If there is no God, where do our inalienable rights come from?

[Lemur866]

If all you mean by “natural rights” is, “if your system of social organization doesn’t respect these rights, you’re guaranteed to find yourself living in a shithole”, then I agree with the concept of natural rights.

But discovery of these natural rights is still an empirical process, and the only way we have for deciding whether something is a natural right or not is whether we like or don’t like the consequences of recognizing or not recognizing the right.

If there is some natural right that humans ought to enjoy, yet all of us agree that we wouldn’t like the consequences of recognizing that right, then what? What happens is that we all disagree that the disfavored “right” is really a natural right. Well, if everyone disagrees that the supposed right is actually a natural right, even though it really is, then what happens next? The putative natural right is tossed on the scrapheap of history. And the only way future wise men can get the rest of us to recognize this natural right is for them to convince us that the consequences of recognizing this right aren’t so bad. And so in actual practice we’re back to the social theory of rights.

I will agree that our instinctive natural notions of morality and rights must inform our actually existing social organizations. But only in the sense that they must, because otherwise we’ll cause immense human suffering. It turns out that many people don’t seem to care about causing immense human suffering, and this is why not every country in the world is a modern liberal democracy.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Der_Trihs

Yes there is; if they aren’t the same for all, then they aren’t rights. That’s rather the point.

I don’t want to be ass (at least in this post), but your point begs the questions of where rights come from. We don’t have equal rights for everything.

@Bearflag70

Except that our society acknowledges other rights, such as due process and equal protection, as supreme.

Sure, but even the concept of due process and equal protection can be argued as to whether they apllie(d) in this situation.

@Mozam

If inalienable rights don’t exist, then homosexuals may still have a right to marry, but no one is doing anything objectively wrong by denying homosexuals that right. People who wish to deny homosexuals the right to marry may be logically inconsistent, but there’s nothing wrong with their being so. They simply prefer a different social contract.

Pretty much, yes.

@Little_Nemo

I think the point that Aju is making is that if rights originate from society, you can’t appeal to some higher power in support of a right you seek. You can’t claim something should be a right even if the majority of people disagree.

Agreed. “Should be a right” is an opinion not an objective reality.

@Jas09

But one can still make two types of arguments:

1. That society would be improved by granting these legal rights.

2. That universal human rights (life, liberty, etc…) demand certain legal rights.

The recognition of universal human rights does not require a supernatural source of these rights - secular ethics is sufficient. And a society can grant legal rights that have no root in universal human rights, simply because it benefits society.

ETA: adding a distinction of legal rights to argument one

It may not require a deity, but secular ethics means “what we like”.

@Lemur866

Our moral sense IS malleable and subjective. As proof, I hand you the entire sweep of recorded human history. How many ancient Sumerians believed in freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom of assembly?

But that doesn’t mean our moral sense is infinitely malleable, since we are human beings, not computer programs that can be reprogrammed at will. We have a particular human nature that is our biological inheritance, and we are compelled to live our lives as human beings. And that means we have to live together, we have certain physical and social needs that have to be satisfied or the result is disaster.

If we have a particular set of moral judgments, and some other group has another set, we can certainly disagree with them, on the simple grounds that we prefer to live otherwise, and we can point to the results of our moral system and invite people in the other group to agree with us. If they don’t agree, well, the result is conflict.

But suppose we imagine that moral systems are handed down by God. We obey the moral laws we claim are handed down by God, and that other group over there doesn’t. Now what? We tell them and tell them that they must obey God’s laws, but they don’t agree. As a matter of fact, they are so immoral as to claim that we are incorrect about what God wants, and they have a whole other set of moral laws that were handed down by God, and their set doesn’t match our set.

Now what? How do we resolve this difference? God, the source of moral law, has seemingly handed down contradictory laws, and both cannot be correct. So how do we determine which are the laws of God, and which are false? Is there some objective method of determining objective morality? If God or Nature has created these eternal moral principles, he hasn’t done a very good job of making sure that all humans understand them, has he?

The obvious complaint is if slavery is always objectively wrong, why didn’t God bother to tell the ancient Israelites it was wrong? Why didn’t God give them a document along the lines of the US constitution, or the Swiss constitution? Why didn’t he tell them to construct a modern liberal democracy? Or, if rights are self-evident from nature, why didn’t the ancient Israelites discover them?

If rights are given by God or Nature, how do we discover what God intended for us? Is there some objective process whereby this can be accomplished? If so, I’d like to hear it. Note that if your process includes something like, “Read the Bible”, you’ve just pushed the process back one iteration without actually explaining the process.

There is a process in which, as societies progess, they discover things (e.g. glass-making or quantum theory) they didn’t know existed. Ignorance of something does not mean they don’t exist.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Der_Trihs

@Aji_de_Gallina

If rights come/came only from society, then nobody has the right to something they don’t already have the right to.
For instance (accepting the rights-come-from-society idea), same-sex couples do not have the right to get married in Texas and no right is being taken from them or being trampled on.

That assumes that homosexuals aren’t part of society. And it ignores the fact that marriage is treated as a right except when it comes to homosexuals.

That’s not exactly right. Two straight males or females cannot marry each other either. In this country it is not legal to marry more than one person at a time. In many cultures throughout history polygamy was legal. You can’t marry a non-human or a close relative, or a dead person, or an inanimate object. Marriage is about extending legal and financial and property benefits to another person. There is no logical reason not to allow that other person to be of the same sex.

[shy_guy]

@Aji_de_Gallina

If rights come/came only from society, then nobody has the right to something they don’t already have the right to.
For instance (accepting the rights-come-from-society idea), same-sex couples do not have the right to get married in Texas and no right is being taken from them or being trampled on. They have the aspiration to a right. If this is/were true, then SSM is more like zoning laws than a moral imperative.

Actually, it’s more like existing marriage laws. An argument for same-sex marriage absent some objective moral authority is not as difficult to make as you seem to think.

For example, the response to “same-sex couples do not have the right to get married in Texas and no right is being taken from them or being trampled on,” is simply that, yes, the right of marriage is being denied them. Sides can then argue whether “same-sex marriage” is a separate right from “marriage,” but an argument for the former isn’t a lost cause just because it doesn’t already exist. Rights originating from the will of the people doesn’t limit us to pure majority rule. The argument for pretty much any right is “It would be better if we had this.”

[marshmallow]

@Jas09

In general, non-theistic natural rights would be those rights that humans are hard-wired to both grant to other and expect to be extended to themselves. Those which when violated provoke an innate negative emotional response in the vast majority of humans regardless of their religious inclinations.

This idea, along with animal studies, is my defense against religious people who claim no god means no morality. But IME this isn’t what most people, even atheists or humanists, think about when they mean natural rights. Natural rights are something that stands outside of current opinion or cultural mores as some sort of universal morality.

Also, that definition of natural rights is very limited. It doesn’t really speak to most modern day issues. And it may not be very applicable in instances where people want or do not want something for themselves or their family but do not care when applied to others.

So right now, most people on the planet don’t think homosexuals should be married. If anything, the very thought of homosexuality itself gives them negative emotions. So we’re not violating homosexual rights then? I think we are, and other countries are even worse, but I’m not going to flatter myself by saying people are violating some timeless Platonic universal principles. Like the Dude says, that’s just like, your opinion, man.

IOW, natural rights sounds a whole lot like some religious voodoo. I’m not saying it’s not good propaganda on a variety of issues and it can be very useful. If I was trying to convince some tribal leader to ban female circumcision I’d use it. I’m just saying it’s daffy as in the duck.

[gurujulp]

@John_Mace

@Guinastasia

What the hell was that?
ETA: I mean Don123’s uh, “post”.

Well, he has the “right” to post nonsense, no?

What’s a squeal? I wanna eat one before it pisses on my food…

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@shy_guy

Actually, it’s more like existing marriage laws. An argument for same-sex marriage absent some objective moral authority is not as difficult to make as you seem to think.

For example, the response to “same-sex couples do not have the right to get married in Texas and no right is being taken from them or being trampled on,” is simply that, yes, the right of marriage is being denied them. Sides can then argue whether “same-sex marriage” is a separate right from “marriage,” but an argument for the former isn’t a lost cause just because it doesn’t already exist. Rights originating from the will of the people doesn’t limit us to pure majority rule. The argument for pretty much any right is “It would be better if we had this.”

Of course you’re right that, if rights come from the will of the people and are not pre-existing, SSM can be argued for even if not a right today even if it is/were a separate right.

[psikeyhackr]

US!

WE give them to ourselves.

Who is there to take the rights away after all?

It is just a matter of what social philosophy we choose to operate under. If some people want to rationalize it with God that is their business.

psik