You know, I don't see too many philosophical or other things of such on these forums. Well, what I want to know is the thoughts that you have on the natural rights of the human individual...the Us really is not the best when it comes to agknowledging these rights, but I want to know what your ideas about it are.
Well, I do have to share my thoughts first I guess...
The ideas of natural rights to me show the priviledges of mankind. We are entitled to our nature and personalities. We are the dominant species on the planet, and are entitled to unquestionable respect towards each other. The English writer John locke was the author of many political and social documents setting a case for the basic rights that any person has, whether they are poor or rich, strong or weak, or smart or not. Every one of us is our own person. We are entitled to life, and to our pride as one human race. The writings of many philosophers argue these cases that we deserve these types of treatment. Although, all of these people may have some differences and disagreements, in the end they are similar. Qualities of human beings are to be respected, and we must respect the qualities of others.
Well, thats what I think will be a good start, I still have a lot of stuff.
Just like George Carlin said, "You don't have "rights" you have temporary privileges...and rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges."
Just like George Carlin said, "You don't have "rights" you have temporary privileges...and rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges."
That's a great quote :P
And it holds true. A country is born, it's citizens fight for rights. But go anywhere else? And they're gone, or different. When you are born you are owed nothing.
Do I think all humans SHOULD have rights? Yes. But they don't. And I don't know if we ever will have true rights.
Why should I respect dictators, greedy CEOs or criminals? Respect is earned, it isn't a right.
I would say respect is lost, not earned. In the sense that sure, I agree with you on the people you would not respect, however if I were to bump into someone in the middle of the street and start talking with them -- I would absolutely show them respect, their mistake or mine. If however they turned out blunt, stroppy and an overall fool it wouldn't take long for that respect they initially had to dissipate.
When you are born you are owed nothing.
Right to life, I would say. Especially seeing the standard of both morality and civilization, that they both have today. If you make the effort to conceive a baby, ignoring it is counter intuitive and should be considered a bad act.
Do I think all humans SHOULD have rights? Yes. But they don't. And I don't know if we ever will have true rights.
What I don't think helps is that there are so many "categories" for Human Rights' groups. "Women's Rights", "Black People's Rights", and the like. It is too easy to just boil them in the same bowl and sort out everyone's rights, but it's usually campaigning that needs to be done against those who are actually discriminate towards a certain group.
Just like George Carlin said, "You don't have "rights" you have temporary privileges...and rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges."
From what we call rights this doesn't seem to be the case. As I pointed out in an earlier thread about rights.
"It would seem the difference between the two is in how they are applied. A right is treated as fundamental entitlements for a group to function, privileges are just extra that is granted under special conditions."
While technically both are privileges the difference is in the application of the privilege that makes the privilege a right.
We are the dominant species on the planet
Considering we could be quite easily taken out by bacteria or a virus I find this status questionable.
and are entitled to unquestionable respect towards each other.
No respect should be unquestionable or just automatically given.
I would say respect is lost, not earned. In the sense that sure, I agree with you on the people you would not respect, however if I were to bump into someone in the middle of the street and start talking with them -- I would absolutely show them respect, their mistake or mine. If however they turned out blunt, stroppy and an overall fool it wouldn't take long for that respect they initially had to dissipate.
I see this as merely giving the opportunity through decency to earn said respect.
In the sense that sure, I agree with you on the people you would not respect, however if I were to bump into someone in the middle of the street and start talking with them -- I would absolutely show them respect, their mistake or mine. If however they turned out blunt, stroppy and an overall fool it wouldn't take long for that respect they initially had to dissipate.
It could go the other way round, you wait and see if they're polite, blah blah, which would accord your respect. Either way though, we would agree that it isn't a right.
Your natural born rights are: -Life -Liberty -Property
You can easily take life away therefore you don't technically have the right to live. It's just that nothing has taken it away yet. Someone can also easily take your freedom away i.e. yourself. Going to another country would do this easily. Property is someone that should be fairly obvious. You can't really own the anything. Someone else is always going to come along an take it away. I also understand that in the United States these are considered rights, and are given to you by law. Although, with as many people as I see that abuse their power it surprises me that they're still considered rights, maybe their just to give people a sense of security/safety.
Just like George Carlin said, "You don't have "rights" you have temporary privileges...and rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges."
This just made my day, but what can't you take away these days?
Mage has already made quite clear the difference between rights and privileges in a previous thread, as have I. And this George Carlin quote is being grossly overused. I don't think a rant that's sandwiched between fart jokes and the number of English curse words counts as a philosophical treatise on the concept of 'rights'. At the very least, we should take this quote with a grain of salt. But the simple fact is that Carlin missed the point in his little rant. This is, however, beside the point. The question in the OP is different from the earlier thread in asking whether natural rights exist. This is sort of a senseless question, though, since it is unclear exactly what the properties of a natural right would be, even if they did exist. A better way of looking at the question is maybe addressing the nature of human rights. We regularly hear about 'human rights violations' occurring throughout the world, and I think this is the closest we're going to get to something being a 'natural right'. Just to be clear, a natural right would have to be an intrinsic property of humans - or at least a species of this. It would have to be something we are allowed to do that is (at least physically) impossible to keep someone from doing. Possible candidates might be: thinking about whatever we choose; forming beliefs about the world around us; having access to our own conscious states. But these sorts of abilities miss the 'flavour' of what a 'right' actually is. What we're looking for, then, are rights that are normatively applied through all contexts. In other words, these are rights that should always be granted to any person in any situation. Here I think we have some genuine candidates. The right to be free of persecution, whether it be based on religion, gender, sexuality, whatever. We might also count the right to live in an environment that is safe, i.e. one that has adequate housing, safety, nourishment, etc. Of course, there are plenty of cases where even these basic human rights are violated. But I think the key here is that they shouldn't be violated (thus the normative nature of human rights). The question I have, though, is whether even these rights are context-based. There is a difference between something being universal as a matter of fact vs. something that is, in principle, universal. And I'm not sure the latter is true of human rights. Suppose some catastrophic world event occurred, obliterating all signs of governmental bodies, states, etc. It's not clear to me that the normative nature of human rights would still obtain in a world like this. So the search for a natural right is hopeless. And the search for human rights will result in a very loose notion that is still not purely normative in nature.
