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

[Master Debator]

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

What is it then? Saying it's something else isn't the same as describing what it is. All it is is a shared sentiment. Are you trying to do the equivalent of suggesting that the vast majority of children in the US believing in Santa Clause makes him real?

 

[Master Debator]

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

There is also the impetus to form gangs and posses to murder and steal.

 

[Gordy327]

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

Then why do some try to differentiate "natural" rights with societal ones? Regardless, rights are a societal concept overseen by a government.

 

[Rambozo]

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

Natural rights are fundamental rights that are considered universal and inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away or denied by any government or legal system. They are often associated with concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and were influential during the Enlightenment and the formation of modern democratic societies.

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

No, the rights themselves don't change even if a society or government chooses to deny them.

They are something distinct from legal rights.

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

What makes women dying in childbirth a bad thing?

We can ban abortion just because they want to. And, if women die in childbirth, or are forced to have their father's baby, who cares?

I mean, it's not as though anyone would except for the fact that women are human lives, anyway.

 

[Gordy327]

Natural rights are fundamental rights that are considered universal and inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away or denied by any government or legal system. They are often associated with concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and were influential during the Enlightenment and the formation of modern democratic societies.

No, the rights themselves don't change even if a society or government chooses to deny them.

They are something distinct from legal rights.

What are they then? What makes them distinct? Enumerate these so called "rights!"

What makes women dying in childbirth a bad thing?

We can ban abortion just because they want to. And, if women die in childbirth, or are forced to have their father's baby, who cares?

I mean, it's not as though anyone would except for the fact that women are human lives, anyway.

Are you suggesting dying in childbirth is a good thing? If something is going to be legally banned, there needs to be a legal justification for it beyond "because we can."

 

[Rambozo]

What are they then? What makes them distinct? Enumerate these so called "rights!"

The distinction is pretty simple.

In the US Constitution, the natural rights are "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". These aren't the same as specific, enumerated legal rights.

The legal rights in question are enumerated in documents such as the Bill of Rights.

So, naturally, the legal rights can be changed if one goes through the process of doing so. But the presumption is that, even if people's legal rights are denied, they still have human rights, essentially.

Just as how, in Nazi Germany, Jews may have been denied legal rights, but they still had human rights, and what Nazi Germany was doing was a violation of them.

Are you suggesting dying in childbirth is a good thing? If something is going to be legally banned, there needs to be a legal justification for it beyond "because we can."

Right, and you think that dying in childbirth isn't good because a woman dying in child birth is a human life.

Thereby, proving that life is sacred. Or else you wouldn't care anymore than if a rock "died in childbirth".

 

[Gaius46]

Then why do some try to differentiate "natural" rights with societal ones? Regardless, rights are a societal concept overseen by a government.

Don't know. I don't and I kind of regret using the term as it clouded the discussion
unnecessarily.

 

[Gaius46]

What is it then? Saying it's something else isn't the same as describing what it is. All it is is a shared sentiment. Are you trying to do the equivalent of suggesting that the vast majority of children in the US believing in Santa Clause makes him real?

Not at all. Santa Claus is provably a fairy tale. There is a factual basis there so no matter how many people believe in him does not make him real.

A right to life - or a right to not murdered which is probably a better phrasing - is not a fact that can
be objectively proven or disproven which renders the analogy to Santa Claus inappropriate.

It is a value that the vast majority of people share and have shared to varying degrees throughout history.

 

[Master Debator]

Not at all. Santa Claus is provably a fairy tale. There is a factual basis there so no matter how many people believe in him does not make him real.

Where's this proof that he isn't real?

That's not really how that works. You can prove negative claims when they are demonstrably contradictory but that isn't the case here. At best we can say we have no evidence that Santa Claus truly exists.

A right to life - or a right to not murdered which is probably a better phrasing - is not a fact that can
be objectively proven or disproven which renders the analogy to Santa Claus inappropriate.

My question is whether you have evidence that a right to life exists. You seem to be admitting that you do not.

It is a value that the vast majority of people share and have shared to varying degrees throughout history.

So if a majority believe in slavery or rape then those people who are their targets don't have a natural right to be free from those things?

 

[Gaius46]

Where's this proof that he isn't real?

That's not really how that works. You can prove negative claims when they are demonstrably contradictory but that isn't the case here. At best we can say we have no evidence that Santa Claus truly exists.

My question is whether you have evidence that a right to life exists. You seem to be admitting that you do not.

So if a majority believe in slavery or rape then those people who are their targets don't have a natural right to be free from those things?

We can prove Santa does not exist - at least within the limits of our understanding of physics. For Santa to do what it is claimed he can do would violate both the speed of light limit, would subject his body to g forces that violate our understanding of materials science, and very likely violate the conservation of mass, unless you want to suggest he can stretch himself - Reed Richards style - into a narrow thread to fit down a chimney, which likely violates all manner of biological reality. We can dismiss Santa on those grounds alone.

A right to life exists insofar as most people believe it does. It is not a tangible like a rock. You can't see it, touch it, etc. So it isn't something you can prove exists or not like you can a rock.

With regard to slavery and rape I believe my were "vast majority" not simply "majority." To clarify let's say "near universal." I don't know a time when either were accepted as"right" nearly universally in modern history. Perhaps in ancient times but again I know of no societies going back to Roman times where almost all people thought either was acceptable. Certainly they were practiced widespread, especially by those in power, but that isn't the same thing.

 

[Mr Person]

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 "rights" that exist are those that someone is willing and able to enforce.

The idea that there are objective "human rights" floating around in the universe and were there for 13.8 billion years, just waiting for humanity to enjoy them is nonsense; just ask a starved tiger to respect yours....

 

[dairyair]

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 right anyone has is might makes right.

If we have any other rights, they have to be granted and enforced. Typically, a gov't does that.

Jim Crowe laws were in the same states that wanted to keep slavery legal. Most of them were Traitors States.

 

[dairyair]

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

Wow. You been a member of this site for less than 1 week and already been suspended?

Kinda makes your posts rather pointless.

 

[Master Debator]

We can prove Santa does not exist - at least within the limits of our understanding of physics. For Santa to do what it is claimed he can do would violate both the speed of light limit, would subject his body to g forces that violate our understanding of materials science, and very likely violate the conservation of mass, unless you want to suggest he can stretch himself - Reed Richards style - into a narrow thread to fit down a chimney, which likely violates all manner of biological reality. We can dismiss Santa on those grounds alone.

Maybe Santa operates on some physics we don't yet understand. I'm not arguing it's likely Santa exists, just that we can't rule out his existence definitely. Same with God.

A right to life exists insofar as most people believe it does. It is not a tangible like a rock. You can't see it, touch it, etc. So it isn't something you can prove exists or not like you can a rock.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Most people believe God exists, or a god exists, therefore one does?

With regard to slavery and rape I believe my were "vast majority" not simply "majority." To clarify let's say "near universal." I don't know a time when either were accepted as"right" nearly universally in modern history. Perhaps in ancient times but again I know of no societies going back to Roman times where almost all people thought either was acceptable. Certainly they were practiced widespread, especially by those in power, but that isn't the same thing.

Guy I've lost your plot. There is no sentiment that the vast majority of people believe in. Right to life? Nearly half this country thinks that evaporates if you're protesting in the middle of street... you don't want to know some of the prevailing sentiments in third world countries....