God given rights?

[v-600]

I was just reading this thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2322698 and started to wonder something.

Someone was quoted as saying their god given rights. How would one know if you had god given rights to something or not? For that matter is it actually possible to have god given rights, both in general and in the specific case quoted. I'm interested in discussing view points on rights, religion and beliefs in general and think you can do so without holding them yourself.

Also, on the topic of offence. I'd say that offence is in the mind of the receiver rather than in the actions/words or mind of the giver. I.e. if I say something that I didn't mean to be offensive, and it offends someone, then it if offensive regardless of my intentions and vice versa, if I mean to insult someone but they aren't bothered by it, then its not really offensive is it? Thanks to the internet I have come to realise that in life, I have got far better things to be doing with my time than to be offended by someone I don't know.

As I understand it (not claiming to be an expert) the constitution gives US citizens the right to bear arms. But I didn't think the constitution was considered to be a holy/religious document. It was written by people starting a country, not a religion. So I can't see the claim for God given here. I'd say then that the poster was full of rhetoric and bluster rather than an actual religious claim.

So looking generally instead then. Are god given rights an actual thing? Unless you have been given them by god, then surely they are human given rights.

 

[OinkBoink]

I was just reading this thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2322698 and started to wonder something.

Someone was quoted as saying their god given rights. How would one know if you had god given rights to something or not? For that matter is it actually possible to have god given rights, both in general and in the specific case quoted. I'm interested in discussing view points on rights, religion and beliefs in general and think you can do so without holding them yourself.

Also, on the topic of offence. I'd say that offence is in the mind of the receiver rather than in the actions/words or mind of the giver. I.e. if I say something that I didn't mean to be offensive, and it offends someone, then it if offensive regardless of my intentions and vice versa, if I mean to insult someone but they aren't bothered by it, then its not really offensive is it? Thanks to the internet I have come to realise that in life, I have got far better things to be doing with my time than to be offended by someone I don't know.

As I understand it (not claiming to be an expert) the constitution gives US citizens the right to bear arms. But I didn't think the constitution was considered to be a holy/religious document. It was written by people starting a country, not a religion. So I can't see the claim for God given here. I'd say then that the poster was full of rhetoric and bluster rather than an actual religious claim.

So looking generally instead then. Are god given rights an actual thing? Unless you have been given them by god, then surely they are human given rights.

To atheists the world over, "God given" anything is meaningless anyway.

Check out Michael Newdow's lawsuit against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the United States' Pledge of Allegiance.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well, the founders did believe in the concept of natural rights, though many of them had a rather different view of what "God" means than ignoramuses like the one mentioned in that thread.

 

[soulcougher73]

'God given rights" really only apply to religious people. As an Agnostic Athiest they mean nothing to me. They were just rights given by people to other people.

 

[cwjerome]

God given rights is one way to say Natural Rights.

 

[JD50]

God given rights is one way to say Natural Rights.

Yep. OP, you're just arguing semantics here.

 

[woolfe9998]

God given rights is one way to say Natural Rights.

Maybe the more interesting question then, is what are "Natural Rights?" Is there any such thing? I find the entire concept nonsensical and unscientific, particularly if we assume there is no "God" to confer such rights. Nature doesn't give a damn about humans and their "rights." Rights are conferred by humans to other humans based upon human ethos which are developed in context of human societies. Ironically, the "God" version makes a lot more sense since it least it has a chance of being true, the exact same likelihood as God actually existing. Since "nature" on its own (without a guiding intelligence) has no intentionality, the entire concept of natural rights absent a deity is absurd.

 

[momeNt]

Maybe the more interesting question then, is what are "Natural Rights?" Is there any such thing? I find the entire concept nonsensical and unscientific, particularly if we assume there is no "God" to confer such rights. Nature doesn't give a damn about humans and their "rights." Rights are conferred by humans to other humans based upon human ethos which are developed in context of human societies. Ironically, the "God" version makes a lot more sense since it least it has a chance of being true, the exact same likelihood as God actually existing. Since "nature" on its own (without a guiding intelligence) has no intentionality, the entire concept of natural rights absent a deity is absurd.

Natural rights are derived from the concept of self-ownership which is axiomatic. You can't really argue for/against or prove/deny the concept that we are entitled to self-ownership. From self-ownership you then work your way towards ownership of your labor, which means when you transform something of the earth, you are entitled to that as it has become part of you through your ownership of your labor. So natural rights basically boil down to life, liberty, and property.

Look to Locke for a more complete deduction obviously, i just gave the bullets.

If you'd like a more societal/civil/state view on rights, you should look to Kant. Which I probably would be unable to adequately describe in a single forum post.

http://mises.org/daily/1605

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/#ProConRig

 

[woolfe9998]

Natural rights are derived from the concept of self-ownership which is axiomatic. You can't really argue for/against or prove/deny the concept that we are entitled to self-ownership. From self-ownership you then work your way towards ownership of your labor, which means when you transform something of the earth, you are entitled to that as it has become part of you through your ownership of your labor. So natural rights basically boil down to life, liberty, and property.

Look to Locke for a more complete deduction obviously, i just gave the bullets.

If you'd like a more societal/civil/state view on rights, you should look to Kant. Which I probably would be unable to adequately describe in a single forum post.

http://mises.org/daily/1605

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/#ProConRig

Ownership in the pure state of nature can be as simple as "current possession." Since might makes right in the state of nature, possession can be transferred any time the stronger feels like dispossessing the weaker. Animals don't respect the ownership that another animal has over its "kill." They may just swoop in and take it for themselves. The idea of respecting possession as ownership not to be infringed is a human created invention. It isn't a function of "nature," except in the broad sense that humans themselves are products of nature. The entire discussion of "natural rights" is either just semantics or else it's something akin to religious faith. More to the point, in the modern context, "natural rights" is a fiction created to explain how we're protected by some code of laws or set of rules in the absence of a state or real body of law. It's a pleasant fiction, but nothing more.

 

[werepossum]

Natural rights are derived from the concept of self-ownership which is axiomatic. You can't really argue for/against or prove/deny the concept that we are entitled to self-ownership. From self-ownership you then work your way towards ownership of your labor, which means when you transform something of the earth, you are entitled to that as it has become part of you through your ownership of your labor. So natural rights basically boil down to life, liberty, and property.

Look to Locke for a more complete deduction obviously, i just gave the bullets.

If you'd like a more societal/civil/state view on rights, you should look to Kant. Which I probably would be unable to adequately describe in a single forum post.

http://mises.org/daily/1605

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/#ProConRig

Well said. The rights are the same either way, the difference is merely from whence they are assumed to spring.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well said. The rights are the same either way, the difference is merely from whence they are assumed to spring.

Then explain by what mechanism "nature" confers these rights if it isn't through some sort of divine intervention.

 

[kia75]

Maybe the more interesting question then, is what are "Natural Rights?" Is there any such thing? I find the entire concept nonsensical and unscientific, particularly if we assume there is no "God" to confer such rights. Nature doesn't give a damn about humans and their "rights." Rights are conferred by humans to other humans based upon human ethos which are developed in context of human societies. Ironically, the "God" version makes a lot more sense since it least it has a chance of being true, the exact same likelihood as God actually existing. Since "nature" on its own (without a guiding intelligence) has no intentionality, the entire concept of natural rights absent a deity is absurd.

Natural rights are supposed to be the rights we can't bargain or legislate away. No matter where they live, what government they belong to, etc, every human being is entitled to these rights. You're right, "natural rights" aren't natural at all, they're more moral then anything. Obviously, such rights have been legislated away but we hold those laws that do so as immoral.

As an American I consider "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as the main natural rights but the right to life (i.e. Death Penalty), Liberty (i.e. Slavery) and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. It makes me happy to steal rape and murder) have all been legislated against.

 

[kia75]

Natural rights are derived from the concept of self-ownership which is axiomatic. You can't really argue for/against or prove/deny the concept that we are entitled to self-ownership. From self-ownership you then work your way towards ownership of your labor, which means when you transform something of the earth, you are entitled to that as it has become part of you through your ownership of your labor. So natural rights basically boil down to life, liberty, and property.

Look to Locke for a more complete deduction obviously, i just gave the bullets.

If you'd like a more societal/civil/state view on rights, you should look to Kant. Which I probably would be unable to adequately describe in a single forum post.

http://mises.org/daily/1605

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/#ProConRig

Uhh... your links disagree with what you say. From your Mises link, the first sentence of the 5th paragraph:

Property rights are, strictly speaking, acquired rights, not natural rights.

Properties are the opposite of axiomatic, they're not self-evident. I'm holding an IPhone in my hand, does this cell phone belong to me (I'm playing a game and just scored the high score), my friend next to me (he purchased it), the cell phone company (friend bought a subsidized phone under contract), the company that wrote the OS (Apple), or the company that wrote the program I'm currently using (Gamemaker 2000)?


Property rights are the opposite of natural rights, they only exist because everybody agreed that is how ownership works. If we change the law tomorrow then tomorrow property ownership changes.

 

[IronWing]

"God given" or "natural rights" are just other ways of saying "I want this and therefore think I am entitled to it" regardless of legal right or reason. That isn't to say that folks are always wrong about rights asserted but the descriptor doesn't add anything to their validity.

 

[momeNt]

Ownership in the pure state of nature can be as simple as "current possession." Since might makes right in the state of nature, possession can be transferred any time the stronger feels like dispossessing the weaker. Animals don't respect the ownership that another animal has over its "kill." They may just swoop in and take it for themselves. The idea of respecting possession as ownership not to be infringed is a human created invention. It isn't a function of "nature," except in the broad sense that humans themselves are products of nature. The entire discussion of "natural rights" is either just semantics or else it's something akin to religious faith. More to the point, in the modern context, "natural rights" is a fiction created to explain how we're protected by some code of laws or set of rules in the absence of a state or real body of law. It's a pleasant fiction, but nothing more.

Lockean natural rights is simply a thought process derived from the axiom of self-ownership to determine when a person has been wronged or harmed. It's a framework for establishing what would be viewed as good conduct. There is absolutely no protection provided by these rights, nor is the concept of respecting the possession offered either. You can't argue against natural rights by saying in nature these rights wouldn't be respected, that doesn't make them not exist, they exist if naturally you would feel wronged when in nature someone stronger takes what you feel is yours.

 

[woolfe9998]

Natural rights are supposed to be the rights we can't bargain or legislate away. No matter where they live, what government they belong to, etc, every human being is entitled to these rights. You're right, "natural rights" aren't natural at all, they're more moral then anything. Obviously, such rights have been legislated away but we hold those laws that do so as immoral.

As an American I consider "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as the main natural rights but the right to life (i.e. Death Penalty), Liberty (i.e. Slavery) and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. It makes me happy to steal rape and murder) have all been legislated against.

"Natural rights" or God given rights, same thing as far as I'm concerned, was a useful fiction created by early enlightenment thinkers (including our FF). They needed some way to convey the extreme importance of these rights and saying they were conferred by God or nature was the best way to do it.

I would argue that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness where never considered "inalienable." The Constitution states that "life, liberty and property" cannot be taken away without due process of law. It says it right there in black and white - those rights can be taken away according to laws which prohibit certain behavior, so long as you're given a fair trial or hearing first. The "right" being conferred is a qualified one - you have a right to a fair process before they can be taken away. You have no unqualified right to the things themselves.

 

[woolfe9998]

Lockean natural rights is simply a thought process derived from the axiom of self-ownership to determine when a person has been wronged or harmed. It's a framework for establishing what would be viewed as good conduct. There is absolutely no protection provided by these rights, nor is the concept of respecting the possession offered either. You can't argue against natural rights by saying in nature these rights wouldn't be respected, that doesn't make them not exist, they exist if naturally you would feel wronged when in nature someone stronger takes what you feel is yours.

A "thought process" yes. Human thought. Bingo. I think what we're arguing comes down to semantics then. The question I'm addressing is what is the source of these rights. The source is human beings deciding people should have them, period. It isn't God or nature.

 

[cwjerome]

"God given" or "natural rights" are just other ways of saying "I want this and therefore think I am entitled to it" regardless of legal right or reason. That isn't to say that folks are always wrong about rights asserted but the descriptor doesn't add anything to their validity.

Not really. A lot of pretty smart people have come up with complex philosophical deductions that suggest man has rights derived from his very nature as a human being... natural rights. It seems you belong to the political postmodern school that is generally skeptical of reason, philosophy and "truth."

 

[momeNt]

I think what we're arguing comes down to semantics then. The question I'm addressing is what is the source of these rights. The source is human beings deciding people should have them, period. It isn't God or nature.

Technically the source is a priori knowledge from an axiom. You are saying more or less the same thing. Absent a deity we are the authority of ourselves, so you could still consider nature as how we arrived at these rights because we are part of nature after all.

 

[momeNt]

Not really. A lot of pretty smart people have come up with complex philosophical deductions that suggest man has rights derived from his very nature as a human being... natural rights. It seems you belong to the political postmodern school that is generally skeptical of reason, philosophy and "truth."

Good way of saying how these can be considered natural rights.

 

[v-600]

Interesting. I originally hadn't thought about the idea of natural rights in that sense. I was thinking along the lines that rights are something that is generated by a society of people and collectively arrived at rather than stemming from self ownership or self preservation.

I haven't got time now to write a proper post as I'm just off to dinner with friends, but will try to do later.

 

[soulcougher73]

Technically the source is a priori knowledge from an axiom. You are saying more or less the same thing. Absent a deity we are the authority of ourselves, so you could still consider nature as how we arrived at these rights because we are part of nature after all.

But as humans we can change or take away rights as time goes on. So they are not always going to be consistant throughout time. They are natural in the sense we are natural, but the are not some "natural right" that can withstand human interpretation and change.

Either way its all just semantics and a pretty pointless convo

 

[kia75]

"Natural rights" or God given rights, same thing as far as I'm concerned, was a useful fiction created by early enlightenment thinkers (including our FF). They needed some way to convey the extreme importance of these rights and saying they were conferred by God or nature was the best way to do it.

I agree with you 100% here.

I would argue that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness where never considered "inalienable." The Constitution states that "life, liberty and property" cannot be taken away without due process of law. It says it right there in black and white - those rights can be taken away according to laws which prohibit certain behavior, so long as you're given a fair trial or hearing first. The "right" being conferred is a qualified one - you have a right to a fair process before they can be taken away. You have no unqualified right to the things themselves.

Let me quote the Declaration of Independence.

“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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”



The reason we broke free from Britain's Tyranny is because they were trampling on our unalienable rights to drink tea while dressed as Indians or some nonsense. Yet as soon as we get the chance to make our government the first thing we do is place limits on these God-given unalienable rights. Natural rights are a good banner to fly under when you want change but as soon as its time to govern, Right's ahoy.

You could also point out that though the Declaration of Independence declares "all men equal", it clearly didn't mean slaves that were men had those same unalienable rights. Their Life and Liberty was determined by their owner.

 

[cwjerome]

But as humans we can change or take away rights as time goes on. So they are not always going to be consistant throughout time. They are natural in the sense we are natural, but the are not some "natural right" that can withstand human interpretation and change

True to some extent... like any theory things can be added or taken away from it based off of new understandings, reasoning, and evidence. If anything, the concept of natural rights has expanded over time thanks to democratization, but the basic concept of the natural rights have changed very, very little.

Most of our Western and particularly American legal and moral basis is derived from two ideals... common law and natural rights. We would be extremely foolish to ignore either one.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Everything you need to know is right here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

It really gets into it at 4:00min or so....