Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is there such a thing as an unalienable right? Or passing that, a natural right? Before the big three get dropped in here, I turn the floor to LtCol Jean Dubois...

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

And yet on some level I disagree, you don't have a right to life, but by evolution and natural law you have the right to preserve your own life by whatever means necessary wouldn't you say?

So are rights something we create, or is there a subset of those rights that simply ARE?

When I was young i would have said "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Now I ask, does it matter? Good, bad, I'm the guy with the thunderstick.

Or as someone once said
"As always Caesar, your word will be law."
"Just keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."

Rights are a manmade construct, so, no.

Rights, inalienable or otherwise, depend on the culture and society in question. Ask three different people in three different countries and you may get varied answers.

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

Oh RObert Heinlein, you were so much more ornery when you were young

You have the right to disco. If you cannot afford platform shoes, platform shoes will be provided for you.

I think there is only ONE natural right of any kind and that is the right to preserve your life by all means nessecary. This is the only human right derived from the natural state of a human being, and modernly expresses itself as the modern right of self defense.

I think you'll find we can take that away from people as well.
Rights are alienable. Rights can be taken away.
IMO it is the sign of a good and working society that treats everyone as equals. An even better society is one that shows respect to everyone and allows people to get on with their lives unless they are hurting someone else.

Rights are artificial, instinct is natural. Our natural instinct is to survive and reciprocate. Rights are civilizations way of improving those odds.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think there is only ONE natural right of any kind and that is the right to preserve your life by all means nessecary. This is the only human right derived from the natural state of a human being, and modernly expresses itself as the modern right of self defense.

That right applies to any life form ever because you basically have the right to preserve your life by the fact that you are alive. Nature clearly shows us the error of this.

Rigts are also selectively applied.

All men are equal, no they are not, not even in nations which enshrine those principles.

Rights are all well and good as an internal moral code, but they are something to apply casually because at the global scale claims outstrip resources and men are greedy.

I think that the commenters so far have made a small, but impactful mistake when thinking about this particular subject.

A rights inalienability does not equal a rights "inviolability." What I mean is the self-evident possession of the right to life, for example, does not mean a person cannot then turn around (or even a natural event) take said life. It does mean that in the conscious taking of that life, by another moral agent, is in fact a violation. This violation is therefore a moral action, which requires moral reparation.

Now we delve into the right to liberty. I believe that this naturally flows from a self-evident right to life. If one has the right to live, then one must have a right to govern how that life is lived ( I will qualify that by stating that the founding fathers of the U.S. thought that this system of government would fail utterly if the governed/ers were not moral, God fearing people). The two rights go hand in hand with right to life leading the way as the foundational premise. Yet again we have a natural flow directly to the 3rd, and final inalienable right, namely, the pursuit of happiness; If one has a right to life and the right to self-govern that life, then the right to add to that self-governed life quality and comfort must be possessed as well.

I feel this line of thinking is an extremely coherent way to understand why the framers designed our constitution the way they did. Because expecting a group of people, who adhere to a judeo-christian moral normative, sets up a de-facto behavioral boundary within which the governed could be free to act. Which means that certain basic assumptions on social interaction and personal behavior, within which the framers proceeded are required for a satisfactory performance of the system they created. I.E. when the governed begin to disagree or make exceptions to, one of those key, foundational premises, the system gets unstable: For example, if you don't feel someone has a right to life, then there should be no compunction to respect it. You are then free to take that life, destroy its quality, or oppress it to your advantage at will; All the while feeling no more guilt than if you had chosen your perspective meal at noon.

TL/DNR? A right being obvious and inherent =/= inability to violate it, the Founding fathers of the US designed our constitution assuming the governing governed Americans would hold to a common moral normative, an assumption that is no longer, if it has ever been, relevant to the US

 Frazzled wrote:
You have the right to disco. If you cannot afford platform shoes, platform shoes will be provided for you.

Can that be a new constitutional amendment?

^^ Well said!

The right to life does not mean you will live forever. The fact that you can be killed by accident, old age, or on purpose, does not invalidate your right to life.

The argument could be made that the instinctive desire not to be killed or oppressed, combined with empathy for others and thus a desire to extend the rights to them, flows from human thought, which is an inborn or instinctive capacity. Therefore all human rights are rooted in the natural order of creation.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
I think that the commenters so far have made a small, but impactful mistake when thinking about this particular subject.

A rights inalienability does not equal a rights "inviolability." What I mean is the self-evident possession of the right to life, for example, does not mean a person cannot then turn around (or even a natural event) take said life. It does mean that in the conscious taking of that life, by another moral agent, is in fact a violation. This violation is therefore a moral action, which requires moral reparation.

Now we delve into the right to liberty. I believe that this naturally flows from a self-evident right to life. If one has the right to live, then one must have a right to govern how that life is lived ( I will qualify that by stating that the founding fathers of the U.S. thought that this system of government would fail utterly if the governed/ers were not moral, God fearing people). The two rights go hand in hand with right to life leading the way as the foundational premise. Yet again we have a natural flow directly to the 3rd, and final inalienable right, namely, the pursuit of happiness; If one has a right to life and the right to self-govern that life, then the right to add to that self-governed life quality and comfort must be possessed as well.

I believe this charming definition is a reasonable summation of why gay marriage should be legalised.
Not to go too off-topic. Sorry everyone

I was under the assumption that ‘natural’ rights are ones that a person automatically has by virtue of simply existing as opposed to right that are granted you by a legal system.

For example the right to reproduce is derived from possession of the functioning bodily parts, and a willing partner who also is in possession of the functioning bodily parts. It’s not something that a system of government has to grant to you or can take away from you. You either can reproduce or you can’t. It’s therefore classifiable as a natural right.

Okay is the right to do something the ability to do something?
It would seem that rights have more to do with moral and social norms than anything else.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I was under the assumption that ‘natural’ rights are ones that a person automatically has by virtue of simply existing as opposed to right that are granted you by a legal system.

For example the right to reproduce is derived from possession of the functioning bodily parts, and a willing partner who also is in possession of the functioning bodily parts. It’s not something that a system of government has to grant to you or can take away from you. You either can reproduce or you can’t. It’s therefore classifiable as a natural right.

What if the government decided to sterilise you?

All men and animals are equal from the natural standpoint. What those equals choose to do with their equality, and how that affects and adjusts their equality is artificial. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

In terms of natural rights, I'd say that all living things have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness enshrines the basics pretty well, what it doesn't mention (and the popular misconception) is that those things are not guaranteed nor protected, they are simply basic rights, and in the pursuit of those rights you have the right to defend them as you see fit, and likewise others have the right to infringe upon them in the pursuit of their own natural rights if you do not yourself have the means to defend them.

So, to put it in the perspective of Killkrazys last post, the Government (as a collective whole) does indedd have the right to sterilize you, just as you have the right to fight back against that infringement on your right, whether or not you choose to do so is a different matter altogether, one which ties into the concept of a 'social contract'.

they are rights,

not guarantees.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think there is only ONE natural right of any kind and that is the right to preserve your life by all means nessecary. This is the only human right derived from the natural state of a human being, and modernly expresses itself as the modern right of self defense.

Doesn't that go back to the cannibal thing though? If you both have the rights to preserve your life by all means necessary then you both have the right to kill each other for food and the right to kill the other one to keep him from killing you. So which killer is in the right?

they are both in the right.

there can only be one that gets to enjoy his right, but as I said, they are rights, not guarantees.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Rights, inalienable or otherwise, depend on the culture and society in question. Ask three different people in three different countries and you may get varied answers.

Basically this^^

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think there is only ONE natural right of any kind and that is the right to preserve your life by all means nessecary. This is the only human right derived from the natural state of a human being, and modernly expresses itself as the modern right of self defense.

Doesn't that go back to the cannibal thing though? If you both have the rights to preserve your life by all means necessary then you both have the right to kill each other for food and the right to kill the other one to keep him from killing you. So which killer is in the right?

You're thinking in absolutes...

The human social dynamics is often very murky... and it's usually left to the victors who determines what is "right".

To reiterateand reinforce what others have said: rights are an artificial construct created by humanity.

Nature really only gives us the "right" to defend ourselves against peril/death by any means necessary. Society then limits that "right" by putting limitations and stipulations on it.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think there is only ONE natural right of any kind and that is the right to preserve your life by all means nessecary. This is the only human right derived from the natural state of a human being, and modernly expresses itself as the modern right of self defense.

Doesn't that go back to the cannibal thing though? If you both have the rights to preserve your life by all means necessary then you both have the right to kill each other for food and the right to kill the other one to keep him from killing you. So which killer is in the right?

You're thinking in absolutes...

The human social dynamics is often very murky... and it's usually left to the victors who determines what is "right".

Well, but there are difference between "a right" and "what's right".

I have the right to keep my money in my pockets and watch a man starve to death instead of buying him food. But that doesn't make it right.

The rights of one person will always somehow infringe on the rights of another. And often a person will choose to give up one of their rights in order to do what is right.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think there is only ONE natural right of any kind and that is the right to preserve your life by all means nessecary. This is the only human right derived from the natural state of a human being, and modernly expresses itself as the modern right of self defense.

Doesn't that go back to the cannibal thing though? If you both have the rights to preserve your life by all means necessary then you both have the right to kill each other for food and the right to kill the other one to keep him from killing you. So which killer is in the right?

You're thinking in absolutes...

The human social dynamics is often very murky... and it's usually left to the victors who determines what is "right".

Well, but there are difference between "a right" and "what's right".

Yep.

I have the right to keep my money in my pockets and watch a man starve to death instead of buying him food. But that doesn't make it right.

First off... I agree with you here...

BUT, for the sake of argument... how do you know "that doesn't make it right"? Are you responsible to make sure that this man has food so that he doesn't starve? It's not so much that "it's the right thing to do", but more of "it's the good thing to do". I think there's a distinction there... no?

The rights of one person will always somehow infringe on the rights of another.

I don't agree with that premise.

Classic example... I'm protesting outside of the Supreme Court over the ACA... You're on the other side supporting the ACA efforts. We're both executing our own rights to protest. But, at no time we're infringing on each other.

And often a person will choose to give up one of their rights in order to do what is right.

Not quite sure what you exactly mean.... (not trying to purposely be dense here...). I'm guessing you're referring to things like the layers of regulation of buying guns with respect to 2nd amendment? Because the right thing here is to have some sensible regulation over purchasing guns. Right?

Not quite sure what you exactly mean.... (not trying to purposely be dense here...). I'm guessing you're referring to things like the layers of regulation of buying guns with respect to 2nd amendment? Because the right thing here is to have some sensible regulation over purchasing guns. Right?

A simple example is say, a private company giving up their right to keep their business private and releasing documents to the police to help in an investigation. I know we have stuff about police needing warrants, but companies do willfully help in investigations, even when they have every right not to.

A private citizen can do the same, inviting police into their home and giving them full permission to search it if they want to (these things just aren't necessarily the brightest of ideas, but you can totally do them).

 LordofHats wrote:

Not quite sure what you exactly mean.... (not trying to purposely be dense here...). I'm guessing you're referring to things like the layers of regulation of buying guns with respect to 2nd amendment? Because the right thing here is to have some sensible regulation over purchasing guns. Right?

A simple example is say, a private company giving up their right to keep their business private and releasing documents to the police to help in an investigation. I know we have stuff about police needing warrants, but companies do willfully help in investigations, even when they have every right not to.

A private citizen can do the same, inviting police into their home and giving them full permission to search it if they want to (these things just aren't necessarily the brightest of ideas, but you can totally do them).

Ah... gotcha! Thanks.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I have the right to keep my money in my pockets and watch a man starve to death instead of buying him food. But that doesn't make it right.

First off... I agree with you here...

BUT, for the sake of argument... how do you know "that doesn't make it right"? Are you responsible to make sure that this man has food so that he doesn't starve? It's not so much that "it's the right thing to do", but more of "it's the good thing for me to do". I think there's a distinction there... no?

Well, "the right thing to do" would be subjective and you would probably get a variety of answers from different groups just as you would with the "what are natural rights".

My argument would be more from the "Rights vs. Morals" side of things. By Right I can do what is best for me but morally it would be better to do whats good for the community. I have the right to stockpile lots of food and let it expire and then throw it in the trash, but the moral thing to do might be to donate everything that expires in a month to the local food pantry.

The rights of one person will always somehow infringe on the rights of another.

I don't agree with that premise.

Classic example... I'm protesting outside of the Supreme Court over the ACA... You're on the other side supporting the ACA efforts. We're both executing our own rights to protest. But, at no time we're infringing on each other.

But if we both yell then we don't allow neither side to talk. So both our rights end up infringing each other and canceling each other out (similar to the "we both have a right to guarantee our own survival, which would include killing each other" scenario).

And often a person will choose to give up one of their rights in order to do what is right.

Not quite sure what you exactly mean.... (not trying to purposely be dense here...). I'm guessing you're referring to things like the layers of regulation of buying guns with respect to 2nd amendment? Because the right thing here is to have some sensible regulation over purchasing guns. Right?

Well, I'm talking more along the line of the natural rights and not constitutional rights like speech or guns (although somebody might argue that guns are needed for the right to guarantee life).