Not to mention magellan01’s definition in post #42, which amounts basically to (paraphrasing) “that to which one would have exclusive claim in the absence of other people.” No offense intended, magellan01, I actually find that definition intriguing.
If I may suggest a locked-down definition, how about “that to which one has an ethical or just claim”?
“That to which one would have exclusive right in the absense of other people” (if this is an accurate paraphrase of magellan01’s definition) only makes sense if we equate rights with power. If I create a spear absent any other human being, then it makes no sense to talk about a “right” to the spear (by the fact of my creating it). Likewise for any other activity I engage in absent any other human beings.
Where the concept of rights comes into play (becomes meaningfull as a concept) when you have more than one human being. If I create a spear, you could come along and take it by force. In this case, the “right” of the spear has been settled by your taking of the spear. Of course, I may decide to not allow you to take it by force (by using force against you); or we may come to some mutual agreement about who actually has a “right” to the spear.
In short - rights exist insofar there is more than one human agent and there exists some sort of mechanism in place that resolves (to some degree or another) the conflicts that arise via human agency (power relationships between/among human beings).
“That to which one has an ethical or just claim” only works as a definition if everyone (or a majority) agrees as to what constitutes an ethical or just claim.
Think “Might makes right” versus “Divine right” versus “Rights based on the consent of the governed.” In all three cases, some concept of a right is being put forth. But in each case, a different justification/rationale is used to define such a right.
Of course, the trick is putting forth the argument of which definition is the best. But going from “is” (what are the actual power relationships among human agents) to “ought” (what is the proper power relationships among human agents) is tricky business.
One of us is very confused. Now, possibly both. Where did you get the idea the the rights I was talking about had anything to do with the gospels, scripture, or Christianity for that matter? It was not my intent to imply so, as you should have gleaned by the omission of those words in my post.
I listed the “rights” because before I could answer the question—which I did right after the list—I wanted to define the nebulous term “rights”. So I took a few moments to show what I meant by “rights” by providing what I saw as a complete, and minimal set of those that are inalienable. I then answered the OP with that added clarification.
Why did you feel the need to inject words into my post then jump on me for them? Explanation, please.
Am I right that this sums up the Utility Theory of Rights that Liberal referenced earlier? If so I just wanted to clarify that I do not endorse that particular theory.
My position was that if rights are to be considered to originate in nature, then the Utility Theory would be the logical extension, because I believe ethics to exist outside of nature.
My personal belief is more in line with the definition I offered up:
In a very general sense I do believe that everyone who is not a sociopath shares a common vision as to what is just or ethical. The only problem is that people, being what we are, tend to carve out exceptions whenever it suits us.
Well, I’m not versed in the various theories pertaining to rights, but I would say that, yes, it does (to some extent). Note: I should point out that a utility theory of rights shouldn’t be equated with utilitarianism. At least, from my perspective. I take a more consequentialist approach (bottom-up) to my understanding of rights, rather than a utilitarian (top-down) approach.
I would only agree that a utility-type theory of rights is a logical extension of rights that originate in nature, if one means that they are an extention of (derived from) human agency. In other words, by virtue of being born human, we are endowed with certain characteristics that 1) exist for all human beings (agency - which includes such things as sentience, volition, will, power, some sense of identity, etc.) and 2) do not exist for other entities.
A human isn’t born with rights - but they are born with the (capacity) for agency. Rights come into existence between/among human beings as a result of agency that each possess. This “grounding” of rights, so to speak, helps answer the question “from where do rights come from?” Not from God, not from nature (innate), but (logically or rhetorically) derived from human nature as a consequence of human agency.
I don’t entirely agree (although I would very much like to - the idea that everyone shares a common vision as to what is just or ethical). I think it’s safer to make the claim that humans have a general sense or idea of justice and ethics, rather than what actually is just or ethical (or what should be). Example: The idea of punishment for a crime committed - death penalty versus life imprisonment. Both encompass the idea of justice. But different people will have differing opinions as to which is best (or more representative) of the idea of justice.
You list of bunch of what you claim are rights, then say
Then, when someone points out that what you said isn’t backed up by logic, you say:
Then you finish off your post with:
Wow. You sir, have big brass ones.
Just to follow up, I tend to agree with this assessment. However, I don’t entirely endorse it for the simple fact that ethics isn’t solely a product of human societies (entirely a product of human convention). Largely, to be sure, but not entirely. Humans, after all, are a part of nature.
Another way in understanding my approach to rights is similar to language. Humans are endowed with the capacity for language. But they aren’t born with the capacity for a particular language (say, Chinese). That particular language only manifests itself in the context of being raised/living within a particular society that speaks Chinese.
Same for rights. Humans are endowed with the capacity for agency. From agency, certain ideas/sense about certain things arise (a general sense of justice and ethics, for example). “Rights” only manifest themselves in the context of being raised/living in a particular society where elements of agency (and, therefore, a sense of justice and ethics) have been resolved (what constitues a right).
What the hell are you talking about? You know, I really make an effort to ignore you most of the time, like your unintelligible comment in another thread this morning, which by the way was directed to two people neither of which is you. Now, you do it again. At least this time I can understand what you’ve written. I think. So I’ll go through this exercise:
Are you with me so far?
Clairobscur then comments on my post. The gist of which, as far as I can make out (you will note that I asked for an explanation), is that my list, which I offered in an attempt to define the term so I could answer the question intelligibly, does not comport with the gospels or the teachings of Jesus. Now that would be fine, except, as I noted in my response to her, I did not invoke the gospels, scriptures or Christianity anywhere in my post. In fact, it had nothing to do with my post—I stand by it whether Christianity is 100% correct or 0%. Hence my request for an explanation.
All is well. Clairobscur hasn’t gotten around to responding yet, but it has only been a short time.
Out of the blue, you feel the need to inject yourself—surprise of surprises—into someone else’s sub-conversation. And not to shed light where one requested clarification, but to piss. And even that would be fine if it made sense. It doesn’t track.
You say I have “big brass ones”? You must need to walk around with a wheelbarrow.
Utilitarian rights (do whatever makes us happy) fall under ethical relativism. They are a first cousin of societal rights (do whatever we allow), and are assigned based on what is believed by the grantor(s) to effect the maximum amount of happiness among the general population. Thus, you would have the right to burn a flag if it upset fewer people than not burning it. It’s even possible that you be allowed to burn a flag in some cases, but not in others. Or on Fridays but not on Mondays. It could also be the case that you are allowed to burn a flag, while someone else is not in the same situation. (If people like you better, you tend to get more leeway.)
It really really does matter how you define rights. If we could pick one of the following, it would help to know where we’re all coming from.
Rights are:
(1) attributes
(2) permissions
(3) abilities
(4) advantages
(5) power
The implications are:
(1) people are born with rights inherent in their humanity
(2) people are given rights by someone or something in authority
(3) people have rights commensurate with their capabilities
(4) people earn rights through competitive interactions
(5) people obtain rights by initiation of force
The practical results are:
(1) you may burn a flag if it’s your flag
(2) you may burn a flag if the law says so
(3) you may burn a flag if you can make fire
(4) you may burn a flag if you get to it first
(5) you may burn a flag if you can prevent people from stopping you
It doesn’t help to debate if you’re thinking you may burn a flag because you know how, while I’m thinking I may burn a flag because my governer gave me permission to burn it. It’s like arguing over whether a trip to Disneyworld is fun when we both have two different ideas of what constitutes fun.
[clue fairy mode=hint]May one possibly believe in a Creator without being a Christian or, indeed, subscribing to any particular religion?[/clue fairy]
Yes, I can and do.
One may believe society, nature or God or some other entity has give man the inalienable right to perform magic. But if you are physical unable to do magic, what have you got? Absolutely nothing.
If you’re not able to stop others from preventing you from burning your flag all else is irrelevant. Likewise if you are able to prevent others from burning flags what good does all their irrational beliefs in Rights do them? Nothing. If you don’t have the power to do as your Rights based faith tells you you can, then you have no rights. You have nothing.
The question wasn’t really addressed to you, but the Clue Fairy is pleased to have been of service. 
“Where do rights come from?” and “What good do rights do you?” are two different questions. Whether George is a handsome man is a different question from what good would George’s looks do him if he had a bag on his head. Just because a person has been crushed by a tyrant does not mean that the person does not have rights; it means that the tyrant is evil.
This follows, does it not, only if, by your classification, rights are attributes. It presupposes a basis for ethics beyond the opinions of the individual or mass of humanity. I intuitively agree with this, but I have trouble coming up with a proof. Do you have one?
Who are the grantors in this instance? I reject this notion of rights for the simple fact that one can have a society where rights exist, but only for a select few (divine right of kings, for example). No maximum amount of happiness among the general population in this instance. Furthermore, rights aren’t granted; they are recognized. Or rather the capacity of agency that one person (or a group of individuals) possesses is recognized by another person (or group of people). In short, the power I possess is recognized to exist for others as well.
I reject 1 & 2 outright - people are not born with rights, nor are they given by someone or something in authority. They are recognized and agreed upon by members of a given society. To what degree - it depends (can have a society where a minority group is not recognized as having “rights” - agency that the majority of the population possesses).
The interplay among 3, 4, & 5 comes closest to my understanding of what rights are. From #3, the idea (and recognition) of a right is derived from the knowledge that human beings have certain capabilities/capacities. For example, a “right” to fly unaided is a ridiculous notion as humans cannot fly. If by some sort of magic/mutation one were able to fly unaided, then I possess an ability/power not shared by other human beings. If that power is recognized by others, then it could be said that I have a “right” to fly.
However, if that power/ability of unaided flight is not recognized, then one does not have a “right” to fly. I still possess the power/ability to fly (and may choose to do so regardless of what society says). But others may prevent the exercise of that ability/power. This is where #4 and #5 come into play.
Handsomeness is in the eye of the beholder. A better analogy would be to ask that, if George was the only man on earth would he still be a handsome man. Not that either analog is much good. For unless you’re a religious man, Rights and The Power To Do, are one and the same. If man is crushed by a tyran, that means he has no rights. Evil is of course another thing that doesn’t exist outside religion.
This irationel belief in Rights seems to me merely to be an attempt to formulate a religion without God. But if you’re a religious man you might as well be a religious man. And in that I find lekatt’s position to be at least an honest one.
One might term this religion without God humanism, if that term had not already been taken. And I suppose it is not incidental that the American constitution was written during the enlightment, where this focus on humans outside God was first started. What do you do when you need a God, but don’t believe in one. You invent something new, call it Rights, and proclaim them inalienable. They are pretty words surely. But you are merely building castles in the air, without any foundation in either logic or reality.
Let’s say I walk down the street, talking to a friend about rights, and where they come from. Out of the blue, a person walking by joins in. They talk about rights, and they make statements about a creator endowing rights, without qualifying which creator he mean. Said person is average height, average weight, and is politely dressed. What race they are doesn’t matter.
Now, I believe that given the make-up of society (Rite-Aid bargain bin), I believe I and my friend would be justified in assuming said person was a Christian, and was referring to Jehovah/Jealous when they said “Creator”
Now do you see why we said what we said?
P.S. Yeah, we could have asked, but lumping all opposition in the same basket is some much easier, don’t you think?
Just about anything anyone can define as a right is something that can be taken away.
Right to life? Only until death through means fair or foul.
Right to property? Talk to anyone who has had their home expropriated.
Right to die? Only in Oregon, and not even then 
Right to free speech? Sing it Daisy Chicks.
Ergo, I’m forced to conclude that Rights are a figment of the collective imagination.
Thank you.