Natural Rights

[Hegel]

Something came up on my good vs. evil (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870057619#post1870057619) thread that I think should be addressed here. Someone brought up Locke's idea of natural rights and I thought, what if someone doesn't want to live anymore? Is it morally acceptable to kill them then? What if they don't WANT freedom, and they want someone else to make all of thier choices for them? Is it morally acceptable to take thier freedom away then? What if they don't want to be happy, or own property (Locke's version), after all some people like being sad, it gives them a feeling that they are being appropriatly punished for thier sins, and others feel that property really causes more problems then good (eg Communists)? Is it morally acceptable to remove those rights then? Is it morally acceptable to force someone to live, be free, and pursue happiness and/or property?

[Yahweh]

The 3 Natural Rights are:
1. Right to life
2. Right to freedom
3. Right to pursue happyness (pending it doesnt infringe on another person's rights)

These natural rights can and are taught in virtually every college ethics class, they are probably one of the first things you learn about.

Everybody has the right to live, you should never take away that right. But in the same way, since everyone has the right to their own life, they should be allowed to end it (its also an example of pursuit of happiness). About euthanasia, I dont see how anyone can say "No, you have no right to die".

Everybody has the right to freedom. Enslaving others is morally wrong... very very wrong (keep in mind, jails and prisons are not a form of enslavement, they are punishment for breaking the law). Also included in freedom is the right to worship (or not worship) any god you choose, no other person should dictate what religion a person should be (before anyone brings up the government, take a second or two to think).

Everybody also has the right to pursue happyness in any way, shape, or form (as long as it doenst infringe on another's right). Just to clarify, drug abuse is (by technicality) a victimless crime, drugs are illegal because first the government is looking out for the safety of yourself, second drugs are corrupting both physically and financially. There was a whole mess of other reasons, but I cant remember at the moment.

[Dancing David]

You have the right to die, anything you say while dead, can and will be used against you in a court of law.

[arcticpenguin]

Why are these "natural rights"?

I know the Declaration of Independence expressed it's writer's belief that it is "self-evident" that they were "endowed by their Creator" with such "unalienable" rights. I'm waiting to see the evidence for this Creator, let alone the rights. Also, isn't "self-evident" a cheap way of saying they can't actually produce any such evidence?

These rights only exist when the powers that be (political or religious) agree to recognize them. So how is it that they could be considered "unalienable" or "natural"?

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.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration_transcription.html

[reprise]

Aren't those "natural rights" really only afforded the status of "rights" by common consent.

On preview, I see that articpenguin has just made the same point.

[Boo]

It is my understanding that they are termed 'natural' rights for the very reasons Yahweh made. To deny them to an individual is to deny the individuals humanity.

Now to the question...... Can an individual give up those rights? I have been researching the BDSM sub-culture in relation to domestic abuse/violence and mental health issues. Within this group there are individuals that willingly give up their freedom and enslave themselves to another. They do so in the pursuit of happiness.

Should this be allowed? Or does it fall under 2 consenting adults? This assumes no coercion between the 2 parties. I will add that a common theme that runs through the essays I've read is that without 'slaves' there would be no 'Masters'.


Thoughts anyone?




Boo

[drowden]

I think "natural rights" ought be renamed "obvious rights" or something similar as it seems self evidently clear to me that "natural rights" don't exist.


Dan Rowden

[evildave]

We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.
- Victor Frankl

You can live in horrible, demeaning conditions, where you have no right to to eat, to speak, to even be alive. You can still choose what kind of person you'd like to be.

You can be happy living in poverty.

You can be sad living in a palace with your every slightest desire being catered to.

You can choose to be good, even great.

You can choose to be a loser.

You can choose to anonymously live your life, ever fearful of offending.

You can choose to be different.

You can choose to have a positive outlook in life.

You can choose to lose hope, even to die.

No amount of social conditioning or genetic disposition (short of the kind that will make a vegetable of you) will remove that choice.

Your primary natural right is to choose how you will live it. What sort of person you will be. What sort of values you will keep. What sort of dreams you wish to dream.

Choose well.


People who claim they have a book or a canned philosophy that contains all of your choices scripted for you are to me contemptible. Who are they to prescribe to me what I should dream of without even knowing me? Do they even know themselves? I doubt it.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Boo
It is my understanding that they are termed 'natural' rights for the very reasons Yahweh made. To deny them to an individual is to deny the individuals humanity.

Now to the question...... Can an individual give up those rights? I have been researching the BDSM sub-culture in relation to domestic abuse/violence and mental health issues. Within this group there are individuals that willingly give up their freedom and enslave themselves to another. They do so in the pursuit of happiness.

Should this be allowed? Or does it fall under 2 consenting adults? This assumes no coercion between the 2 parties. I will add that a common theme that runs through the essays I've read is that without 'slaves' there would be no 'Masters'.


Thoughts anyone?


AH! You are too quick Boo! I was going to mention this too!


Yahweh says:
The 3 Natural Rights are:
1. Right to life
2. Right to freedom
3. Right to pursue happyness (pending it doesnt infringe on another person's rights)
. . .
Everybody has the right to live, you should never take away that right. But in the same way, since everyone has the right to their own life, they should be allowed to end it (its also an example of pursuit of happiness). About euthanasia, I dont see how anyone can say "No, you have no right to die".

If you are allowed to voluntarily give up one of these rights Yahweh, then logically you should be allowed to give up ANY of these rights!

Therefore, you should have to RIGHT to be a slave, you should have the RIGHT to refuse to look for happiness.

There are a couple of problems with this - The first is about being informed. I believe that it is most important that a person not be allowed to give up a right when not fully informed of the consequences. You are in pain and want euthanasia? Fine, you need to do some homework first - You should be able to demonstrate that you understand your choice. This goes for slavery too.

I'm not sure how it would apply to the reversal of 'pursuit of happiness.'

The next problem is how we treat a person who changes their mind.
(Of course if you are dead there is little chance of changing your mind about it! :p )

But a slave could decide that being a slave isn't what they were expecting. In the BDSM culture, Dominance and Submission is usually very carefully worked out before hand, including just how much the Dominant is expected prevent a slave from fleeing. When done well, a document is created that reads a lot like papers of indentured servitude.

Outside of the BDSM culture, it is quite possible that a person might sell him or herself to another as a slave, in return for money to family. In this case there may not ever be a chance to change your mind.

In my opinion, if you voluntarily gave up one of your rights, without coercion, then you really no longer have the right to change your mind. If you do, then you would have to 'win back' your lost rights through your efforts.

If one of your rights is taken from you, or about to be taken from you, without your permission, then a 'crime against humanity' is being committed, and must be stopped.

Lastly, there is a problem in that some people will not, and may never be able to, understand their rights. Children would not be allowed to make such a decision, nor would the mentally handicapped in many cases.

Thoughts?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by calladus
Lastly, there is a problem in that some people will not, and may never be able to, understand their rights. Children would not be allowed to make such a decision, nor would the mentally handicapped in many cases.

Thoughts?

Children don't have rights—they have protections, because it is recognised that they are not responsible enough to exercise their rights, so these have to be managed for them.

Natural rights are problematic (or "nonsense on stilts" as Jeremy Bentham (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/b/bentham.htm) states). A natural right is conferred on one by virtue of being human, so for instance a slave could not be a slave by choice, because they could not give up their freedom any more than they could give up being human. OTOH, there is nothing to protect an individual from being enslaved by another—because that other individual is simply exercise their natural rights—other than by having sufficient force to resist enslavement.

Bentham states then, that rights can only be meaningful within a legal framework. This ensures an individual's rights by imposing restrictions and obligations on the exercise of those rights—specifically the obligation not to infringe another's rights—which must be backed up by some form of punishment if such an infringement takes place.

It's of interest to note that, whilst Locke is associated with natural rights, his ideas have a number of parallels with Betham's; particularly of the importance of the role of law in the exercise of right. Locke's idea of property ownership is difficult because it is circular (people can own property because they own themselves; people own themselves because they can own property) but this idea is at least partly in response to Thomas Hobbes's idea of the natural right of the rule of sovereigns (because people need to be ruled to protect them from themselves and each other).

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Boo
It is my understanding that they are termed 'natural' rights for the very reasons Yahweh made. To deny them to an individual is to deny the individuals humanity.

Now to the question...... Can an individual give up those rights? I have been researching the BDSM sub-culture in relation to domestic abuse/violence and mental health issues. Within this group there are individuals that willingly give up their freedom and enslave themselves to another. They do so in the pursuit of happiness.

Should this be allowed? Or does it fall under 2 consenting adults? This assumes no coercion between the 2 parties. I will add that a common theme that runs through the essays I've read is that without 'slaves' there would be no 'Masters'.

Thoughts anyone?

Boo
Interesting.

I like to think that the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is an ordered list of decerasing importance. In cases of conflicting rights, my right to life is more important than your right to liberty, etc. Buf if an individual chooses to give up a right... I dunno.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Interesting.

I like to think that the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is an ordered list of decerasing importance. In cases of conflicting rights, my right to life is more important than your right to liberty, etc. Buf if an individual chooses to give up a right... I dunno.

:confused: Where's the penguin gone? :(

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by BillyTK

:confused: Where's the penguin gone? :(
The sunset penguin will return when the bent fork auction (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=25438) is over, or when someone outbids me.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

The sunset penguin will return when the bent fork auction (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=25438) is over, or when someone outbids me.

I've got a set of knackered old forks you can have for £50? Anyway, good luck and good bidding!