Of course it is. So is an individual hand, an individual society, and an individual rock.
It’s not a top down system of human resource control. Every individual has survival needs that he is ultimately responsible for meeting. He also may want to flourish and be happy - this is were the idea of natural rights come from.
I suppose the Borg handle this too, albeit through force and coercion (not fun).
A singular individual you can touch with a singular human consciousness - not talking about rocks and hands. Yes rocks are individuals too but they do not have the same needs as humans.
A group is made up these. A group can’t think. The individuals in the group have to do it. Individuals can form associations with other individuals to form groups - groups may form larger groups, nations, etc… But they still require individuals to exist.
was it Jeremy Bentham who called the idea of natural rights “nonsense on stilts”?
It has always seemed an odd phrase to me, since humans in a position to philosophize/decide on laws do not live in a “natural” way. And while I’m no zoologist or biologist (and I would welcome correction from those who are), it doesn’t seem that even the animals genetically closest to us acknowledge many rights among each other, at least not many that can’t be viollated with impunity by a stronger or more dominant creature int he group.
On the other hand, I do feel that a basic precept of human interaction has to be (not that it is naturally so) that all people are equal, i.e. if one of us has a right then all of us do. So I guess I would say no to natural rights, but a qualified yes to inalienable rights; and life, liberty and happiness seems as good a list as any I’ve come across.
Okay, let’s assume human beings have needs–and that needs are natural. Even if the former seems obvious, the latter is not. (For one thing not everyone would agree that there’s any such thing as a need in the first place–there’s a “need in order to X” but not just a plain old “need.” For another thing even if there is such a thing as a plain old “need,” how do we know the proper atttibution of a need to a human being isn’t completely determined by social norms?)
Even if those two assumptions are taken for granted, you don’t get natural rights out of them for free. So two human beings have needs, and both needs can’t be fulfilled if they have to share all the land. This does not mean each has a right to exclusive use of some land. They might for all we know be obligated instead to fight for the whole parcel. Or perhaps they are obligated to share the whole parcel even if it means neither will have their needs fulfilled. Both of these are entirely compossible with the idea that both humans have natural needs.
Your argument seems to be that the only way they can both survive is by divying up the land and treating it as exclusively to be used by the one its assigned to–and that this means they each have a natural right to exclusive use. But while it may be true that divying the land up is the only way to get both of their needs fulfilled, I don’t see why it should follow that they have a “natural right” to that exclusive use.
Maybe you should explain just exactly what a “natural right” is. If it’s defined just as “a right that is part of a system of rights which makes for an optimal fulfillment of human needs,” that’s fair enough, but then it turns out almost no one would disagree that such rights exist–its just that you insist on calling them “natural” for some reason.
But is that not what a natural right is? Then what is a natural right?
Well you can’t define a natural-right without defining natural-law:
“A set of rules inherent in human behavior and human reasoning that governs human conduct. Natural law is preexisting and is not created in courts by judges. Philosophers and theologians throughout history have differed in their interpretations of natural law, but in theory, natural law should be the same throughout time and across the world because it is based on human nature, not on culture or customs.”
A good example of natural-law is the golden rule “Live honestly toward every other.” or “If something is evil, then don’t do it to your brothers and sisters”
Natural-rights then are deduced from this natural-law. To learn about this in the most primitive setting, check out how it functioned within the Six Nations of the Iroquois.
Your assumption is that people exist to fulfill the needs of other people and not their own . I assume based upon the evidence that I exist and am a free sentient being with free will and an inner life capable and responsible for me own needs.. and, that other life forms do not have authority over me. This applies especially to other beings of my species since we are all like ~98.4% identical. Interesting that ~2% of the population are sociopaths… think about it.
Do you really believe the golden rule is inherent in human behavior or reasoning?
How do you figure?
My belief isn’t the issue but history does suggest it - all major religions are kind of built on it.
I have to withdraw that statement since I can’t find now what I thought I read. Perhaps I read another post and confused it with yours. I might be hallucinating at this point. Apologies.
Really, which ones? The one with the Inquistion? The one with Jihad? The one that cut the foreskins off of Philistines? The one that hung girls in Salem for witchcraft? The one with Tom Cruise?
Yes.
But just because those fucking bastards were the most disgusting of hypocrites doesn’t invalidate the rule - they never followed.
Just doesn’t smell like rights to me.
Also another natural-law, the law of non-aggression:
“I won’t attack you if you don’t attack me but if you attack I will use whatever violence necessary to repel your attack”.
Who are the natural police enforcing these laws?
That’s were you start getting into “positive-law” and the concept of justice. But these issues would be agreed upon by the members of the community - by voluntary means of course.
I’ll accept gravity as a natural law. The other things you are talking about don’t resemble laws or rights in any way. They are just things you or other people want to be true, without any agreed upon definition, means of enforcement, or even participation by the vast majority of people.
It seems like a reasonable extension of the self to me; since no life is self-sustaining. Property matters greatly.
Natural rights and law are not some sort of parallel to legal rights and a legal system, where there’s natural-cops and law-cops. They are distinct concepts.
It may help to imagine a Venn diagram. Natural rights can overlap with legal rights, either to protect or infringe upon them, and there are legal matters which are wholly unrelated to matters of natural rights.
Natural rights are inalienable rights.
Again, welcome to ethics.
I think the only things we might legitimately regard as “natural rights” must stem directly from, and directly address our biological needs as physical beings. Enforcing these rights is a separate issue, so I don’t feel the need to argue about that. I would posit a few below.
The right to Life: Humans have a right to preserve their life that overrides secondary law. A human in danger of death may procure the means of survival at the non lethal expense of another individual or group of individuals. A human may defend their person with proportional and lethal force against another human who is trying to deprive the former of their life.
The right to Free Expression: Acknowledging that each person is a sapient being; a human has the right to express their opinions, views, and positions insofar as in doing so they do not infringe upon the free expression of another person.
The right to Liberty: Recognizing our status as natural beings, every human is born equal. A human may not be stripped of their personhood, bought, sold, or held in slavery to another person, a community, or the state.
Honestly, that’s about it. A lot of other secondary rights will flow directly from those three, but nature does not convey much complexity in such matters. I understand that some will take issue with the second and third items of my list, but I argue that these also stem directly from our biological nature. Humans are communal and vocal by nature, so these rights are also taken directly from our natural inclinations.
Let’s turn it around: why must a right be enforceable in order to exist? To me, “enforceable” and “exercisable” are not necessary qualifiers of a “right”.
But you bring up a good point about “wants”. What does distinguish a want from a right? I would say that want are things that we’d like to have, while rights are things we should have.