Doesn’t matter, He still believes in you.
Is that your view?
If so, where does the “attribute of porperty ownerhip” come from? Because it seems to me that all you’ve done is push the “where do rights come from” back into another question that will have an answer like: society, or the government, or just an agreement between people.
I think the easiest answer to this question is there is not one source of rights. If I had to pick one as the most important in terms of influence, then I’d say it’s consensus. Logic follows as a close second. If a consensus position is held that homicide is wrong, then logic dictates a host of inevitable conclusions that define the right to life.
This logical system can break down, even completely, when certain definitions, like “life” cannot be agreed upon, or in certain situations when ones actions might signify in the minds of some that the right to life has be forfeited.
This perhaps brings me to a third source of rights: Struggle. Sometimes the consensus position and the logic that follows moves some to strife, and positions are occasionally changed, or those who hold them defeated.
Yes, it is.
It comes from reason. Unless you can show why a man, when born, should be the property of someone else, then it stands to reason that he owns himself.
I don’t get it. Can you explain further. I’m not disagreeing, I’m just trying to understand. And, btw, is your view pretty much the same as Ayn Rand’s? What you’ve written so far looks a lot like what she wrote on the subject.
-
Why is “you own yourself” the default mode, the given? Looks more like an axiom, not something one would prove, and so one might assume other axioms as well-- ie, you belong the the person who owned your parents.
-
How do you go from “I own myself” to “I own property that is apart from myself”.
The reality of it is, rights come due to the actions of 1930s, Original-Flavor, Batman
No, not really. The real answers have already been posted. I just wanted to show I got cosmosdan’s pop-culture reference.
lekatt, “the answer is God” is indeed a possible answer to such a question. Duly noted and entered into the record. No need to come back four times to essentially reiterate the attributes of God w/o providing any further illustration, discussion or elaboration of the position on the issue of rights.
Did you not notice I was answering posts?
But this just dodges the question, doesn’t it? Why do we have “natural” rights? And why are they “natural?” Do animals have these natural rights too? What about plants?
I’m thinking that rights only make sense in the context of social animals, which we happen to be, somewhat noncoincidentally. If bees were intelligent enough, it would make sense for them to talk about rights. Now, if crabs were intelligent enough, I’d imagine it would make no sense for them to talk about rights, since crabs are not social animals.
I don’t quite get the notion of “natural rights,” while I completely understand the idea of “Creator given rights” even if I reject it.
I think you are right, wevets. Rights come from societies.
Only in a society of one is there complete freedom.
Throw some more people on the map and human practicality dictates that some freedoms must be compromised. Exactly whose freedoms get compromised how is sometimes determined by power, sometimes by mututal recognition of mutual benefit.
Rights then, are freedoms held in such esteem by members of the society that it is widely considered that they ought not to be compromised. I think the adjective “natural” to describe some rights is meant to reflect this esteem.
There certainly are some elements of Rand in what I believe, and I do consider myself to be an Objectivist. However, her worshippers — including Binswanger himself — consider me to be a heretic. I accept her premise that existence exists, but in the course of inferential due diligence, I have come to different conclusions than she on quite many particulars, including, of course, the nature of objective reality: I say that that phrase implies God’s existence, and she says that it implies God’s nonexistence. It’s no secret that Rand despised libertarianism, and one of the reasons is that noncoerion is held to be axiomatic, while she believes that it should follow from self-interest. Her concern, in my opinion, was that the lack of a biconditional implication would put her own preferential ethic at risk.
The axiom really is noncoercion — the notion that a person who is peaceful and honest ought to be free to pursue his own happiness in his own way. It is a deontic claim; in other words, a claim about what ought to be true. (Obviously, it does not hold as an alethic claim. Quite many peaceful honest people, for a variety of reasons, are in fact not free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.) If follows by the principle of identity that were a person free to pursue his own happiness in his own way, then he would be free from coercion. Thus, an alethic truth (i.e., a truth that is metaphysically actual, possible, or necessary) derives from a deontic truth. Naturally, a person may posit that noncoerion is false, thereby implying that ownership derives from power rather than identity. Unfortunately for those who hold that view, the ethical implications are considerable. It would mean, for example, that a thief has legitimate ownership of what he has stolen and that a slave has no legitimate cause to fight for his freedom. In cases where a coercion axiom is held, I respect a survival of the fittest argument because that is the natural conclusion of the premise. But I cannot respect the rejection of noncoercion without, for example, defending the institution of slavery.
Well, you don’t. You go from “I own myself” to “The property that I own is a part of me”. And there are several ways to prove that:
(1) Direct Implication — Let X be the owner of property, and Y be property owned. Let w(X, Y) be a world in which X owns Y. If X = Y (our premise), then w(X, X) is true. If it is true that for every X, there is a Y such that X = Y (proof), then for every world w(X, Y), there is a world such that w(Y, X) (property that is owned identifies a person).
(2) Inductive Analysis — Every copula may be stated in terms of possession: e.g., “I exist” -> “I have the property of existence”. A person may be identified by the bounds of his existence (see the discussion on individuation). Therefore, a person may be identified by the property he owns (including his body and mind). For example, John is the extremist conservative who owns the little yellow house.
(3) Analogy — Property that is added to a person’s original property is like ingredients that are added to a recipe. For example, if strawberries are added to a cake, it becomes a strawberry cake.
I’m curious why you invited me to post, but now ask that question of BobLibDem when the post you invited me to make explains in quite some detail why they are natural.
No, that misses the point. Natural rights does not imply that everything in nature has rights, but merely that the rights people have come from the natural process of being born.
There’s something of a definitional barrier here, and the dictionary is no help at all. Not only does it include the source of rights in the definition, it flip-flops on the issue by listing nature, law and tradition as sources.
It seems that if rights come from nature the word means little more than capability. I have the right to walk but I do not have the right to fly. As many have pointed out, this works fine up until the moment two or more people choose to interact. We all agree that I do not have the right to smash your skull. Why not? My ability to do so is just a natural as my ability to walk. More interstingly, we all agree that you have the right to not have your skull smashed. If that right truely was granted to you by nature then why were you unable to stop me?
So rights are not objective. They are only meaningful when human beings interact. For that reason alone they could be said to have “come from” society, in the sense that where there is no society there are no rights. Nor is there any need for them. Is it my right to not have my skull smashed by falling rocks?
It depends on the right but in general human rights come from those willing to support a concept they believe worth fighting for.
Here’s my take on your comments, Syriana. I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to help you understand my viewpoint. (Your own is called the Utility Theory of Rights.)
Endowment, I would say.
You really don’t have the right to do either on my property.
Because you don’t own my skull.
But I’m not defining rights as abilities. I’m defining them as attributes.
It isn’t granted by nature in an anthropic sense; it is an act of nature by which you come to exist.
If you say that people’s rights come from society because without society there would be no rights, you might as well say that rights come earth’s magnetic field because without earth’s magnetic field, there would be no societies of people.
What about in ancient times before people knew about your god? Like Hammurabi or any Pharaohs?
p.s. I suck bad at debates 
Earlier thread on this topic: Rights? What’s a Right?
Myself and others lay out some theories in there.
There’s also this: The US Constitution DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS
Rights are, in practice, social conventions: they exist only insofar as others will acknowledge them and perhaps enforce them. You can claim this or that right, but whether anyone else cares restricts the usefulness of that claim. Most of what people today call self-evident rights are concepts of personal individual liberty developed during the liberal enlightenment (anathema to most prior concepts of religion and rule, and still basically anathema to them).
Since God cannot be said to have taken an interest in enforcing any of the most common rights, then I don’t see how any can be “God given.” Remove any sense of the enforcement and mutual respect of rights and all you are left with is individuals who wants things for themselves. It is only when the golden rule is applied and enforced to these wants that we get any meaningful sense of rights. The Bill of Rights is basically the social contract on which our society spells out some basic ideas of what those rights are.
I don’t think I understand the distinction. Let me try it from another direction. Your birth is an act of nature and you’re born with your life, therefore nature has granted you the right to your life. That’s my understanding of phase one of your theory, from which all else flows. Strangely enough, I do understand the “all else flows” part (at least I think I do) but I’m still caught up on phase one. What am I missing?
I’m interested to hear how you would respond to my falling rocks example. Would you say that my rights have been violated if I am killed by an act of nature? It seems to me that when we speak of one’s right to life, it only refers to one’s right to not have his life taken by other people. The same goes for property, etc.
Why stop with the magnetic field? Without the physical universe there would be no earth. In that sense rights really do come from nature. But seriously, the relationship of rights to society is far tighter and more fundamental. Rights only exist vis-a-vis human interaction. Society created both rights and the need for them in the first place.
Rights are enforced second by second. Whatsoevery you sow, so shall you reap. Whatever we do to others is the same as doing it to ourselves. During spiritual experiences like NDEs this is shown in “life reviews.” Why do you think those having the experience change their lives and perspectives to become kinder and more compassionate. You will experience everything you do to others as if you had done it to yourself. That is the nature of the Oneness.