than physical strength that effects your safety and ability to live according to your will. Nothing in nature gives you the 'right' to live. However, where we as humans have been able to communicate, with language, complex ideas, we have also forged the ability to facilitate rights as a form of agreement, or contract if you will.
Click to expand...

Do you think if a gazelle could communicate to a lion, it would protest being hunted?

That we have articulate communication is what sets us apart. Humans have never really viewed themselves as just another part of the natural order, but rather separate from it, above it. This is the inherent trait that makes societies of laws and protections possible, as opposed to inherited or physical dominance... though this was a part of the human experience for most of history

I would say that natural rights and positive rights are two parts of the something larger. That we can communicate with each other to discover where we have similar ideas and beliefs about rights, which can be said to be self-evident (he came to the same conclusion I did) and then form a contract to protect them.

If the animals of the world had the intellectual capacity and ability to speak, I assure you, the jungles and savanas would be much different places. This ability changes the nature of societies. Even so, there are some natural rights in the lower animal realm that work to maintain a certain equality within that system. For example, a lion has the right to hunt if it's hungry. It does not have the right to hunt for sport or any lessor reason. If the prey is over hunted, the entire system is thrown out of whack as it circles through the food chain and eventually starving out the fat cats that caused it.

So really, at it's core, maybe they're not so different... do what you have to do to thrive and survive, but do as little damage to others as possible so that they to can thrive and survive... to the mutual benefit of all.

... nice thread...
 
Last edited:
I forget who said it but someone once said a right is something that can not be taken from you only suppressed.
This is how I view rights.
 
One book that I think explains it well is: The Law by Frederic Bastiat.
 
YoungConserv said:
Great book.
Click to expand...

In my view rights are those things for which nobody else has to give anything up. We have a right to speak our mind. We have a right to breath air. These are things we can have without costing anybody else anything. As soon as it imposes on someone else, then it is a priviledge, not a right.
 
The funny thing is that some people argue that our rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable because the Declaration of Independence said they were endowed to all men by God. But these unalienable rights didn't include black Africans.
 
I don't believe in natural rights, I believe the only rights you have are those you can convince your government to uphold.
 
if rights are created by our society.

then our society can create rights to some than to others, we can give ourselves rights, to strip property, freedom and life from our brother.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Right's are God given. See the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

The authors of the Declaration of Independence didn't believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, as they purposefully exempted African-Americans from these rights 12 years later.
 
Kanstantine said:
The authors of the Declaration of Independence didn't believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, as they purposefully exempted African-Americans from these rights 12 years later.
Click to expand...

People aren't allowed to make mistakes?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
They are for all people, if you notice, the mistake was corrected which makes your point, well, pointless.
Click to expand...

The mistake of 1787 took 181 years to fix.

That's not much to boast about.
 
The only rights one has are those that he or she can force others to accept (either through themselves, or through others on their behalf) or by those that others want to give them. That's it.
 
I see it from almost the opposite point of view as the OP. A person living alone in the wild is free do anything.

The only consequences are from nature. It is only when we join a family, tribe or society that we need to give up our rights. In return we get the benefits of the group-enhanced security, culture, sharing of resources, etc. In some cases we have to curb our behavior to avoid harming others, which is ideally a mutually beneficial courtesy. Other rights are given up or taken away to achieve a goal, or for security. As societies get more complex, rights may also be taken or given away for more abstract reasons, such as for religious or political purposes.

Giving up some freedom is inevitable in any society. That is not necessarily a problem as long as we knowingly consent to these limits and obtain enough benefits in return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom