themistocles

Can or do "natural rights" exist without the existence of a god (presumably to justify those rights)?

Or, How can natural rights be justified to exist absent a god? to phrase it another way.

Just thought I'd throw that on the table to be chewed on if anyone would like to take it up?

99Percent

Natural rights arise from reason. First you determine objective morality and then from there you determine natural rights and law.

To make it clearer, think what would be the maximum freedoms feasible that can be applied equally to everyone without conflicts.

Old Man

That seems to me to be a Rawlian type approach typified in "A Theory of Justice".

http://www.policylibrary.com/rawls/index.htm

However, his book never got a good press, and its really not surprising. Because what he ends up with is a system of labyrinthine complexity, which is eventually seen to be fatally flawed when it is seen that people cannot even agree on such basic propositions as whether sexualy immorality is or is not a private or public issue.

Any theory of natural law must have some starting point, some inherent ultimate objective which underpins it.

Is it the mere gratuitous exercise of individual licence which is the end of law? Is it some moral objective, which will enable the law to trample of individual freedoms to a greater extent that would otherwise be permitted? Or is it the accumulation of vast amounts of wealth which is the end of the law?

It seems to me that until the goal of law is first determined, then the means of getting there remains only a secondary argument.

Dr. Retard

Old Man:

WHAT? From Google, I found:

"Rawls's Theory of Justice is widely and justly regarded as this century's most important work of political philosophy."

"A Theory of Justice by John Rawls is one of the books by which our age will be remembered: perhaps the most important work of moral and political philosophy of the twentieth century, a classic to stand alongside Kant and Mill."

"John Rawls' Theory of Justice is the single most important philosophical work of the Left since Marx."

I repeat:

WHAT?

99Percent

Rawls book is interesting but his thesis had a fundamental flaw. He advocated utilitarianism which ultimately fails against individual rights, as the good can only be determined by the individual, not society.

Unusual Suspect

There are many non-religious justifications for the existence of natural rights. Unfortunately, there's no proof that they exist independent of the human mind. You have only the rights granted to you by other humans, regardless of the justifications.

Catana

Dr. Retard

I don't know why I'm sent to defend Rawls, but...

Rawls did not advocate utilitarianism. He attacked utilitarianism, saying that it "does not take seriously the distinction between persons".

Go look up "original position", "difference principle", and "veil of ignorance" on Google, and you can see for yourself what Rawls did and did not advocate.

Shadowy Man

How can natural rights be justified to exist with a god??

I don't see how having a god give us "natural rights" helps the situation anyway. Did this god just make them up? Or do they exist independent of any gods?

If the latter then having a god give them to you doesn't solve the problem. If the former then these "rights" don't have much meaning since they are arbitrary.

Old Man

Ha! Ha! Ha! A Cambridge university lecturer I heard described Rawls as a "Harvard Fairy"! Rawls is a fading flower. His original position was so absurd that he is not taken seriously amongst the academic elite in the UK. He is only of historical importance. Bentham and John Austin (my favourite jurisprude) are far superior.

Dr. Retard

OldMan:

I think the best response is: Suuure, dude, whatever the fuck.