Where do rights come from?

[Kutnupe14]

There is nothing more basic than maintaining life.

Show me something more basic.

The Aztecs did not share this view.

 

[chipbennett]

Morality evolves. It was once moral justified to enslave people. Now it’s considered immoral in all Western societies. One moral foundation, perhaps the most ancient, is care and aversion to harm. That one is more tribal, but maybe less so in more advanced cultures.

But the rules for what is “care” and what is “harm” may vary widely between cultures.

How can natural, inherent, unalienable rights be derived from a moral standard that evolves, and that varies widely between cultures? It is a house built on a foundation of sand.

Either truth is absolute or it is not. Either an absolute, moral standard for right/good vs wrong/evil exists, or it does not.

 

[chipbennett]

Now you have finally answered the question about your definition of rights. Your definition is a subset of the dictionary definition. Using different definitions almost guarantees confusion.

It's not really my definition at all. I'm using the term in its original sense. It is the dictionary that has added the adjective legal to the term right, thereby causing confusion.

It's sort of like arguing that police officers aren't civilians, because Merriam-Webster changed its definition some decades ago, when the definition of the term is clearly intended to differentiate those under civil authority from those under military authority.

My intentional use of right versus privilege is intended to prevent and to avoid appeal to definition and equivocation logical fallacies - such as your assertion that rights can be created and revoked by society.

 

[chipbennett]

Because of the language I used, I really don’t get why we’re having this conversation. It was quite clear what I was saying.

We're having this conversation because we're not the only ones in the discussion.

My biggest contention with your point of view is your contention that evolving morality can be the basis for natural rights.

 

[chipbennett]

What? There has always been care for human lives throughout human history. Just not all human lives. And that’s also true today.

How is that objective? How can that be the basis for natural rights? How can humans who can't even agree across time or cultures about what constitutes morality be the originators/creators of natural, inherent, unalienable rights?

Morals evolve too, both socially and biologically. Yes. I said biologically. we’re prewired for morality.

What is the natural selection process/advantage that caused human wiring to evolve toward morality - particularly, toward morality that has been demonstrated to be wholly subjective and inconsistent throughout our history? How is it that non-sentient animals have developed societal structures that have far more order and much more consistent (albeit different) mores than humans?

Social evolution isn't a thing. Social structures and ethos must be passed down intentionally generation to generation; otherwise, they are not retained.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We're having this conversation because we're not the only ones in the discussion.

My biggest contention with your point of view is your contention that evolving morality can be the basis for natural rights.

Hence why the idea of "rights" is subjective to the whims of man, not God or gods.

 

[chipbennett]

Hence why the idea of "rights" is subjective to the whims of man, not God or gods.

Thus my assertion that the origin of rights must be binary: either they are endowment from our Creator and thus natural and unalienable, or else they are a creation of man, and thus subject to the whims of man.

 

[PaulF]

Hey guys...I can't help but feel like you are talking past one another.

Rights are a concept...a social construct dependent on social cooperation. Rights exist where people agree they exist...otherwise they don't exist in any recognizable or actionable capacity.

Where do rights come from? They are a product of social consensus...without it rights do not exist in any practical capacity.

Absent any concrete evidence the safest assumption is that rights originated the same place as gods...the human imagination.

In order to argue that rights come from God you must first establish that such a being exists in the first place, and then that It attempted to relay the information to people, then that the people could comprehend the message. After that it is still up to human societies to agree on the content and the application. Even if God created human rights it would still require social cooperation to understand and respect .

"Rights" are a social construct...an incredibly valuable one, I'd argue.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thus my assertion that the origin of rights must be binary: either they are endowment from our Creator and thus natural and unalienable, or else they are a creation of man, and thus subject to the whims of man.

That's my opinion. The Founding Fathers were just dressing up their idea of righteous morality with fancy words.

 

[nonobaddog]

It's not really my definition at all. I'm using the term in its original sense. It is the dictionary that has added the adjective legal to the term right, thereby causing confusion.

It's sort of like arguing that police officers aren't civilians, because Merriam-Webster changed its definition some decades ago, when the definition of the term is clearly intended to differentiate those under civil authority from those under military authority.

My intentional use of right versus privilege is intended to prevent and to avoid appeal to definition and equivocation logical fallacies - such as your assertion that rights can be created and revoked by society.

Those darn dictionaries. Somebody should straighten them out.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Hey guys...I can't help but feel like you are talking past one another.

Rights are a concept...a social construct dependent on social cooperation. Rights exist where people agree they exist...otherwise they don't exist in any recognizable or actionable capacity.

Where do rights come from? They are a product of social consensus...without it rights do not exist in any practical capacity.

Absent any concrete evidence the safest assumption is that rights originated the same place as gods...the human imagination.

In order to argue that rights come from God you must first establish that such a being exists in the first place, and then that It attempted to relay the information to people, then that the people could comprehend the message. After that it is still up to human societies to agree on the content and the application. Even if God created human rights it would still require social cooperation to understand and respect .

"Rights" are a social construct...an incredibly valuable one, I'd argue.

So now we’re kind’ve full circle back to my reply in the funny pics thread that spawned this discussion.

Nobody lives their life like that, not successfully anyway. Right and wrong springing forth from our imagination and being fluid throughout history is not a foundation to build a society on. It can’t be, literally or figuratively. Foundations don’t move. You treat other people like they have some intrinsic value. Like they have some kind of divine spark within them that is different then any other creature on this planet. You can’t build a society on the idea that we’re just kinda making this up as we go.

If you actually believed that, you would also have to say that pedophilia isn’t wrong or immoral. It’s just a behavior that society has collectively decided to try and subdue by means of punishment.

 

[Jludo]

So now we’re kind’ve full circle back to my reply in the funny pics thread that spawned this discussion.

Nobody lives their life like that, not successfully anyway. Right and wrong springing forth from our imagination and being fluid throughout history is not a foundation to build a society on. It can’t be, literally or figuratively. Foundations don’t move. You treat other people like they have some intrinsic value. Like they have some kind of divine spark within them that is different then any other creature on this planet. You can’t build a society on the idea that we’re just kinda making this up as we go.

If you actually believed that, you would also have to say that pedophilia isn’t wrong or immoral. It’s just a behavior that society has collectively decided to try and subdue by means of punishment.

Morality has always been evolving, what makes you think we've got the fundamentals nailed at this exact moment? And if we dont necessarily have it nailed, is there a basis for ever coming to recognize this 'fundamental foundation' ?

 

[chipbennett]

Hey guys...I can't help but feel like you are talking past one another.

Rights are a concept...a social construct dependent on social cooperation. Rights exist where people agree they exist...otherwise they don't exist in any recognizable or actionable capacity.

Where do rights come from? They are a product of social consensus...without it rights do not exist in any practical capacity.

Absent any concrete evidence the safest assumption is that rights originated the same place as gods...the human imagination.

In order to argue that rights come from God you must first establish that such a being exists in the first place, and then that It attempted to relay the information to people, then that the people could comprehend the message. After that it is still up to human societies to agree on the content and the application. Even if God created human rights it would still require social cooperation to understand and respect .

"Rights" are a social construct...an incredibly valuable one, I'd argue.

So, every human being does not have an intrinsic right to life, unless social consensus says that they do?

By that line of reasoning, there was nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust, or with millennia of human slavery, or with Aztec child sacrifice, or many of the other (at the time) socially accepted practices that would otherwise be considered violations of natural rights.

I do not accept that line of reasoning, but I recognize that it is consistent with the view that rights are a creation of humans rather than a supernatural endowment.

 

[chipbennett]

Those darn dictionaries. Somebody should straighten them out.

Thank you for demonstrating how the appeal to definition logical fallacy works.

 

[chipbennett]

That's my opinion. The Founding Fathers were just dressing up their idea of righteous morality with fancy words.

I respect that opinion.

Where I take issue is with holding that opinion while simultaneously trying to assert that such rights are absolute, objective, universal, etc. and based on similarly objective, consistent, universal morality - as some in this thread have tried to do.

 

[nonobaddog]

Thank you for demonstrating how the appeal to definition logical fallacy works.

You are welcome. I too feel a newfound freedom now, knowing I can use my own definitions when I want.

 

[PaulF]

So, every human being does not have an intrinsic right to life, unless social consensus says that they do?

By that line of reasoning, there was nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust, or with millennia of human slavery, or with Aztec child sacrifice, or many of the other (at the time) socially accepted practices that would otherwise be considered violations of natural rights.

I do not accept that line of reasoning, but I recognize that it is consistent with the view that rights are a creation of humans rather than a supernatural endowment.

What does an intrinsic right to life look like if others don't respect it? Without social cooperation rights are purely academic.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What does an intrinsic right to life look like if others don't respect it? Without social cooperation rights are purely academic.

Exactly. Life has traditionally varied in worth depending of whose lives they were.

 

[PaulF]

My opinion is that rights exist either at the behest of authority (God or the government), or they come from the consent of the people involved (cooperation)...in the absence of verifiable divine intervention the most reasonable or verifiable origin for rights is from within a society itself.

 

[Kutnupe14]

My opinion is that rights exist either at the behest of authority (God or the government), or they come from the consent of the people involved (cooperation)...in the absence of verifiable divine intervention the most reasonable or verifiable origin for rights is from within a society itself.

Government I see, God I don't. God doesn't even come into the equation. God, in the Old Testament, handed down laws to the Hebrews. Those laws were not meant to be observed at the discretion of the believer, but meant to be enforced by society. If you go through the list of those laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and look at them with an "enlightened" mind, you will see that rights are trampled on all over the place. If God were to hand mankind a similar set of laws today, with the intention of society enforcing said laws, I can't help but imagine the uproar.