I'm divided on this subject because I understand all sides of the issue and feel a little bit of all of the above options to my poll question (which I will create shortly after I post this OP), as well as the opposing views. So, what describes your view the best as to why natural rights (usually defined essentially as property rights, as in owning your own body, giving rise to civil liberties, and things you've produced or been given, giving rise to other property rights) exist?
Natural rights exist because people recognize the reality that we all have only one life and should be free to live it. Unfortunately it's not that simple because not everyone realizes that and even if they do they don't always come to the 'life is precious' conclusion. That's really it though; it's an agreement between people.
Devil's Advocate (cool movie btw) time. What if someone doesn't think life is "precious", other than their own life? Or some other limited group of people?
A Right is a sanction to independent action which requires no agreement. Why should a disagreement over my action be sufficient cause to prevent me from acting?
I think all rights stem from the acknowledgment of ownership. A mutual understanding of what belongs to oneself and to others. I don't think your answers are mutually exclusive. Rights could stem from reciprocity as that is human instinct instilled in us by god. You could feel each of the first three answers are correct without conflict.
This may be a semantic argument, but factually, there are no natural human rights. You can stand in front of me and say you have a right to safety and security and I could punch you in the face. A starving African child could scream all he wants about right to life, health and food and then die of starvation. The closest thing that exists to a natural right is every person's right to do and think whatever they want to. The only way to take that right away would be to physically restrain a person and perform something akin to a lobotomy. Every other "right" can only be allowed through planning, use of resources and typically force.
That happens all the time. The problem with natural rights is they aren't really rights; they're an agreement. It's the same with all rights. The only rights you have are the rights you can enforce, be it enforced through yourself or others.
I would say 1, 2, and 3. I think it's a multi-faceted concept that is rooted in the logical, the spiritual, and the physical altogether.
So long as you're not harming others it shouldn't, and really the only thing preventing your action is your inability to back it up with force. Sad as it is we're still at "grunt don't like, grunt smash," it's just now we smash in different ways and have much, much, much larger groups of people to decide what we can and can't do.
You are missing the distinction between positive rights and negative natural rights. I agree that positive rights do not exist, but negative rights certainly do! Negative rights include freedom of speech, freedom from slavery, freedom of religion. Negative rights are inherent to your being and can only be violated by the actions of another. Positive rights would be things like healthcare, food, free hamburgers on tuesdays, etc. Positive rights are social obligations and have nothing to do with natural rights. Positive rights could be anything people have the audacity to demand.
This is a two-way street. The only limitation anyone can put on your natural rights is what they can physically impose upon you.
I kind of feel that I've started wrong, so let me restart here, and this is going to get a little weird. Your natural rights come from the natural state of the solo human. Place yourself on a deserted island. You have the right to do whatever you want. Want to climb that tree, go for it. Want to eat that fish, you can! Want to build a house out of building materials found by the state of California to cause cancer, who's to stop you! Now lets add another person. Now we have entered a new situation. You both have your natural rights to do whatever you want. You can both climb that tree, you can both eat that fish, you can both build that house out of building materials found by the state of California to cause cancer, well sort of. We enter the next stage or rights which is might wins. As much as we'd like to think we have rights to our property, our bodies, etc, we really don't. Lets take those two humans. By our law you can't enter that persons home, you can't take their stuff, you can't have sex with them, unless they allow you to do so. However that comes down to enforcement. Say Hulk Hogan is trapped on an island with a midget. He can sure as hell enter the midgets home, he can take the midgets things, and he can rape the midget without question. He has force. Now you start adding more people, and making more rules, and you over time secure and likely lose rights. So what does this all mean? Well it means natural rights do come from somewhere (the ability to do what you want) and are both limited and secured by force, this force coming from the majority. That means that a key factor is protecting your rights is force; just that basic and simple. How you obtain that force is another question, but the people with the most force will have their rights secured (and lost) better than those without. It's all pretty sad really.
Maybe you do not understand both sides. I would argue you do not, otherwise you would not need the opinions of others. Not trying to be a dick. Just curious.
Very true. You have the right to shoot up as much heroin as possible into yourself until you're caught.
