-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fundamental or Natural Rights
- Thread starter Ayjaydee
- Start date
Augustus
…
Yes and no.
As bundles of atoms that developed sentience by chance then of course we do not have any natural rights or fundamental dignity.
We can make them up and construct a rationalising framework of secular mythology to present them as normative conventions of the society we want to live in though.
Ayjaydee
Active Member
But if granted by society, they can be removed by society?
Augustus
…
Arguably not by any given society if they become part of customary international law.
But, in general, I agree. We construct a mythology that aims to ground them on more solid foundations than contemporary cultural preference, but that doesn't make it true.
They don't actually exist, but it can benefit us if we pretend that they do.
Possibly. One could argue that whatever one has the physical capability of doing, one has the right to do it.
Ayjaydee
Active Member
Yes but I dont see that as a fundamental right as its conditional on his power vs others
I don't see how the existence or non-existence of a creator is relevant to that question.
Any right bestowed by another (e.g. a creator, if such a thing could even do it) is, by definition, not a natural right.
Ayjaydee
Active Member
So no natural rights. I agee
I didn't say that.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The Founders of the Republic made it clear that certain rights are unalienable BECAUSE they came from God.
Because atheists are a very vocal minority in no way changes this fact.
Of course, there has always been those who believe that if they can undermine this fact, they can contrive a government that decides what rights the people have. Assuming it will be their government, they can eradicate a whole plethora of things they disagree with, and the people who claim these rights.
It won't work. Ask hitler, or stalin.
Augustus
…
Not if the definition in question is the conventional understanding of the term 'natural right'
All governments decide what rights its citizens have, not just Nazis and Communists. Those that think a deity granted the rights just decide which rights they think were granted by said deity. And if your government decides that you don't have a right, or that a deity didn't give you that right, guess what? For all intents and purposes, in that society, you don't have it.
Could someone catch me up on what "natural rights" are? I mean, are there any other kind? Certainly we don't have "supernatural rights?" Or "unnatural rights?"
Natural - one of the most useless words in the dictionary.
Natural - one of the most useless words in the dictionary.
Augustus
…
Universal rights which exist for reasons other than cultural convention. A bit like the idea of 'objective' morality.
Rights that are not 'natural' would be those which are culturally specific or exist only by virtue of a legal code.
What rights are you given by a creator?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The fact that a government interferes with your God given right in no way eliminates it.
It exists, and cannot be revoked.
Unborn babies have the right to life, the fact that they are daily slaughtered does not change that fact.
Having a right, and not being able to exercise it are not the same thing.
So... this would basically be another way of saying "laws of nature?" Things that are not human cultural constructs? That doesn't leave much considering our ethics/morals are almost entirely constructed. It also means a "creator" definitely isn't needed for them, as a "creator" is not needed to explain the existence of the universe or any natural laws that emerge from it, yes?
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
Philosophically speaking, the concept of human rights is very dubious. I have many rights — the right to vote, the right to a jury trial on an indictable offence, the right to own land, etc. All of these rights were conferred by the crown or parliament. So who conferred the so-called natural rights? I think it's correct to say that the writers of the US constitution considered that it was the Christian God. But where did that leave them when the constitution defined the US as a secular state? That's one reason why Bentham described the constitution as "nonsense upon stilts".
syo
Well-Known Member
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws,
So the first question is whether or not they are universally accepted by atheists and theists alike no matter the attribution.
So if an atheist accepts something as a universal right and believers in all religion, mono- and poly-theist alike do likewise, then it's universal.
I've found that humanists do have statements of universal rights but I've not seen atheists who are not humanists who do.
So the first question is whether or not they are universally accepted by atheists and theists alike no matter the attribution.
So if an atheist accepts something as a universal right and believers in all religion, mono- and poly-theist alike do likewise, then it's universal.
I've found that humanists do have statements of universal rights but I've not seen atheists who are not humanists who do.