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.
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.
I feel like even those are context-based. I mean, for many people it sounds like the right thing to give everybody those basic rights. But there are societies in which those don't count, or at least not the same way for everyone. Take the caste system; those in the lowest caste, do they have any natural rights acknowledged to them by the higher castes? And I do have to agree with your post-catastrophic example.
You don't have any natural rights really because if we would go back to the cave men you could do anything to everyone and do whatever you want to do. Today people choose to respect people, protect people and be friends with people because that is what our society says for us to do so we follow it.
Today people choose to respect people, protect people and be friends with people because that is what our society says for us to do so we follow it.
It's not so much that society says we need to have friends, it's that friends make it easier to survive. They give us hope and a sense that we're doing something right.
Now, as for my take on natural rights...
As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Thus, we get the sense that our friends will help protect our right to freedom of speech.
People should have the right to life, liberty, and prosperity. However, many people are denied this right.
When did scientists discover that people were naturally born with rights? It's sounds cool rhetorically, but they aren't really natural born rights. There really is no reason to believe they would be.
The idea more seems to be that if you are going to build some sort of society or government the intention is that it benefit you. Like a survival mechanism, you survive better in a group. Naturally if you are trying to survive you are going to want your life protected, you're going to want to make sure people don't steal all the food you acquire (though I would say it is very debatable that it is important to protect property beyond the minimum of survival) and overall, if you have no freedom at all then that takes away from the benefit you receive from the society. But really, they are all just means to an ends.
