Where do rights originate (Creator, evolution, Revelation, experience, scriptures)

[Pah]

In short, rights come from wrongs.

Alan, Dershowitz, Rights From Wrongs, A Secular Theory of the Origin of Rights, published by Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-0173-4

1. Rights do not come from God, because God does not speak to human beings in a single voice, and rights should exist even if there is no God.
2. Rights do not come from nature, because nature is value-neutral.
   
3. Rights do not come from logic, because there is little consensus about the a priori premises from which rights may be deduced.
   
4. Rights do not come from the law alone, because if they did, there would be no basis on which to judge a given legal system.
   
5. Rights come from human experience, particularly experience with injustice. We learn from the mistakes of history that a rights-based system and certain fundamental rights-such as freedom of expression, freedom of and from religion, equal protection of the laws, due process, and participatory democracy are essential to avoid repetition of the grievous injustices of the past. WorkIng from the bottom up from a dystopian view of our experiences rather than from the top down, from a utopian theory of perfect justice, we build rights on a foundation of trial, error, and our uniquely human ability to learn from our mistakes in order to avoid replicating them.

In a word, rights come from wrongs. The correctness of the first declaration is amply shown by the numerous interpretations of the Word of God, by the plethora of denominations that fracture the Abrabhamic religions, by the various scriptures present in the worship of the God of Abraham and by the various revelations of the word of God both in and outside of those scriptures.

Nature, in the second point, is evolution to be considered well prior to the development of of any human-like creature

If there can not be an agreed upon premise, logic will not avail the discussion.

Law, of course, has to be evaluated to see what rights are present. There is probably no code of law that encapsulates all rights

[Sunstone]

How does one rule out nature? There mere fact we are an organism that can think about such a thing as rights in the first place is an aspect of human nature. How can you possibly seperate a discussion of the origin of human rights from a discussion of human nature?

[FerventGodSeeker]

Where do rights originate

I agree with the Founding Fathers:

"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."

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

How does one rule out nature? There mere fact we are an organism that can think about such a thing as rights in the first place is an aspect of human nature. How can you possibly seperate a discussion of the origin of human rights from a discussion of human nature?

I think it is a distinction between human nature and nature itself. On one hand, it would seem that human nature understands the wrongs that humanity suffers and thus, rights are born to avoid the suffering. On the other hand, nature is considered to be the thrust of evolution.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

I agree with the Founding Fathers:

"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 would of necessity exclude the Abrahamic god. So in that respect, the first point is superfluous for the creator has not spoken at all. It is only when the Abrahamic god is named can we see that there is no complete voice or writing.

I'm afraid the lack of voice is just as disqualifing as divergent voices.

[FerventGodSeeker]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Pah

That would of necessity exclude the Abrahamic god.

How so? Last time I checked, the Abrahamic God was considered the Creator by those who believe in Him. Speaking of which, who in the world even brought up the Abrahamic God, anyways?

So in that respect, the first point is superfluous for the creator has not spoken at all. It is only when the Abrahamic god is named can we see that there is no complete voice or writing.

I'm afraid the lack of voice is just as disqualifing as divergent voices.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're saying here. It sounds almost as though you're claiming that it says "the Creator has endowed all men with rights," but it doesn't mean, "The Creator has endowed all men with rights," ? It's getting late, I'll have to pick this up tomorrow.

[Mister Emu]

Rights come from wrongs

Quaint.

Ultimately pointless.

[michel]

It is funny; when I saw the title of the thread, I thought you were asking posters for their opinions.

As it happens, I was poised to say pretty much what Alan, Dershowitz, makes in his book.

It is only when a perceived 'hurt' occurrs (and is repeated) that we draw up regulations to stop the perpetrating of that hurt.

An extremely and apt case in point here is "Gay rights"; there would never have been a need for them had they not been denied.

[Pah]

[quote=FerventGodSeeker]

How so? Last time I checked, the Abrahamic God was considered the Creator by those who believe in Him. Speaking of which, who in the world even brought up the Abrahamic God, anyways?

Then, it seems you fail to differentiate between a god that created the world and left it to it's own (the deist's creator) and any of the names of the Abrahamic gods. In which case you've added a "mute" to the "speakers" If there are other gods than the Abrahamic god, it just goes to reinforce my point. Rights can not come from a god because there is more than one god.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're saying here. It sounds almost as though you're claiming that it says "the Creator has endowed all men with rights," but it doesn't mean, "The Creator has endowed all men with rights," ? It's getting late, I'll have to pick this up tomorrow.

That has never been the proposition.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Quaint.

Ultimately pointless.

I don't see a point here. Does that make your post pointless?