Where do rights come from?

[nonobaddog]

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.

Bingo! Very well said.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

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.

So there is no right and wrong. There are no absolute truths. Only societal cooperation.

 

[PaulF]

So there is no right and wrong. There are no absolute truths. Only societal cooperation.

Outside the realm of interpersonal social interaction? No, there is no such thing as right or wrong. If a person existed in a vacuum - no other people exist anywhere - there is literally no action he could take that could be considered "right" or "wrong". Only within a social framework can the idea even begin to have practical meaning.

Absolute truths? Sure there are...but they are much more pedestrian, like the rules of thermodynamics or the constants found throughout math.

*Only* societal cooperation? I think you trivialize the importance and the scope of that feat...

 

[JettaKnight]

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

[video=youtube;l8ukak8P2vY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY[/video]

 

[jamil]

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.

Let’s assume the Founders were correct, that the right to life, liberty and property are indeed inalienable rights. When did they become inalienable? Did they become inalienable at the time people sussed out the concept? Or were they always there and morality had to evolve to a point where the concept of natural rights became self evident?

It sure feels self evident that among other things, individuals have a right to protect themselves. Given the innate moral nature of humans, it’s a reasonable connection to make that the concept of rights comes from a moral basis. The thing that would make rights morally “inalienable” is something that is objectively morally true.

Probably the best example is the right to life—it is morally wrong in pretty much every culture to kill other humans unjustly. As I said before, “just” may widely vary, but the immorality of murder is pretty consistent. Since Aztecs came up earlier, they had laws against murder too. Even head hunting tribes have such rules.

And consider slavery. If there is no morally inalienable right to freedom, then we should believe that slavery in the US was moral until some people decided it wasn’t. Of course that’s absurd. Humans didn’t begin to realize that moral truth until human morality evolved to a point where it became self evident.

 

[Jludo]

They were always inalienable and god given rights, God just decided not to enforce them until America.

 

[chipbennett]

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

It looks exactly the same as it does if others do respect it. The difference is that, if the right to life is intrinsic, than each individual has the moral justification to defend his own life as well as the lives of others against unjust taking of life.

What is the alternative? Might makes right?

 

[chipbennett]

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

Apparently you enjoy sophistry.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It looks exactly the same as it does if others do respect it. The difference is that, if the right to life is intrinsic, than each individual has the moral justification to defend his own life as well as the lives of others against unjust taking of life.

What is the alternative? Might makes right?

That's not an alternative. It, as long as we are in this Earthly realm, IS. There will never be a point that "might makes right," isn't a truism.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

There is a difference between the Ten Commandments and Mosaic Law. Explaining it would delve this discussion quite a bit deeper into a religious discussion. The Ten Commandments are absolute principles based on the sovereignty of God and the intrinsic rights of mankind. Mosaic Law was intended to demonstrate the inability of mankind to live up to the standard of perfection of a Holy God, and to the need for God Himself to fulfill the Law in the person of Jesus. I'm happy to discuss further, but I am sensitive to this tangent getting quite a bit deeper in religious discussion than some are comfortable with in this thread.

 

[nonobaddog]

Apparently you enjoy sophistry.

That seems to be more in your realm.

 

[2A_Tom]

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' ?

Exactly! This is why only privileges can evolve from morality. There is a current push to outlaw hate speech. That is a moral issue, so I suppose those of you that believe our rights come from society will be fine with losing the freedom of speech.


​Yes!

 

[chipbennett]

That's not an alternative. It, as long as we are in this Earthly realm, IS. There will never be a point that "might makes right," isn't a truism.

So then laws against murder, rape, and other violent acts are unjust? After all, if might makes right is a truism, then on what basis do we outlaw acts carried out under its auspices?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So then laws against murder, rape, and other violent acts are unjust? After all, if might makes right is a truism, then on what basis do we outlaw acts carried out under its auspices?

That depends on the entity wielding the "might." I think you are looking at this a very small scale. If you beat up another person over a disagreement, your "might" isn't necessarily "right." You still fall under the umbrella of laws of society (right) and those tasked to enforce those laws (might).

 

[Jludo]

Exactly! This is why only privileges can evolve from morality. There is a current push to outlaw hate speech. That is a moral issue, so I suppose those of you that believe our rights come from society will be fine with losing the freedom of speech.


​Yes!

And what is this basis? I hope it's not a book which has been consistently reinterpreted for centuries to fit an ever changing public opinion of what is moral.

I won't be fine with society deciding it no longer values free speech and I hope that doesn't happen, where exactly would a diety step in to protect your right to free speech if this were to happen?

 

[jamil]

That's not an alternative. It, as long as we are in this Earthly realm, IS. There will never be a point that "might makes right," isn't a truism.

It's not a truism. It may be practically true, but it isn't logically true, and it isn't morally true. A truism is inherently true. But "might makes right" is conditionally true.

 

[2A_Tom]

Might makes oppression.

 

[jamil]

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

We're talking about where do intrinsic rights come from. You're taking a pragmatic approach, which is fine, but it's answering a different question. You're saying, it doesn't matter where they come from, it matters most who is willing to honor them. And that's a pretty good argument. But I disagree that it's purely academic. People change their minds through persuasion. The concept comes first though. It's just an artifact of chronology that we don't know everything we'll ever know in the same instant. We grow. We evolve. Morality evolves. It starts out imperfect and gets more perfect as we learn stuff. If it's purely academic then why did people decide to end slavery?

 

[jamil]

Might makes oppression.

You know, I really can't tell when you're being funny or serious. But this is seriously true. Might makes oppression. Right makes the opposite.

 

[chipbennett]

That depends on the entity wielding the "might." I think you are looking at this a very small scale. If you beat up another person over a disagreement, your "might" isn't necessarily "right." You still fall under the umbrella of laws of society (right) and those tasked to enforce those laws (might).

So, might makes right is a truism, except when abdicated to a social contract? Doesn't that make it... not a truism?

I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm trying to understand what appear to be inconsistencies.