Natural Rights - thoughts?

[Radiantshadow]

(The idea is stolen from INTPforum.com and fragments of my own thoughts)

What rights do we deserve as human beings? Do we deserve anything aside from what we can earn ourselves? Are humans entitled to anything?

Personal thoughts:

1) In theory, humans have no intrinsic rights except the right to be human, which doesn't explain much given the massive amount of ambiguity in our behavior. Given one situation, there will always be a person disadvantaged somehow.

In practice, humans generally have the right to exert their influence in the direction deemed most profitable in their environment.

2) I don't think so; even as children, we "earn" affection and upbringing by our nature as a resource created by another human. We do not ask for the attachment, it is given to fulfill a sense of obligation and personal value instilled in the parent.

3) The right to exercise free will (I'd rather not turn this into a debate about free will vs. determinism if at all possible; my view is that being able to think about the same concept and have two people decide different things is a clear indication of the principle)

Because I generally fail at debating, I open the thread to whatever may come as long as it is related to the questions put forth above.

 

[Norton]

The problem with "natural rights" as a philosophical basis underlying a logically coherent system of human rights is embodied in the following question: What is natural?

 

[randomsomeone]

I think we have a right to a basic human dignity due to the fact that we are alive and are part of the human community. There is a right simply because we are. Now, many of us do not impart such dignity even to ourselves, nevermind others. Basically, we are "invited into" this dignity...it is our right and even our destiny.

 

[Bird]

Natural Rights Theory, huzzah.

To address your points:

2) A product of conditioning.

3) We are controlled in our rights in regard to free will.
-- Generally, as long as your "free will" does not infringe
upon another, it is societally acceptable.


Human rights are conditioned beliefs in order to help control
the empire that is humanity.

 

[Radiantshadow]

The problem with "natural rights" as a philosophical basis underlying a logically coherent system of human rights is embodied in the following question: What is natural?

Natural human functions: living and, given optimal situations, reproducing. The second part is where the waters are murky; different survival paths tend to clash with each other, which is followed by a relativism argument. The general idea seems to be "fit everyone we can under this mode of living to ensure continuity", which isn't a problem because 'fairness' seems a farce.

I'm reminded of something one of my high school teachers told me about literature and law today, "There is no right answer, only more logically sound arguments."

I think we have a right to a basic human dignity due to the fact that we are alive and are part of the human community. There is a right simply because we are. Now, many of us do not impart such dignity even to ourselves, nevermind others. Basically, we are "invited into" this dignity...it is our right and even our destiny.

What does "basic human dignity" entail?

Natural Rights Theory, huzzah.

To address your points:

2) A product of conditioning.

3) We are controlled in our rights in regard to free will.
-- Generally, as long as your "free will" does not infringe
upon another, it is societally acceptable.


Human rights are conditioned beliefs in order to help control
the empire that is humanity.

2) True. Complete independence seems optimal, following my perception of that logic. That is impractical, though, isn't it? We are not separate islands, but an ocean...the cumulative effect of a tsunami matters more than the impact of a single wave, which is where governing and 'fairness' (realistically impossible) come into effect. This leads me to your third point

3) Also true. How is prominence determined, then? All things are not created equal, usually the one with more influence will win. I should probably change "free will" into "freedom to choose from products of your environment".

I am woefully ignorant of ethics and economics/social theories, any recommendations for learning about this? Ignorance is not bliss when not allowed to eat and drink at the big kids' table.

 

[randomsomeone]

What does "basic human dignity" entail?

Essentially it is a type of profound respect. It might entail a respect for our human giftedness or for our essential freedom to determine a path in life. More deeply, it is a respect based on the Presence of the Divine (lots of wordings could be used to express this) within each of us although, for those who know, similar respect is to be afforded to all things in Creation, animate or not, seen or not. All contains an echo, a presence of the Divine and has a right to respect. The respect is an attitude that recognizes the presence of this inherent dignity.

What we do with this Reality is another matter, either towards others or within ourselves. All is designed with this respect/dignity in mind, but we often are not what we have been created to be. In this is the meaning of our existence.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Essentially it is a type of profound respect. It might entail a respect for our human giftedness or for our essential freedom to determine a path in life. More deeply, it is a respect based on the Presence of the Divine (lots of wordings could be used to express this) within each of us although, for those who know, similar respect is to be afforded to all things in Creation, animate or not, seen or not. All contains an echo, a presence of the Divine and has a right to respect. The respect is an attitude that recognizes the presence of this inherent dignity.

What we do with this Reality is another matter, either towards others or within ourselves. All is designed with this respect/dignity in mind, but we often are not what we have been created to be. In this is the meaning of our existence.

Respect for the "human experience" and existence of life for life's sake ('respect it or lose it')?

I understand that, if I read you right. But what happens if one is deprived freedom - should the one who is depriving be deprived themselves for abusing their influence (power, money, whatever)? What freedoms do we inherently "deserve"? How can this be accurately determined? It boils down to a value judgement, and people have different values.

The human race (organisms in general, really) is hinged on the idea of survival; if someone gets in the way of "my" surviving then the threat needs to be removed so I can continue the species regardless of how right it was, injustices are ultimately irrelevant if humans are gone. This clash of wills is what spawned proactive solutions like government. It's a good solution, but not the best - people still die unnaturally ("Natural" death causes: aging, natural disasters, diseases, insanity-related (suicides, for example), etc).

I am talking myself into redundancy at this point, I think. The first time one thinks about something seems to be the most painful.

 

[SpilledMilk]

[video=youtube;9ivYN-j--ao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ivYN-j--ao[/video]