Why the argument that "rights come from the state" is nonsense

[Master Debator]

If natural rights don't exist what then is the basis for us complaining about a myriad of things that other nations do? Things such as human trafficking, slavery, denying women educations etc.

Personal and cultural subjective preferences.

 

[TobyOne]

Then why do you act like a butthurt child?

You were born naked. Do you have the right to walk naked down the sidewalk? Why not? Because your government won't allow it.
Get it?
And keep your dimwitted-juvenile taunts to yourself. This forum is for adults.

 

[Quag]

Stone tablet. How else?

Ive never heard of a God named Stone Tablet before

 

[The Brad Dad]

Ive never heard of a God named Stone Tablet before

God works in mysterious names

 

[Grand Mal]

Then why do you act like a butthurt child?

More juvenile taunts. Nothing to say about my argument.
Why do you bother? You're making yourself look like a dim-witted problem child in a schoolyard playground. What do you get out of it?
Never mind. Done with you. You get the last word- make it good.

 

[TobyOne]

Lol

More juvenile taunts. Nothing to say about my argument.
Why do you bother? You're making yourself look like a dim-witted problem child in a schoolyard playground. What do you get out of it?
Never mind. Done with you. You get the last word- make it good.

 

[Gaius46]

Personal and cultural subjective preferences.

The basis is society's cultural mores.

Probably that their actions are in opposition to our own particular values.

And as a practical matter how do "personal and cultural subjective preferences", "mores" and "values" differ from "natural rights"?

They are all simply different names for what is essentially the same thing: near universal, long held beliefs that people should be treated a certain way. None of the these are based in law. It's the other way around. Laws are an expression of them.

How is a "natural right to life" any different from a "value that life is sacred and people should not kill other people"? If tomorrow the US government removed all restrictions on the taking of a life would that value disappear? No.

 

[reinaert]

From what I've seen, the individuals making this argument are usually misinformed on the subject matter in question.

While it's true that specific legal rights come from the state, such as Constitutional Amendments, and that these can be changed, if one goes through the formal process of doing so. Legal rights are separate and distinct from natural rights, and the two things don't conflict.

Essentially, there are certain intrinsic human qualities which make them worthy of being granted certain legal rights (while rocks, on the other hand, do not possess these qualities, and are not worthy of being granted legal rights).

Meaning that, while a state could choose not to grant humans legal rights, in practice, it would still be morally objectionable, because the intrinsic human qualities would still be objectively the same, whether or not they were being granted legal rights.

If, for example, the South denied black people rights during the Jim Crow era, this would be morally objectionable, and while the state might have the pragmatic power to do so, it wouldn't be right for them to do so - meaning that the laws in question which deny black people rights should be changed.

The only quality intrinsic to a living person is that s/he exists, and this temporarily. Everything else is gained or lost.

 

[reinaert]

If natural rights don't exist what then is the basis for us complaining about a myriad of things that other nations do? Things such as human trafficking, slavery, denying women educations etc.

Rights are won. They are conceded by those in power, or gained through association. But they have to be made, and then vigilantly held. That's mostly how.

 

[Master Debator]

And as a practical matter how do "personal and cultural subjective preferences", "mores" and "values" differ from "natural rights"?

They are all simply different names for what is essentially the same thing: near universal, long held beliefs that people should be treated a certain way. None of the these are based in law. It's the other way around. Laws are an expression of them.

How is a "natural right to life" any different from a "value that life is sacred and people should not kill other people"? If tomorrow the US government removed all restrictions on the taking of a life would that value disappear? No.

The difference is you're putting forth a description of nature that doesn't actually exist while we're expressing personal sentiment. I feel people's lives should be respected, murderers and rapists feel differently. Their feelings are as natural as yours or mine.

 

[Along Came Jones]

And as a practical matter how do "personal and cultural subjective preferences", "mores" and "values" differ from "natural rights"?

They are all simply different names for what is essentially the same thing: near universal, long held beliefs that people should be treated a certain way. None of the these are based in law. It's the other way around. Laws are an expression of them.

How is a "natural right to life" any different from a "value that life is sacred and people should not kill other people"? If tomorrow the US government removed all restrictions on the taking of a life would that value disappear? No.

Re my comment: The basis is society's cultural mores.

It was an answer to your question: If natural rights don't exist what then is the basis for us complaining about a myriad of things that other nations do? Things such as human trafficking, slavery, denying women educations etc.

Mores (social norms that distinguish right from wrong, guiding individuals on what is considered acceptable behavior within a particular society or culture) are not dependent on any concept of natural rights.

 

[Perotista]

From what I've seen, the individuals making this argument are usually misinformed on the subject matter in question.

While it's true that specific legal rights come from the state, such as Constitutional Amendments, and that these can be changed, if one goes through the formal process of doing so. Legal rights are separate and distinct from natural rights, and the two things don't conflict.

Essentially, there are certain intrinsic human qualities which make them worthy of being granted certain legal rights (while rocks, on the other hand, do not possess these qualities, and are not worthy of being granted legal rights).

Meaning that, while a state could choose not to grant humans legal rights, in practice, it would still be morally objectionable, because the intrinsic human qualities would still be objectively the same, whether or not they were being granted legal rights.

If, for example, the South denied black people rights during the Jim Crow era, this would be morally objectionable, and while the state might have the pragmatic power to do so, it wouldn't be right for them to do so - meaning that the laws in question which deny black people rights should be changed.

The state or the government determines what rights an individual has and to what degree each individual has those rights. As for natural and human rights, a bunch of folks got together and determine what those rights were, are. However, the state or government doesn’t haven’t to recognize those human or natural rights, they can and at times denied them. Objectionable, okay. But objectionable doesn’t mean the government or state will grant those rights. In reality, whatever rights an individual, legal, human, natural has or allowed to enjoy is determined by one’s government, state.

 

[Gordy327]

And as a practical matter how do "personal and cultural subjective preferences", "mores" and "values" differ from "natural rights"?

You tell me. Some people go on about "natural rights" but cannot seem to explain or enumerate them.

They are all simply different names for what is essentially the same thing: near universal, long held beliefs that people should be treated a certain way. None of the these are based in law. It's the other way around. Laws are an expression of them.

Then "natural rights" are as malleable as a society or government makes them.

How is a "natural right to life" any different from a "value that life is sacred and people should not kill other people"? If tomorrow the US government removed all restrictions on the taking of a life would that value disappear? No.

What is the "value of life?" What makes life "sacred?" Be specific!

 

[Gaius46]

Rights are won. They are conceded by those in power, or gained through association. But they have to be made, and then vigilantly held. That's mostly how.

I would completely agree with you if you said "The ability to exercise rights are won."

In my view governments choose to respect or suppress rights - they do not create them. "Legal rights" are simply government codifying respect for rights that people already have.

 

[rahl]

Correct. But there are are certain, inherent things about humans which create the impetus for the government to protect and enforce human rights.

Which sounds great but it’s purely a philosophical construct. In reality, rights do not exist outside of the consensus of society, enforced by government.

 

[rahl]

Inalienable Rights

billofrightsinstitute.org

natural rights are fundamentally inalienable, meaning they are inherent to all humans, not granted by governments or laws, and thus cannot be taken away or surrendered by human authority. The terms "natural rights" and "inalienable rights" often describe the same concept, where "natural" refers to their divine or inherent source and "inalienable" describes their unbreakable quality

There’s no such thing as natural rights. It’s purely a human philosophical construct.

 

[Gaius46]

You tell me. Some people go on about "natural rights" but cannot seem to explain or enumerate them.

Then "natural rights" are as malleable as a society or government makes them.

What is the "value of life?" What makes life "sacred?" Be specific!

What make life sacred is the simple fact that most humans through the years have believed it to be so. Whether that comes from nature, or god, or morals etc is immaterial to me. What matters to me is that rights exist independent of government. All government can do is respect them or suppress them.

 

[Gaius46]

Re my comment: The basis is society's cultural mores.

It was an answer to your question: If natural rights don't exist what then is the basis for us complaining about a myriad of things that other nations do? Things such as human trafficking, slavery, denying women educations etc.

Mores (social norms that distinguish right from wrong, guiding individuals on what is considered acceptable behavior within a particular society or culture) are not dependent on any concept of natural rights.

Ok. The point of my response was that the label - "natural rights", "mores", "values" whatever you want to call it does not matter. The important point is that rights are not grants from the government. Government doesn't have to respect them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

If rights are simple legal grants then we have no ethical/moral recourse when government decides to no longer respect a right.

 

[rahl]

If natural rights don't exist what then is the basis for us complaining about a myriad of things that other nations do? Things such as human trafficking, slavery, denying women educations etc.

We as a society decided those are morally repugnant. Rights don’t exist in nature. They are simply a human philosophical construct.

 

[Greenbeard]

What make life sacred is the simple fact that most humans through the years have believed it to be so.

This does not feel like an accurate read of human history to me.

 

[Gaius46]

The difference is you're putting forth a description of nature that doesn't actually exist while we're expressing personal sentiment. I feel people's lives should be respected, murderers and rapists feel differently. Their feelings are as natural as yours or mine.

Okay so to be confusing. I'm using the natural rights because it's the label we're discussing. I don't care what theory is put forth as to their creation. I care that they exist independent of government. Whether you can them "natural rights","morals", "values" doesn't matter to me.

 

[Gordy327]

What make life sacred is the simple fact that most humans through the years have believed it to be so. Whether that comes from nature, or god, or morals etc is immaterial to me. What matters to me is that rights exist independent of government. All government can do is respect them or suppress them.

Belief does not equal fact. "Sacred" is just an emotionally appealing judgement call and word to make ourselves feel special in some way. Rights exist because its a social concept and a government allows or recognizes them.

 

[Master Debator]

Okay so to be confusing. I'm using the natural rights because it's the label we're discussing. I don't care what theory is put forth as to their creation. I care that they exist independent of government. Whether you can them "natural rights","morals", "values" doesn't matter to me.

I don't know what you're discussing. You tried to make natural rights synonymous with personal sentiment but that doesnt work because the sentiment that life should be respected isnt felt by all. Some people feel like taking life. If natural rights are synonymous with personal sentiment then there is also a natural right to murder since that is a sentiment felt by some people.

 

[Gaius46]

I don't know what you're discussing. You tried to make natural rights synonymous with personal sentiment but that doesnt work because the sentiment that life should be respected isnt felt by all. Some people feel like taking life. If natural rights are synonymous with personal sentiment then there is also a natural right to murder since that is a sentiment felt by some people.

Personal sentiment that is held by a vast majority of people is no longer just a personal sentiment. Universality is not required.

 

[Gaius46]

Belief does not equal fact. "Sacred" is just an emotionally appealing judgement call and word to make ourselves feel special in some way. Rights exist because its a social concept and a government allows or recognizes them.

We are talking about the same thing. My whole point is that rights exist independent of government.