Where do rights come from?

[BigRed]

Show me a copy of this "contract" I signed.

 

[Jludo]

If rights come from man ("groups of man" , "society", "agreed upon rules", etc.), how are they rights at all?

That makes them rights because it's the best we've come up with. To avoid the state of nature, might makes right.

 

[BugI02]

As I recall, trial by combat (from which 'might makes right' is a crude abstraction) was used to discern God's will in a dispute. It was't just that winning made you right, it was that it revealed that God favored your cause - so it comes right back to right(s) coming from God

 

[NKBJ]

And it worked pretty good as long as it was backed up by divine right to rule.

 

[Libertarian01]

So the right to liberty is natural, but is trumped by the social compact notion of justice?

The right to liberty is natural, but limited by agreement through a social contract. Justice is the upholding of natural rights, but constrained by agreement through a social contract.

I agree with this assessment. As a social creature we all must live in the same sandbox, and as such try to play nice with one another. We understand and appreciate the value and importance of everyone playing by the same rules.

We consent, as the governed, to give the government lawful authority to put rules in place that oppress our rights to a minimally tolerable degree in order to give everyone the maximum degree of liberty AND harmonious living. While rights are infinite they cannot in a society be infinite without disturbing the social harmony.

This is where we come to the bell curve of tolerance. The majority of us are OK with a law that says we cannot preach the word of Cthulhu at 3AM on a massive bullhorn in a residential neighborhood. Now some think there should be no rule, and others think the rule doesn't go far enough by banning the preaching of Cthulhu, but the majority of us are cool with limiting the preaching to certain methods, times, and locations. So there will always be parts of society that aren't happy with the rules one way or another, but usually we can get them to fall within the bell curve where most of us are reasonably content to sacrifice a little bit.

Regards,

Doug

 

[2A_Tom]

So when the Bill of Rights is repealed we will no longer have those privileges endowed upon us by society?

 

[Libertarian01]

So when the Bill of Rights is repealed we will no longer have those privileges endowed upon us by society?

The rights we have are independent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The BoR means nothing to the pre-existing rights. The BoR only promises that the federal government is required to protect the rights.

However, even without the federal BoR every State has a list of rights that it promises to protect. For example, without the federal 2A, Indiana has Section 32 that says, "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

That said, a repeal of the BoR would be a massive deconstruction of our legal system and probably done only during of after another civil war.

Regards,

Doug

 

[2A_Tom]

But the privileges we take for granted are actually GRANTED as part of a social construct.

You haven't been paying attention.

 

[ATM]

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-natural-law-or-the-science-of-justice-1882

 

[EPeter213]

If i understand this 'social contract' thing correctly, it is basically a set of unwritten rules that define what type of behavior will be tolerated within a given group. If you don't follow these rules, you are shunned by the group, kicked out of the group, or eliminated by the group.

Based on this interpretation, I can see how 'morality' becomes an evolutionary survival trait, without any need for a supreme Lawmaker, or creator.

Please note this is not a statement of belief, but merely an attempt to look at the question from another angle- I welcome any discussion or attack on this theory, so long as it is reasoned.

 

[nonobaddog]

To me this theory can only work if you have a population that is similar and already pretty well behaved, kind of like Mayberry. As soon as you throw in separatist groups or gangs it would fall apart. Shunning is not a deterrent then so it escalates to elimination and then the circus starts.

 

[2A_Tom]

Morality is a funny thing.

The Aztecs, Nazis, and the Egyptians prior to the Exodus, and the Pharisees of Jesus' time were all very moral in their own eyes.

By modern standards not so much.

 

[nonobaddog]

Morality is a funny thing.

The Aztecs, Nazis, and the Egyptians prior to the Exodus, and the Pharisees of Jesus' time were all very moral in their own eyes.

By modern standards not so much.

"Moral in their own eyes". I doubt it. Is that why thousands of nazis committed suicide at the end of the war?

 

[jamil]

To me this theory can only work if you have a population that is similar and already pretty well behaved, kind of like Mayberry. As soon as you throw in separatist groups or gangs it would fall apart. Shunning is not a deterrent then so it escalates to elimination and then the circus starts.

That’s true for about any society. Greater cultural diversity generally leads to more conflict. But America is probably the largest scale society that’s reached the greatest diversity, probably ever. And it’s probably due to the founders’ ideas about federated organization. A New Yorker could travel to Hattiesburg Missippi and feel like he’s in a completely different country. It’s when people start insisting that everyone must think and act the same that we start getting violent.

 

[Jludo]

"Moral in their own eyes". I doubt it. Is that why thousands of nazis committed suicide at the end of the war?

I think we can assume hes referring to the true believers, the ones who thought they were making the human race better.

 

[jamil]

"Moral in their own eyes". I doubt it. Is that why thousands of nazis committed suicide at the end of the war?

I imagine many came to their senses. That’s the thing about indoctrination. You think you’re the good guy.

 

[nonobaddog]

I think we can assume hes referring to the true believers, the ones who thought they were making the human race better.

So the ones that tried to kill hitler and the ones that later committed suicide don't count. But some other ones thought they were being moral? Is that the idea?

 

[2A_Tom]

I have always thought of you as the guy who was quick on the uptake.

Here is another one, Abortionists and the Pro Choice crowd.

The worshipers of Moleck, Crocodile cults, the list is really long.

Morals are in no way objective they are subject to the mind of the group.

The "Christians" in Salem.

The Romans throwing Christians to the lions.

 

[nonobaddog]

Morals are in no way objective they are subject to the mind of the group.

Probably true but there is also stuff like peer pressure. Sometimes people 'go along' with things not because they believe they are morally right but because they they don't want to be different.
In the case of the germans, I suspect one or two or millions went along with nazi things not because they believed it was morally right but because they feared the SS troops and were not in the right mood to want to get tortured and shot.

 

[Spear Dane]

I have always thought of you as the guy who was quick on the uptake.

Here is another one, Abortionists and the Pro Choice crowd.

The worshipers of Moleck, Crocodile cults, the list is really long.

Morals are in no way objective they are subject to the mind of the group.

The "Christians" in Salem.

The Romans throwing Christians to the lions.

Egggsactly. The morals of any group are what they decide they are.