Harumi

All my life I've been raised with the idea that I have natural rights, that I have a right to life, the pursuit of happiness, and freedoms such a freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.

We're studying Locke right now, and according to him, our natural rights came from God.

Well, that's a serious problem, since I don't believe in such a thing.

So, how can a person justify the existence of natural human rights without the use of a supernatural deity?

kctan

What does a supernatural being got to do with natural human rights ?

It ain't human after all.

You're a human, I'm a human, it's natural that we have rights for humans. We are making the rights for our own sake not because of some stupid supernatural freak. It's being justify because you like me are humans.

When you're caged with a starving lion will it respect your right to life ? That Locke guy should be thrown to the lions & see if his god given rights will save his stupid ass or not.

Alonzo Fyfe

To dispute the origin of something does not imply that one disputes its existence.

Locke also thought that trees, rocks, and skies came from God. You believe that they do not. Do you then worry that since they did not come from God, they do not exist?

(P.S. I believe that natural rights do not exist. But that is a different question.)

Jamie_L

Rights exist within the context of moral frameworks and legal frameworks.

That is, humans create rights for other humans (and even for non-humans, with respect to treatment by humans).

As an analogy, think about this: do animals have rights with respect to other non-human animals? Is a wolf violating a rabit's right to life if it kills it? Of course not. There aren't rights involved.

Does a bear violate a human's right to life if he kills someone? Again, it's a silly question. Why do we think it's not a silly question when we talk about people killing people?

People have a right to life that comes from people. There is no objective right to life outside human interaction.

Jamie

Harumi

You should know that by adding this that I would ask why you, and now I am. So why don't you believe that natural rights exist?

The mainpoint of my question is that so there aren't any rights people are born with, just those that a group of people have decided would best benefit each other?

Many atheists on this site, including me, disagree with the idea of the death penalty. Some cite that they do not feel that we have the 'right' to take a person's life away.

So what does that mean? Obviously some people believe that there are natural rights, but does an objective stance allow for such a thing?

Or are these so-called natural rights just rights that we've been brainwashed into thinking we must have?

August Spies

So, how can a person justify the existence of natural human rights without the use of a supernatural deity?

If you mean that human rights exist OBJECTIVELY (which I assume you do), then you can't. I don't think at least.

I dont' believe in human rights. Its pretty clear to me that they are mere human constructs.

Following human rights theory, they hsould be logically deducable from what we know. This should mean everyone, or most people, would agree with them. Find them "self-evident." however, as you even learn in intro to Philosophy, even the founders of rights theory disagree with eachother as to what rights exist.

Or are these so-called natural rights just rights that we've been brainwashed into thinking we must have?

I would say... yes they are. If you go to other countries people would not know what you are talkign about.

HOWEVER, i will say that you can still believe in human rights and acknowledge they are not OBJECTIVE. You can say they are the best concepts going to run a society we have now, or that they are inter-subjective enough to be useful.

Harumi

Oh dear. Now my life is going to fall apart. Extremely traumatic.

For the most part, I get the feeling that most Americans take our natural rights for granted. It's strange. I think that I'm going to start appreciating the rights I have now, because it's obvious that I was very lucky to be born in a society where these rights are considered well accepted and good.

Now we just have to get people to understand that freedom doesn't mean license. *sigh*

Gurdur

heh, Harumi, heh, on your last post.

Going back to your question on natural rights:

in one way, they don't exist ---- unless a significant number of people observe them.

Why do people then have the notion ?

Evolution.
We have certain inbuilt capacities and potentials with regards to our behavour, and what we think should happen; and one of these capacities is the idea of natural justice, the feeling of "what's fair and unfair".

In everyday life, there's the gut feelings, then the imaginative developments of those, then the social consensus as to what are rights.

I hope that helped.

managalar

There is no such thing as 'natural rights.' There is natural law, ex. your going to hit the ground when you fall out of the tree.

Its not the end of the world to realize there is no such thing as 'natural human rights.' I'm not talking about human rights, which are defined by people, and everyone works together to promote them, I'm talking about the idea that a human, alone in the state of nature is somehow respected above everything else, and certian things are due to him...because that's just biblical superstitious nonsense.

Rights are not from nature, but the result of effective human cooperation with one another to make our lives better. Nature pushes to make life difficult, pushes order into disorder, life to death (and it will win in the long run)

99Percent

We are not going to define God because that is obviously moot. But maybe we should try to define "human" as in "human" rights.

So lets attempt to clear up this discussion by defining "human"...

Any takers?