The Natural Right of Natural Right

NOS4A2

I think it was Hugo Grotius who commodified natural rights, making them transferable, things to give and receive. But the idea that man is endowed with any rights at all, inalienable or otherwise, is certainly wrong. One can search among his possessions and never find anything of the sort. Everything about my supposed rights depends entirely on the will of those who offered them to me, whether they will uphold or violate them. But they are prone to renege.

I wager that these and other facts caused someone like Bentham to scoff at the idea of natural rights, which he famously said were nonsense on stilts. There are no such things. According to Bentham, all we have, and all we can have, are the piddling legal rights afforded to us by government.

That man is no rights holder ought to convince the natural lawyer to ditch the metaphor of nature or god as legislator and start back at the beginning. Square one: only man can legislate. Only man can confer rights. Man is not a rights holder. Rather, he is a rights giver.

But none of this should lead the natural lawyer to accept an equally absurd idea, that only man in his official form can confer rights. Who gave them this seemingly divine right? Some appeal to tradition might satisfy the positivists.

For the natural lawyer, though, all he can do is what he is prone to do: deduce from the sensible world some abstract notion of human nature and apply it across the board. Surveying the field, it appears that anyone can afford another a “right”. Any man can make a sort of promise, a speech act, and offer to another a sum of behaviours and activities the latter is allowed to perform without the former intervening. He can guide all subsequent behaviors to respect this promise. Insofar as the natural rights of the individual are “coextensive with his desires and power”, as Spinoza said—and since these desires and powers are present in all men—it is man’s natural right to legislate, to confer rights to another man, and to do so with zero regard to his official status. The question left over is whether he ought to do so and what rights he should offer. So far Natural Law has outdone Positive Law in providing us with an answer.

Isaac

One can search among his possessions and never find anything of the sort. Everything about my supposed rights depends entirely on the will of those who offered them to me — NOS4A2

I'm not a fan of natural rights, but this argument is ludicrous. One can no less easily "search among his possessions" and find no such thing as his 'will' either.

If you're going to invoke a punishingly strict materialism with regard to vague human concepts, you can't introduce in the same breath 'the will'. I mean, where's that among my possessions?

NOS4A2

↪Isaac

Willing is an action performed by a thing and not itself a thing. I’m not trying to suggest these people carry with them things called “wills”.

Isaac

Willing is an action performed by a thing — NOS4A2

It's not a question of the type of thing it is, it's the fact that the existence of such an 'action' is evidenced by nothing more than that you feel like you have such a thing (or in this case, feel like you've done such a thing).

If you're prepared to accept nothing more than the way something feels to you as evidence for its existence, then one who 'feels like' they have a natural right has precisely the same quality of evidence for its existence.

NOS4A2

↪Isaac

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Perhaps this is because you suspiciously left out the rest of the argument, for some reason terminating it where it cannot be terminated, leaving out clauses which clarified what I meant. When I said that “everything about my supposed rights depends entirely on the will of those who offered them to me”, I meant whether they will uphold or violate the rights that I supposedly have, as is obvious by what I said.

Isaac

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. — NOS4A2

I wasn't particularly anticipating you would.

NOS4A2

↪Isaac

I was anticipating the straw-men, quoting out of context, and quibbling. I guess there is no profit in good faith.

frank

↪NOS4A2

The idea of natural rights goes back to the Roman Stoics. It's that nature rewards those who adhere to its ways. Those who pit themselves against nature diminish themselves. The same is true of a society. It's in the nature of a society to protect and nurture its members. If it doesn't do that, it will become sick and potentially pass away.

For the Romans, evil and disease were similar. Health and goodness were the same thing. So it's not that you possess some magical entity, it's just that in order to thrive, you and your society must grow toward the light, so to speak.

Whatever you may think of the idea, it has served humanity well and has become part of the contemporary global worldview. It doesn't appear to be going anywhere, so get used to it?

NOS4A2

↪frank

I believe in natural rights and natural law. I just don’t think we’re born with them. The opposite is the case. They must first be granted and defended.

frank

believe in natural rights and natural law. I just don’t think we’re born with them. The opposite is the case. They must first be granted and defended. — NOS4A2

You're thinking of civil rights.

NOS4A2

↪frank

I think civil rights would fall under legal rights.

frank

think civil rights would fall under legal rights — NOS4A2

Civil rights require a government that is divided against itself so that one portion of the government can defend citizens from mistreatment by the other part.

Natural rights are believed to transcend any government:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Declaring their rights to be natural was a strike against the idea that all God given rights flow through a monarch. "God given" and 'natural' mean pretty much the same thing.

T Clark

But the idea that man is endowed with any rights at all, inalienable or otherwise, is certainly wrong. — NOS4A2

That man is no rights holder ought to convince the natural lawyer to ditch the metaphor of nature or god as legislator and start back at the beginning. Square one: only man can legislate. Only man can confer rights. Man is not a rights holder. Rather, he is a rights giver. — NOS4A2

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. — US Declaration of Independence

I think your statements that I quoted are completely right and completely wrong. It's true that rights don't enforce themselves. They are not built into the superstructure of the universe like the second law of thermodynamics. But they are built into the moral foundation of our human nature. Saying that certain human rights are unalienable is a statement of human value. It's also a commitment to stand behind those rights for everyone. In order to be fully human, we have to stand up for each other.

javi2541997

You're thinking of civil rights — frank

I think civil rights would fall under legal rights. — NOS4A2

Natural rights are believed to transcend any government: — frank

The notion of rights is blur. A vicious discourse is always encouraged to promulgate laws without any limitation. Falsely, many people tend to think that more laws on civil rights, more democratic the state. When it is based in other criteria: Obligations and responsibilities.
To be honest, the only real "natural right" is private property and even it is controlled and kidnapped by gubernamental interests.

Sometimes, I think the law makers tend to rule fraudulently with the basic aim to keep us in their selfishness. But hey, look at how many "rights" we have while the government forces me to pay taxes just because I hold a basic ownership.

NOS4A2

↪T Clark

I like what you said there. Though I do not agree that they are built in to any nature, human or otherwise, they are definitely reasoned from observing human nature.

But I maintain that Natural Rights, like any right, exists only in the heads and mouths of those who are willing to confer them. He observes and reasons about human nature, derives from it a sum of acceptable behaviors, confers the right to perform these behaviors to all people, and endorses and defends them thereby. The whole project of human rights is dependent upon the rights giver, which as already intimated, is everyone.

The more and more people believe in natural law, take it upon themselves to confer rights, the more and more we have natural rights. The less and less people do this, the less and less we have natural rights. At any rate, as soon as the natural lawyer disappears or otherwise stops conferring those rights, the rights are no longer conferred. We’ve seen this happen for instance in Germany where legal positivism became the handmaiden to Hitler’s power. Had there been some natural lawyers there I wager it would be a different story.

NOS4A2

↪frank

That’s right. The distinction is between so-called natural and positive law. In my mind positive law is circular and dangerous. But natural law is often seen as silly and superstitious, sometimes rightfully so.

Bentham believed a belief in natural rights would lead to anarchy because they contradict the very idea of government. I think he’s right on that.

frank

Bentham believed a belief in natural rights would lead to anarchy because they contradict the very idea of government. I think he’s right on that. — NOS4A2

Do you know of any cases of that?

frank

But hey, look at how many "rights" we have while the government forces me to pay taxes just because I hold a basic ownership. — javi2541997

Death and taxes, man. :smile:

Metaphysician Undercover

Only man can confer rights. Man is not a rights holder. Rather, he is a rights giver. — NOS4A2

This is an incorrect representation of "rights". A right is an equality, therefore a balance. You portray it as something which is completely dependent on the act of giving, thereby denying the balancing part which is the act of taking. So that aspect, whereby human beings assert their rights, claim their rights, and thereby take their rights, you deny by saying "man is not a rights holder". In reality there is a balance between people claiming "these are my rights" and standing up for that, which is a matter of taking, and people saying "those are your rights", allowing you specific unimpeded actions, which is a matter giving.

Unless you portray "rights" as a form of equality, or balance, whether it is "natural rights" or whatever, which you are portraying, it is not a correct portrayal. But since you are portraying rights as something given by human beings, you are not portraying "natural rights" anyway, and the op is improperly named.

T Clark

But I maintain that Natural Rights, like any right, exists only in the heads and mouths of those who are willing to confer them. He observes and reasons about human nature, derives from it a sum of acceptable behaviors, confers the right to perform these behaviors to all people, and endorses and defends them thereby. The whole project of human rights is dependent upon the rights giver, which as already intimated, is everyone. — NOS4A2

I don't disagree with this, but I would put the emphasis differently. Yours is on the tentative nature of rights, their conditionality. Mine is on my judgement that the only way to proceed morally is to act as if it were true. Philosophers do that all the time.

The more and more people believe in natural law, take it upon themselves to confer rights, the more and more we have natural rights. The less and less people do this, the less and less we have natural rights. At any rate, as soon as the natural lawyer disappears or otherwise stops conferring those rights, the rights are no longer conferred. We’ve seen this happen for instance in Germany where legal positivism became the handmaiden to Hitler’s power. Had there been some natural lawyers there I wager it would be a different story. — NOS4A2

Again, a difference in emphasis. It's important that we are committed to the fact that rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be violated, but they can't be taken away.

NOS4A2

↪Metaphysician Undercover

I have portrayed natural rights as not existing. The behavior of granting rights, natural or otherwise, can exist, as I have already explained.

If the slave can claim his right to freedom, or in the case of natural rights, already has it, why is he in chains? If he can take the right or already has the right, no one needn’t afford it to him, and we can just go on with our day without intervening. In any case, when it comes to asserting rights, the slaver’s right to own the slave has won out over the slave’s right to freedom.

Your so-called balance and equality is might makes right. The slaver has the right to own the slave so long as he can claim and take the right. The slave has the right to freedom so long as he can claim the right and make an exit.

NOS4A2

↪frank

Do you know of any cases of that?

I’m sure of it in my own case. With each passing day I get closer to it. Lysander Spooner is another.

NOS4A2

↪T Clark

I don't disagree with this, but I would put the emphasis differently. Yours is on the tentative nature of rights, their conditionality. Mine is on my judgement that the only way to proceed morally is to act as if it were true. Philosophers do that all the time.

I’m with you on this. My concern is that the whole thing opens itself to a withering criticism, for instance Bentham’s critique. The project of natural law was never the same since then and with devastating consequences. Perhaps there is a way to reestablish it on better footing.

frank

I’m sure of it in my own case. — NOS4A2

Do you feel like throwing hand grenades into the Haymarket?

Fooloso4

But the idea that man is endowed with any rights at all, inalienable or otherwise, is certainly wrong. — NOS4A2

There is a distinction between classical and modern natural rights theories. Fundamental to classical natural rights is duty and obligations to others. Classical natural rights did not include the concept of individual rights. Modern natural rights theories are unnatural in that man is by nature a social or political animal, Liberalism's "state of nature" is a fiction.

Everything about my supposed rights depends entirely on the will of those who offered them to me ... — NOS4A2

I suggest you have it backwards. It is not a question of what is given but the problem of what can be taken.The fact that someone can take your life does not mean that you do not have a right to live. The violation of a right does not mean that a right does not exist.

Only man can confer rights. — NOS4A2

If man can confer rights then man can deny rights. Is the choice to do one or the other arbitrary? Is it no more right than wrong to do one or the other?

Metaphysician Undercover

If the slave can claim his right to freedom, or in the case of natural rights, already has it, why is he in chains? — NOS4A2

Some people don't respect the claims that others make. That does not mean that the person is wrong. So if the slaver does not respect the claim of the slave to have a right to freedom, this does not make the slave wrong about this claim.

In any case, when it comes to asserting rights, the slaver’s right to own the slave has won out over the slave’s right to freedom. — NOS4A2

Again this does not hold up logically. That something is done in a particular way, does not produce the conclusion that it is the right way. One's actions do not necessarily display one's rights. If a person lives one's life as a thief, and gets away with it, this does not mean that the person has the right to live that way.

Your so-called balance and equality is might makes right. The slaver has the right to own the slave so long as he can claim and take the right. The slave has the right to freedom so long as he can claim the right and make an exit. — NOS4A2

Oh, so now you change your tune! You said rights had to be given. I said what is given had to be balanced with what is taken. Now you say rights are taken. Which do you really believe? Or do you really believe like me, that rights are a balance between the two?

T Clark

I’m with you on this. My concern is that the whole thing opens itself to a withering criticism, for instance Bentham’s critique. The project of natural law was never the same since then and with devastating consequences. Perhaps there is a way to reestablish it on better footing. — NOS4A2

When I read your OP, I wanted to push back strongly against the idea that human rights are somehow dispensable, avoidable. That's what my posts in this thread have been about up to this point. I acknowledge I am making a moral judgement. As I noted previously, human rights are not physical properties of the universe. They represent human action and I would say human nature. Rights are commitments, not laws. We act as if they are laws of nature because they are central to our humanity.

I'm not sure why, but Robert Frost's poem "The Black Cottage" came to mind. Here's an excerpt:

For, dear me, why abandon a belief
Merely because it ceases to be true.
Cling to it long enough, and not a doubt
It will turn true again, for so it goes.
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favour.
As I sit here, and oftentimes, I wish
I could be monarch of a desert land
I could devote and dedicate forever
To the truths we keep coming back and back to.
So desert it would have to be, so walled
By mountain ranges half in summer snow,
No one would covet it or think it worth
The pains of conquering to force change on.
Scattered oases where men dwelt, but mostly
Sand dunes held loosely in tamarisk
Blown over and over themselves in idleness.
Sand grains should sugar in the natal dew
The babe born to the desert, the sand storm
Retard mid-waste my cowering caravans- — Robert Frost - The Black Cottage

Tom Storm

— Robert Frost - The Black Cottage — T Clark

That's good! Thanks.

T Clark

I’m with you on this. My concern is that the whole thing opens itself to a withering criticism, for instance Bentham’s critique. The project of natural law was never the same since then and with devastating consequences. Perhaps there is a way to reestablish it on better footing. — NOS4A2

Another poem came to mind. This is an excerpt from "As If" by Carl Dennis.

No strollers out on the street today are required
To believe all men created equal, all endowed
By their creator with certain rights,
As long as they behave as if they do,
As if they believe the country would be better off
If more people do likewise, that acting this way
May help their fellow Americans better pursue
The happiness your housemate believes she's pursuing
Sharing her house with you, that the fisherman
Wants to believe he's found in fishing. — Carl Dennis - As If

Ciceronianus

"Natural rights", to the extent they're not legal rights, are what people wish were legal rights. In other words, they wish they were recognized and enforceable within a system of laws we make. Otherwise, they're merely what we think we should be allowed to do without hinderance and without being subject to penalty.

NOS4A2

↪Ciceronianus

If they were recognized and enforceable within a particular legal system then they would be limited by jurisdiction. Natural rights are supposed to be universal, but there is no universal legal system. In any case, natural rights are supposed to precede and transcend legal systems.

The Natural Right of Natural Right

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions