Natural Rights theory isn’t exactly a current events item, but it’s discussed often enough in present day discourse that I feel it warrants an entire post. For those ravenously craving current events topics, you’ll have to forgive me for taking us back to the realm of ideas.
I always get frustrated when people talk about “where natural rights come from.” As per usual in American politics, there seems to be two ideological camps on this one, and both I think have it wrong. Liberals–many of whom love taking God out of any possible equation–assert that natural rights come from man, while Conservatives generally argue that natural rights come from God.
I’m sorry, but natural rights come from neither God nor man. Refuting the man-given rights argument is fairly easy. If man gives man natural rights, then man can take away natural rights. No self-respecting democrat (small “d”) can deny the horrifying ramifications that line of thinking has had on humanity. Aside from the fact that we don’t want any man to have the ability to take away our natural rights, we can make the argument even more simplified just by refuting the logicality of it.
Exactly who among us gives a man his natural rights? Is it some government official who bestows those rights on every baby born? Was there one man in history who declared that all humans from that moment on had natural rights? If that’s the case then why are Liberals so hopped up on being activists for human rights, civil rights, and the like? Man can take them away right?
The religious argument is a little more difficult to refute because of the verbage used in natural rights theory. I’m sure that anyone who reads Political Realities would almost automatically recite that humans are “endowed by their creator,” with natural rights, but natural rights do not come from God either. That might sound shocking, especially for the religious types, but how can you honestly expect to argue with an atheist about this if your only response is that “without God there are no natural rights”? You also have to think about the huge leap of faith that you’re taking with such a line of thought, because what if God doesn’t exist?
If it was somehow proven tomorrow that God doesn’t exist, should the world then fly into chaos, and should governments then have no compunction about taking away our natural rights? Natural rights is not a matter of faith or hope, and should not be contingent on whether or not God exists. Since no one can ever know whether or not God exists, we have to figure out some other derivation for natural rights, that way the atheists can never have their way. Here’s the kicker: natural rights don’t come from anything. They’re natural, meaning that they are inherent.
So why do we ignore the word “natural” in natural rights? Human beings, by virtue of being human, have always had natural rights from the moment they came into existence. God didn’t give us natural rights, we have them because of our very nature. The difference between a human and an animal is that a human can make a claim on the world. A human has aspirations, can negate his biology, and can actually be happy. Because humans have these qualities, because they are capable of attaining something greater than mere survival, they are inherently entitled to certain rights befitting their place in the world.
A right cannot be given nor can it be taken. It can be infringed upon, we can be prevented from exercising our rights, but they cannot be taken away. Even if the rights of law-abiding citizens are squelched, we still have the duty to exercise our rights, by force if necessary. Think of natural rights in terms of food or sustenance. Every human being needs food to stay alive. No man rendered us dependent on food, nor can any man remove that dependence. Dependence on food is inherent in our physiology just as natural rights are inherent to our very being.
This might seem redundant, but natural rights are natural.
Related Posts
Friday, August 17, 2012 -- Rules of the Madhouse Part Two: For Republicans
Thursday, December 20, 2012 -- Gun Control Perspectives: Am I a Defeatist?
Saturday, June 23, 2012 -- Richard Griffin – Former Union Lawyer Appointed To The NLRB
Monday, July 30, 2012 -- Distracted Pedestrians Another Quandary For Politicians
Saturday, September 22, 2012 -- Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
Sunday, April 14, 2013 -- Obama’s War On The Rich Continues
Jack, I guess I’ll have to disagree with you. Sure, the rights are natural and inherent … because we were created with them.
Rights are the flip side of responsibilities. Rights imply moral law. As human beings we have a choice for good or bad. That is our ultimate right, the right to choose our path. We are not pre-programmed automatons.
Your argument is that of those who worship nature rather than nature’s Creator. You see the results of His handiwork, but cannot see the source.
I used to try and contrive my arguments to appeal to atheists on the basis of objectivist reasoning, but then realized what George Washington realized.
and John Adams:
Our form of government is undeniably based on these principles. We can deny God’s role if we choose – that’s our right. However, the consequences are that we remove the indispensable component that is the arbiter of its success.
I’ve heard this argument before, that morality can’t exist without religion, or that non-religious people can’t be moral. Well, I know some atheists and they’re some of the finest examples of what it means to be moral and virtuous.
We weren’t created WITH natural rights because then they wouldn’t be “natural” rights. It’s not logical to conclude that something natural is something bestowed. If a quality is natural, that means it exists because of the nature of the thing (sorry if that’s confusing). If God created man, and the nature of man’s existence means that he has natural rights, then that means natural rights exist on a cause-effect basis, not because they are some quality that were given to us.
Do you think that you’re certain that God exists? If so, then you are under a delusion (no offense is meant by that). I’m not an atheist, and I believe that there’s a god, but I have the presence of mind to admit that no one can be certain of God’s existence. We simply can’t know the great mystery until we die. So if you admit that belief in the existence of God is an article of faith, not knowledge, then you are essentially admitting that your belief in Natural Rights is an article of faith.
You don’t *know* that man has natural rights, you just have faith that he does. That’s why the God argument is so dangerous, because it depends on everyone involved believing in God. It might provide some modicum of comfort to you to believe that you know God exists, and therefore natural rights exist, but beyond comfort there is not much more to such an argument.
Because of our nature, not because of how we came to be in existence, we have certain rights that we all have a duty to exercise. If we started cloning humans, artificially creating human beings that are sentient and have the same qualities as a human “created by God,” would not that human have the same rights as any other, despite the fact that he was made by man and not by God?
I think Jack is making an important argument here, one that I’ve made myself. Natural rights theory is valid with or without God. And in no way, shape or form does this argument “deny God’s role” either. It’s simply a logical argument.
Personally, I don’t even see a point in arguing “God vs. Nature,” after all, nobody questions what “acts of God” means in their insurance policies. But unfortunately, we have to, because some think taking out God eliminates the idea that rights are natural, and others think leaving God in means something particular to their religious faith.
Rights are negative, that’s it. To claim …
creates confusion, opens the door to positive rights, and quite frankly, is the best argument for the totalitarian state I’ve ever seen. I mean, if rights imply responsibilities, there is no end to what the government can force me to do. For what isn’t my responsibility?
Be careful when bringing God into government. To start with, not even Christians share a common doctrine. As an old German Lutheran, the Evangelical political movement scares the crap out of me, because they push beliefs contrary to my Christian faith. I would expect likewise if the roles were reversed.
Natural Law allows us, fellow Christians, to peacefully coexist. Doctrine as law can only tear us apart.
The only “natural” rights I can see are life and liberty. If you found yourself on an island with ample food and water supplies there would be nobody else to enslave you or murder you. Taking God and your fellow man out of the equation, these are the only two things you would have. This is how I view the situation.
Whether you survived, of course, would be up to you.
I often use the “God-given” formulation, but I agree with your argument, as any believing person should. I believe God made everything, including nature, therefore our natural rights are God-given, but I can just as easily agree with you (without being disingenuous) that these rights are natural, in that they are inherent in nature and the nature of man.
This is a great topic and I find it interesting because it is a theory that I have grappled with for quite some time. The founders considered these “natural” rights to be God given, meaning that men could not take away something that God had given them. This was used as a means to ensure through the Constitution this very point, but the fact is that man CAN take away those rights through legislation, even if they were God given, it we let them. Admittedly, I am not the most religious man, but I find it to be that a person cannot simply rely on God to protect these “natural” rights, we must do it ourselves or we will lose them to a government which has no idea what the concept of natural rights means.
As Steve has said, this is an interesting topic.
Most of you know I am a strong believer if God. I believe God gave us certain rights when He created us. Even though He is all-powerful and all-knowing, He gave us the free will to decide our path for ourselves. Wouldn’t that be considered a natural right? I think it would and I have to agree with Silverfiddle, in that the ideas that our rights are God-given and natural are not mutually exclusive.
Jack, you are using an argument that I have used with atheists that trounce Natural Rights by saying that God does not exist. My point for them is that by virtue of the fact that we are sentient beings, we have Natural Rights. They are inherent in our species. Of course, they cursed at me and changed the subject, but I took that as proof of victory.
As for me, they are derived from God. But in either belief system, they are inalienable, and cannot be taken by government.
Agreed.
Well, Matt, they ARE taken by Governments around the world. As the Stoics said, your body might be in chains but your mind is FREE.
I see no problem saying because we are sentient we are born with these “rights.”
That is true Harrison, but standing up to tyrannical governments is OUR job. We can’t expect any government to respect our rights, as power is it’s own reward.
I agree with you (of course) but I guess it all goes back to what people are entitled to have from birth in order to show their government is dishonest and corrupt.
Very good points from all of you, but perhaps we should define what a right is. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines it:
Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.
A being that is able to think freely is entitled to think freely, just as a being that requires food to survive is entitled to feed himself. If there were no God, if all of this was random happenstance, then would free-thinking individuals no longer be entitled to think freely?
A right is not the action itself, but rather the entitlement to the act. So when I say that rights cannot be taken away, I simply mean that our entitlement to certain things cannot be taken away. Someone might stop us from fulfilling our rights, but that does not take away the right itself, the entitlement that is due to a human being. That’s why Jefferson and the founders used the word “infringe.” The British government didn’t take away their rights, they infringed upon them.
What if there is an alien race out there somewhere. A race of beings who are able to think freely and make claims on the world. They might not have been created directly by God, so does that mean they would not have natural rights? Ought not all beings that can think freely have the right to do so?
If you insist that I argue on a theological basis then I will. God created all things, probably not in the way that the Bible tells it, but in whatever way an omnipotent being could do such a thing. The universe, our existence, has certain charicteristics about it that are inherent in the design. The qualities of creation are based on the laws of the universe, of existence. We don’t believe that God creates every single thing in existence, do we? Of course not. So that means that there are certain things that God did not directly create that still have inherent qualities. God did not bestow the quality of the hardness of diamonds, because diamonds likely didn’t exist in the beginning, and God likely didn’t specifically create diamonds.
No, diamonds are a result of the laws of physics, and diamonds, though not directly created by God, are inherently extremely hard. It follows then, that all physical beings have inherent characteristics. Natural rights are characterstics inherent in humans, and it’s because of what we are that we have them, not because God said so. If God had said in the beginning that “human beings have no rights,” then I would have to respectfully disagree with Him.
My intent is not to be contradictory or antagonistic towards your thoughts or your opinions, but I do wonder alot as to why people say the things they do. I learned at an early age if I don’t ask “why do you say that” I will naturally not understand the unstated premises behind how people think. Do I claim the natural right to question you and others? Nope. If you don’t respond with answers, explanations and or clarifications then it would be a one sided transaction whereby my right to question remained unfufilled and therefore I would have to conclude I did not have the natural right to question, you or others, and expect the entitlement of my satisfaction.
In a black and white sort of way, I don’t normally find it in my nature to think about what are my rights are unless they are expressed in a contractually and mutually beneficial agreement. If it is expressly stated that I am allowed to express my right to a specific endeavor, action or want from another individual or circumstance, then by all means I can claim and act according to the entitlement (reward?) that it affords me. This is the fundamental premise I hope you will receive from this transaction.
From what I have read into the above comment, “A right is not the action itself, but rather the entitlement to the act.” I figger I gottsa right to say sumptin only iffen I admit I am not entitled to expect a response. Fair enuff?
Therefore I contractually agree it is your right to ignore me and that would be your entitlement to do so.
First point of clarification I ask for you to address would be as to the context of this statement,
“A being that is able to think freely is entitled to think freely,”
What about all the drug babies, down syndrome children and all the other conditions that children are born within that put them outside of the natural thinking norms? Do they not think freely? Do they have the right to think the way they do? From what I have experienced and seen, they don’t have that right even tho they think freely in the realms they do. They simply don’t think according to the norms of commonly accepted societal agreements and therefore they are only entitled to being taken care of or dismissed irregardless of how they think. If free thinking is a natural right then why are not all human creatures afforded the right to free thinking no matter of how they think?
Questioning for other points of clarification on how you freely think are contingent upon whether I am entitled to a response thereby affirming that I had the right to ask you to clarify in the first place.
If you ask a quesiton you are indeed entitled to an answer.
To be honest I’m not sure how to fit all this with the mentally handicapped. If they are able to think freely, then no one should impede their thought and expression so long as it does not hurt themselves or others.
The ability to think freely, however, is not a right but rather a trait. Other animals and beasts simply do not have the capacity to think freely, so how could they be entitled to something that they’re not capable of?
Thank you for the response, it is greatly appreciated. Hope you don’t mind me exerting my right to git some sleep and seek further fulfillment tomorrow in the continuing exploration of why people think why they do.
The problem with this view is that some other animals should have rights too since they have limited future planning capabilities and symbol manipulation capabilities (reason) albeit more limited then us. Do they “have” rights?
Regarding
…
What is the nature of an entitlement? I don’t deny that entitlements exist, but they always come from somewhere, and can be found somewhere. Back in the day my college roomate used the best phrase I’ve ever heard to describe what exists… “it has to be able to be found in reality.” It doesn’t matter what something is, but it needs to have a representation – it needs to be “somewhere” in the information structure of reality to have an effect and be said to exist.
Where are entitlements stored? I can see no possibility but in the minds of others – in the chemicals and neural connections. If that is true, can those chemicals and neural connections be changed under the control (conscious or otherwise) of the person who’s using the brain to such a point that they no longer represent an entitlement? If so, then the entitlement would have no representation – could not be found in reality – and would not exist. Thus entitlements CAN be taken away by others.
The problem is black and white thinking – universality, inalienableness, and timelessness. I see rights as respect and they are much more contextual. A repects B enough to refrain from some action, C does not. B has rights in the context of A, not in the context of C.
You bring up a good point, and one that I’ve been wrestling with for some time now: the nature of existence. To that I have 2 points to raise.
First is Descartes idea of existence, and the fact that things can exist fictitiously, i.e. some things can exist only in the mind. Ideas, fictional characters, etc.. Although they don’t have a physical existence, because they are thought about, they exist, or have existed fictitiously.
Secondly, ideas and thoughts are technically stored in the brain as electrical impulses. Does computer data not exist simply because it’s only real representation in this world is via electrical impulses?
As a barrister, “natural rights” for me is the net result of what is acceptable in society from its history and its aspirations. As a Catholic, they are based on God’s Commandments. In fact, I suspect they are both, because the history and aspirations of all of us are almost totally if not completely based upon the principles of our faith.
Imagine… A right is the ultimate fiction, nothing more than an abstract idea propagated by men along with “the law” to control men and induce them to act in a certain way within a society. There are no rights in the natural world, only constant struggle. You are not endowed by your creator not with rights, but only your five senses and various characteristics such as speed, agility, endurance, and intellect to assist you in that struggle. Life exists only as long as you can successfully use those senses and apply those characteristics in struggle to avoid or escape conflict with anything bigger and badder with a compulsion or desire to deprive you of it.
The Constitution is nothing more than a pact between men to collaborate in a group effort to protect each other’s lives, liberty and property from those forces, both foreign and domestic, wishing to deprive them.
So since there are no such things as natural rights, you’d be okay if the government were to take your property from you arbitrarily?
You would also be okay with the government imprisoning you to prevent you from expressing your opinions?
You mut also, then, be okay with genocide, yes?
How about if you consider it again within the context of your original post along with your view of Ron Paul’s stance on drugs, perhaps you can answer those questions as to what I’d “be okay with” as well as better understanding of what you are okay with?
Obviously you’re not okay with those things, and that’s the point. If you believe that natural rights are compeltely made up and don’t exist, then you wouldn’t be able to believe that the government is wrong to seize property, as property rights are just made up and can therefore can be taken away.
But we know that natural rights exist because there are certain things we feel entitled to. We’re able to say the government is wrong to arbitrarily seize our property because we have a right to acquire and retain property.
If you believe natural rights are a false or man-made construct, then you would logically have to be okay with man ending said construct.
But if you believe that things like murder, illegal search and seizure, and the supression of free thought and expression are generally bad, then you have to believe that we retain certain entitlements inherent to our nature as human beings.
You’re right about what a Constitution is, that it’s an agreement that there will be a grand arbiter in the struggle we call life, but rights are not derived from said Constitution. The Constitution, as you mentioned, is merely there to help us protect them.
If I may also submit. An intriging parallel can be drawn between the concept of rights and the struggle and interactions between the federal and state governments and the people with the Battle at Kruger. I think you may appreciate this:
Frank, reminds me of the definition of democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. (Or three nonsmokers and a smoker deciding where to increase taxes.)
- MJM
Trackbacks: