If Rights do not derive from the Deity, do they derive from Nature?

[Perspicuo]

If Rights do not derive from the Deity, do they derive from Nature?

Or are they simply a matter of preference? And if so, if we had the innate and universal instinctual for enjoying cannibalism (enjoying but certainly not needing it, like our inclination for bacon or red meat in general), certainly many, if not all, human cultures would grant people the right to cannibalize each other, or--more workably- a predefined subset of humans... but would it be our right, as in universal or "human" right?

 

[bilby]

If there is such a thing as a right, then it must come from nature, because that is all there is.

So your question boils down to "Is there such a thing as 'Rights'?"

I don't know the answer; I suspect it is 'Only if you can persuade enough powerful others to enforce them'.

 

[DBT]

It seems to me that 'human rights' is a concept constructed by humans. No other animal on Earth cares about human rights... being a set of ethical, moral and social values based on what we believe we should be allowed to do, to have, etc, and how we would like to be treated by others.

 

[ryan]

If Rights do not derive from the Deity, do they derive from Nature?

Or are they simply a matter of preference? And if so, if we had the innate and universal instinctual for enjoying cannibalism (enjoying but certainly not needing it, like our inclination for bacon or red meat in general), certainly many, if not all, human cultures would grant people the right to cannibalize each other, or--more workably- a predefined subset of humans... but would it be our right, as in universal or "human" right?

Our gene expressions and the environment take us down a fuzzy path that just so happens to not have cannibalism as a desire. There might be a civilization somewhere that evolved to practice cannibalism because, maybe, their planet tends to overpopulate quickly.

 

[Tigers!]

If there is such a thing as a right, then it must come from nature, because that is all there is.

So your question boils down to "Is there such a thing as 'Rights'?"

I don't know the answer; I suspect it is 'Only if you can persuade enough powerful others to enforce them'.

So 'Might = Right'?

 

[Togo]

You realise that 'rights' is largely an american concept, and is far less popular in the rest of the world? The idea of the basic necessities of life being a fundamental 'right' to be asserted in the face of one's fellow planet-dwellers, an a priori statement which brokes no contradiction, is far from obvious, or universal.

 

[Perspicuo]

If there is such a thing as a right, then it must come from nature, because that is all there is.

So your question boils down to "Is there such a thing as 'Rights'?"

I don't know the answer; I suspect it is 'Only if you can persuade enough powerful others to enforce them'.

So 'Might = Right'?

Ditto!

That's the problem. Or perhaps two:
(1) It is a right because we can enforce it (might is right).
(2) Rights are mere preferences.
It's possible both are the same, but it's a big problem from the point of view of philosophy of law and of meta-ethics.

If so, then having slaves is a fundamental Right, because it was both enforced and preferred during the Roman Empire and pre-1860 USA. Perhaps Sharia is a fundamental Right today.

 

[PyramidHead]

Does the OP question have a true answer, and if so, how does one find out what it is?

 

[Bomb#20]

You realise that 'rights' is largely an american concept, and is far less popular in the rest of the world?

The Peticion Exhibited to His Majestie by the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons in this present Parliament assembled concerning divers Rights and Liberties of the Subjects: with the Kings Majesties Royall Aunswere thereunto in full Parliament.
...your Subjects have inherited this Freedome That they should not be compelled to contribute to any Taxe Tallage Ayde or other like Charge not sett by comon consent in Parliament.
Yet neverthelesse of late divers Comissions directed to sundry Comissioners in severall Counties with Instruccions have issued, by meanes whereof your people have been in divers places assembled and required to lend certaine somes of mony unto your Majestie...
And whereas of late great Companies of Souldiers and Marriners have been dispersed into divers Counties of the Realme, and the inhabitants against their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to sojourne against the Lawes and Customes of this Realme and to the great grievance and vexacion of the people. ...
And by the said Great Charter, and other the Lawes and Statutes of this your Realme no man ought to be adjudged to death but by the Lawes established in this your Realme, either by the customes of the same Realme or by Acts of Parliament. ... Neverthelesse of late tyme divers Comissions under your Majesties great Seale have issued forth, by which certaine persons have been assigned and appointed Comissioners with power and authoritie to proceed within the land according to the Justice of Martiall Lawe ...
They doe therefore humblie pray your most Excellent Majestie, that no man hereafter be compelled to make or yeild any Guift Loane Benevolence Taxe or such like Charge without comon consent by Acte of Parliament,... And that your Majestie would be pleased to remove the said Souldiers and Mariners and that your people may not be soe burthened in tyme to come. And that the aforesaid Comissions for proceeding by Martiall Lawe may be revoked and annulled. ...

All which they most humblie pray of your most Excellent Majestie as their Rightes and Liberties according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme...​

- The Petition of Right, passed in the Commons and Lords and signed by Charles I in 1628.

The idea of the basic necessities of life being a fundamental 'right' to be asserted in the face of one's fellow planet-dwellers, an a priori statement which brokes no contradiction, is far from obvious, or universal.

And that's the idea of rights that you're attributing to America?!?

"Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance. Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason." - Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms

“Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.” - Constitution of South Africa​

What you wrote is a characterization of "right" that is found in charters, treaties and constitutions all over the world but is conspicuously absent from ours. The U.S. Bill of Rights, like the English bills it was based on, is long on things rulers may not do to subjects and short on things subjects must do for one another.

 

[rousseau]

Rights are a social construct to empower the weak, and as others have said, they only matter as far as there are people able to enforce them.

 

[bilby]

If there is such a thing as a right, then it must come from nature, because that is all there is.

So your question boils down to "Is there such a thing as 'Rights'?"

I don't know the answer; I suspect it is 'Only if you can persuade enough powerful others to enforce them'.

So 'Might = Right'?

Yes, I think that's probably true; Can you find me a counterexample - a right that persists even for the powerless?

 

[Trodon]

A right is what the government chooses to allow, or what it chooses to force others to allow.

If you think you have the right to criticize the government, try to exercise that right in North Korea.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed blacks did not have the right to be served in many restaurants in the South. Now they have that right, because restaurant owners do not have the right to deny them service.

Contrary to what the Declaration of Independence claims, there are no self evident rights. Rights come and go as attitudes change.

 

[Valjean]

If Rights do not derive from the Deity, do they derive from Nature?

Isn't Nature just non-personified God?

 

[Bomb#20]

A right is what the government chooses to allow, or what it chooses to force others to allow.

If you think you have the right to criticize the government, try to exercise that right in North Korea.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed blacks did not have the right to be served in many restaurants in the South. Now they have that right, because restaurant owners do not have the right to deny them service.

Contrary to what the Declaration of Independence claims, there are no self evident rights. Rights come and go as attitudes change.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created illogical, that they are endowed with certain unalienable fallacies, that among these are circularity, equivocation, and the pursuit of non sequitur.

Do you have reason to think that when Jefferson said we have self evident rights, what he meant was that things governments choose to allow and choose to force others to allow are self evident? When he called rights unalienable, do you think what he meant was that things that come and go as attitudes change are unalienable?

 

[bilby]

Rights derive from government. Jefferson wasn't describing some fundamental characteristic of reality; he was describing what sort of government he and his colleagues were forming.

If those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile. Many people have fooled themselves into believing that rights are fundamental, and as a result they believe that government is unnecessary. But without government, rights cease to exist in any meaningful sense - you have the right only to what you can take and defend, and only for as long as nobody comes along who can take it from you.

 

[Trodon]

A right is what the government chooses to allow, or what it chooses to force others to allow.

If you think you have the right to criticize the government, try to exercise that right in North Korea.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed blacks did not have the right to be served in many restaurants in the South. Now they have that right, because restaurant owners do not have the right to deny them service.

Contrary to what the Declaration of Independence claims, there are no self evident rights. Rights come and go as attitudes change.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created illogical, that they are endowed with certain unalienable fallacies, that among these are circularity, equivocation, and the pursuit of non sequitur.

Do you have reason to think that when Jefferson said we have self evident rights, what he meant was that things governments choose to allow and choose to force others to allow are self evident? When he called rights unalienable, do you think what he meant was that things that come and go as attitudes change are unalienable?

I think Thomas Jefferson was writing pretty words in a piece of political propaganda. Jefferson also wrote, "all men are created equal." Try telling that to a school teacher or an athletic trainer. They know that what really matters is talent, and that talent is not equally distributed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Do you have reason to think that when Jefferson said we have self evident rights, what he meant was that things governments choose to allow and choose to force others to allow are self evident? When he called rights unalienable, do you think what he meant was that things that come and go as attitudes change are unalienable?

I think Thomas Jefferson was writing pretty words in a piece of political propaganda. Jefferson also wrote, "all men are created equal." Try telling that to a school teacher or an athletic trainer. They know that what really matters is talent, and that talent is not equally distributed.

So that's a "no", then? Jeez, why don't you just call him a slave-holder and have done with it? Your argument was an equivocation fallacy, and the circumstance that he wrote propaganda is not a defense.

 

[DBT]

Two people living on an island could formulate a set of rules that the both agree is an acceptable compromise for the sensibilities of each individual, being a set of rights that relates to a population of two.

 

[Juma]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created illogical, that they are endowed with certain unalienable fallacies, that among these are circularity, equivocation, and the pursuit of non sequitur.

Do you have reason to think that when Jefferson said we have self evident rights, what he meant was that things governments choose to allow and choose to force others to allow are self evident? When he called rights unalienable, do you think what he meant was that things that come and go as attitudes change are unalienable?

I think Thomas Jefferson was writing pretty words in a piece of political propaganda. Jefferson also wrote, "all men are created equal." Try telling that to a school teacher or an athletic trainer. They know that what really matters is talent, and that talent is not equally distributed.

What a weird remark. Most school teachers, and even some athletic trainers, know that talent has nothing to do with being considered equal.

 

[Bomb#20]

Rights derive from government.

I.e., you mean something by "right" that's completely unrelated to what Jefferson meant by "right".

Jefferson wasn't describing some fundamental characteristic of reality; he was describing what sort of government he and his colleagues were forming.

Here is the sum total of what the D.of.I. has to say about what sort of governments he and his colleagues were forming.

...as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

The preamble is a series of claims about some fundamental characteristic of reality; the bulk of the declaration is a justification for the action they were taking; the description of what sort of governments would result is almost an afterthought, probably thrown in as a way of inviting the French to help out.

If those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile.

Huh? By what logic? Jefferson said "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". Well, why the heck would it be futile to form a government to secure rights that derived from gods or from nature? If people decide "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" to a "separate and equal station" and/or "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", how exactly would that either magically make those people's enemies not try to violate those rights or magically make forming a government an ineffective way to stop them?

Many people have fooled themselves into believing that rights are fundamental, and as a result they believe that government is unnecessary.

Your opinion that they aren't fundamental is not an argument that those who disagree with your opinion have fooled themselves. No doubt a few of those who have thought rights are fundamental also inferred that government is unnecessary, but so what? Lots of people make erroneous inferences from correct premises; no doubt some people have even made erroneous inferences from premises you agree with; I doubt you would regard their existence as evidence against the correctness of your premises. Since neither Jefferson, obviously, nor AFAIK anyone on FRDB, has claimed fundamental rights make government unnecessary, the existence of that silly opinion is beside the point.

But without government, rights cease to exist in any meaningful sense - you have the right only to what you can take and defend, and only for as long as nobody comes along who can take it from you.

But without government, rights cease to exist in your sense, Mr. Yes I think 'Might = Right's probably true. Yes, without government we have the might only to what we can take and defend, and only for as long as nobody comes along who can take it from us. No one is disputing your ability to construct tautologies. But the circumstance that you choose to speak an idiolect in which the word "right" means "might" and in which there exists no word for what normal English speakers use "right" to mean is not an argument that people who instead choose to speak normal English are not using the word in any meaningful sense.