I was having a debate with a friend of mine on whether or not human rights exist and if they do, where they come from. He argued that human rights do not exist and that they are artificial constructs that are created by governments. He argued that our rights are created by the government and without the government to protect said rights, they would not exist.
Conversely, I argued that our rights are natural and exist regardless of whether or not a particular government protects or disrespects these rights. As examples, I cited human sociology, namely natural self-preservation. This eventually led to me posing a philosophical question to him, which I would like to pose to you all as well.
Food for Thought
Have you considered that rather than being entities which grant freedoms, governments are instead entities that infringe upon them? Some governments have chosen to take precautions in order to best ensure that some rights are never infringed upon, a prime example being the United States Constitution.
While some argue that government isn't a natural body, let's assume for a minute that it is. Let's assume that the government is a natural organ that develops out of sapient societies, be this the United States or an African tribe, there is a system of organization, a government, if you will.
So I ask you, what is the natural purpose of this organ? Is it to control the people and constantly restrict them under the auspices of "keeping us safe" and/or people being "too stupid" to make their own decisions? Or does this organ exist solely to perform the necessary functions in order to ensure those who violate the three basic rights (life, liberty and property) are punished?
Feel free to pose any additional questions and/or statements on the role of government, whether or not it is natural or an artificial construct, etc.
Pretty much every term here needs more definition. What is a right? Do you mean a legal right, or a moral right? What does it mean to have a right, or to infringe on a right? What does it mean to be a "natural entity"?
Pretty much every term here needs more definition. What is a right? Do you mean a legal right, or a moral right? What does it mean to have a right, or to infringe on a right? What does it mean to be a "natural entity"?
In this case, moral rights, which is effectively just another term for "natural rights." To have the right to do something is to have the moral empowerment to perform the task. Whereas a legal right would be whether or not you can practically exercise the right. Infringing upon the right would consist of limiting or even outright restricting the task from being performed.
I believe governments are created completely against nature. Government's are formed on mutual agreements and sacrifices of the many in order to protect people from themselves. People agreed to relinquish their "natural rights" when they form a government in order to live in a society with "civil rights." A stronger man won't be able to harm, forcefully take, or kill a weaker man because of laws created and agreed upon by the majority to prevent a man's might from being his right.
However, might (as in strength) being right (as in justified) is a true natural law. If a stronger man needs to kill or take in order to preserve his existence, then it is justifiable- naturally, as in instinctually, to live, to survive. But governments prevent anyone from doing such a thing because they create non-existent bindings (laws) in order to preserve "fairness" and "equality" (rights) among many.
I believe that complete anarchy is the truest form of freedom. Jeffersonian Yeomen were self sufficient and capable of surviving on their own in the American frontier in order to avoid political sway, take away the politics and all that remains is a self sufficient man. A man's right to exist should remain solely on his own strength and willpower. No law should forbid a man from becoming his own master, for the only thing that laws do is limit a man from doing so.
The only true laws that exist are those of nature. If temperatures cause water to freeze and people to die, there is no way to write it off as unjustifiable because 1) the people who would cry folley are dead and 2) nature knows no boundaries. If a drought causes a man to starve to death, or another man kills him for his foodstuffs, or the man dies of disease, nature has ended his life because he was not strong enough to survive.
Governments create false ideas and binding laws to protect people from others and themselves, as well as work against nature in order to keep as many people alive as possible and grant them false ideas such as "freedom," "liberty," "rights," and "property" in order to keep them in check. Medical institutes exist because governments do. The reason why the sick, elderly, retarded, injured, disabled, and obese continue to exist is because governments exist, and governments prevent nature's way of extinguishing the weak in order for the strongest to survive because human's are plagued with conscience.
I reccommend reading into Jean Rousseau's idea of the "Social Contract" and Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" in order to gauge the true purpose of government. Although pure survival and anarchy is a logically ideal way to live a truly "free" life, it is impossible to revert back to such primitive ways of survival because humanity has lost much of its sight of logic and what is ideal.
There's a few things we need to consider to make a valid argument about this issue.
1. What is government?: For the purposes of this discussion, it appears that we are using the term "government" to refer to any agreed upon system of authority. (Note that this doesn't mean mutually supported. To rebel against a particular authority, one must agree that said authority exists. Also note that this authority need not be a human or group of humans. Abstract ideals or codes of behaviour also count as agreed upon authorities.)
2. Are such systems of authority natural? (Do they spring up themselves in all relevant situations?): Humans are social by nature. There has been too much study into this to really debate this fact. When deprived of social contact over a period of time, humans will either invent social contact (like "Wilson" from a certain Tom Hanks film, which actually happens with stranded survivors), or loose contact with reality and become self-destructively imbalanced. Humans, by their nature, seek out other humans.
Are humans different than other animals in this? Not really. All animals that procreate by sexual reproduction need to have some form of contact with their own kind to continue the species; and every animal has, by instinct, knowledge of things they should our shouldn't do for successful contact with another of their own kind. They limit their own actions in order to achieve the purpose of their contact with the other. Most animals do this without conscious thought, as their instincts have them "pre-programmed" to interact properly with their own kind. The more social the species, the more prominent and more restrictive these instincts become. Humans have sacrificed many of their instincts in favour of higher brain functions and problem solving, but it seems that social instincts are particularly strong. Babies come into the world with a set of instincts that drive them to learn to communicate and relate to others. Before a child can care for it's own needs (find food, water and shelter, move efficiently under it's own power, etc.) it can communicate with a degree of precision and clarity almost without compare in the animal kingdom. Humans learn to speak in complete sentences before they learn to gather food; that's significant. The most important survival skill in the human species is our ability to interact and cooperate. As such, in every known human culture, there is an authority of one form or another that people submit themselves to for the sake of that key survival trait. Such authorities are created by people, but are done so largely by instinct. Even where there is no law or formal government, if one person hits another person, the injured party feels "wronged." Anarchy may be an ideal that many people hold to, but even anarchy itself conveys an authority. If you have no power (physical or otherwise) to enforce "You can't stop me from doing what I want," then it's a moot point, because you have no authority to say it. Even claiming that it comes from "natural evolution" is to appeal to an authority (that is, precedent in nature) to govern human interactions. Those rare individuals who find themselves incapable of adhering to authority we term as sociopaths or insane. Those who are unwilling we call criminals or pariahs. We do this to preserve the only thing that allows our species to survive in a world where most things have the power to kill us and would gladly do so: our community. Think about it: how long would someone who was born and raised in modern North America survive on their own, making all their own tools and walking eighty miles a day just to find enough roots, berries, meat and muddy water to survive, not to mention fighting off other humans for said resources? Some could, I'm sure, but most (including many who argue in favour of such independence) would simply not pass on their genes to the next generation. So, authority seems to be naturally occurring among humans.
3. Is this authority always beneficial to the well-being of the individuals involved?: Two points made above are important to this. First, as implied, not all humans will conform to authority. Humans are flawed; we are all imperfect and some are just down-right nasty. Our survival-need drives us into community, but taken to excess (which everyone does to some extent or another) it pushes us to selfishness and the willingness to manipulate others to promote survival of the self over survival of the group (which, by the way is actually counter-intuitive based on the evidence presented in point 2). Why is this important? Because, secondly, authority is created by people. Imperfect creators make imperfect creations. Because the people who agree upon a particular authority can be selfish and cruel, the authority can be selfish and cruel. Totalitarian governments, brutal gang leaders, abusive husbands and fathers, all these occur because those that seek selfish gain as opposed to mutual gain build an authority to suit their own needs. Even authorities that are built for mutual gain like democratic governments, the "rule of law" and trade unions can become oppressive and brutal; because their creators (humans) are flawed and limited and fail to foresee the the consequences of their actions.
In the end, there is no perfect solution. To dissolve all authority is to dissolve all society and to fly in the face of human nature. To embrace any authority without reservation is to invite corruption and violence. Some societies have a system of "checks and balances," but even these can be manipulated and broken. Constant vigilance as a society is required, as is a consistent desire as a group to value both individual and corporate survival.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A polite player might call my card choices "interesting." At my budget, "interesting" is the only option.
Some argue that natural rights aren't natural at all, hence the question.
If you're defining them as "natural" then--for the purpose of that argument with that definition--they are tautologically natural. You would have to define them as something else if you wanted to debate about it at all.
Anyway,
"Rights" are a value judgement. They must be granted by something capable of evaluation, of conscience thought. Thus, it must be a MIND of some kind that grants them. Given the nature of the argument, I can really only think of 3 entities that could have any say in the matter:
A) God (which could represent the opinion of 'nature')
B) "Mankind" as a collective entity.
C) A government.
From there:
A) is an completely different argument, and I will table it.
B) Does all mankind think that all of mankind is worthy of some kind of collective rights? I would say, based on war and the "us vs them" tribal mentality we seem to exhibit, no. Mankind does not have an inborn respect for mankind, just kin.
Which leaves us with "C."
But, that's only because I was only able to think of 3 options. If anyone has away out of this trilemma, I'd like to hear it.
I reccommend reading into Jean Rousseau's idea of the "Social Contract" and Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" in order to gauge the true purpose of government.
Oh, for ****'s sake.
Though your reading of Rousseau's theory is basically correct, the term "social contract" is not originally his. Furthermore, Rousseau was a romantic-minded idiot who idealized a lifestyle he had never lived or even seen, and certainly could not demonstrate the viability of. In fact, Rousseau wouldn't recognize a good philosophical demonstration if it walked up to him and punched him in his vile hypocritical face. Rousseau's narrative of the noble savage and the social construct is a myth, a fairy tale, with no more merit than the racial theories of the early-20th-Century eugenicists. In serious political philosophy, the concept of the "social contract" is associated with two other names: Thomas Hobbes, who originated it, and John Locke, who expanded upon it. And in their theories (which unlike Rousseau's are based on reason over romance) the social contract is an unambiguously good thing.
As for Darwin... if you think the theory of evolution by natural selection is a recommendation for a way human society ought to be organized, then you do not understand it. Or the scientific process generally. A scientific theory is strictly descriptive, not prescriptive: it describes the way the natural world does behave, not the way human beings ought to behave. Darwin's theory of evolution does not say that the weak ought to be allowed to die any more than Newton's theory of gravity says that people ought always to move towards the nearest center of mass. And hospitals are no more "wrong" by Darwinian standards than airplanes are "wrong" by Newtonian standards. So unless you're prepared to go boycott your local airport, do not speak of Darwin.
Although pure survival and anarchy is a logically ideal way to live a truly "free" life...
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.
I hope that no citation is necessary here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I reccommend reading into Jean Rousseau's idea of the "Social Contract" and Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" in order to gauge the true purpose of government.
As for Darwin... if you think the theory of evolution by natural selection is a recommendation for a way human society ought to be organized, then you do not understand it. Or the scientific process generally. A scientific theory is strictly descriptive, not prescriptive: it describes the way the natural world does behave, not the way human beings ought to behave.
I mean, sociobiologists exist. They're wrong, but they definitely exist. Thayer, for example, turns descriptions of evolution and makes normative sentiments of them about international relations. They're definitely wrong, but it does exist as a philosophy.
Although pure survival and anarchy is a logically ideal way to live a truly "free" life...
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Humans develop society. However problems arise from this new development as we are not normally able to function the same way we did when it was just us an our families. When you live at home there are no "rights" but simply a shared sense of responsibility to maintain survival to pass no the genes.
In a larger society where there is no sharing of genes or mates within the general population (if you look into a crowd and if your not having sexual relations or related to them then thats what I mean. Not that there was an absense of it). There is no biologically engineered reason to strive for their health or well being. In fact we are a tribal species and our instinct would normally have been to fight them. We have a "them" and "us" mentality and that exists even today.
So if biological instinct to preserve our genes no longer plays a vital role in our interactions with our fellow man then several problems arise. Us being the most intellegent beings on this planet thus far have devised a set system of rules so as to maintain an order. It is a contract that everyone has with each other. I won't stab you in the eye and you won't rape my wife. I'll be fair and you'll be fair. The only way to gurantee that you are treated fairly is if you treat others fairly. At least that is the basis of laws.
These "rights" are simply our collectively aggreed liberties that everyone wants. In order to maintain these pre-selected liberties we set up laws or "rights" to protect them.
A good example is this.
I don't want to be murdered. I have no real intention of murdering anyone else if it means I am safe from it. Everyone agrees this is good and we now have right to life.
IF everyone wanted the ability to vote then we get the right to vote.
IF everyone wants a voice then we get the right of free speech.
These rights don't come from god. They don't come from the government (thought that is the tool used to impliment them) but the combined agreement within a society.
EDIT:
To make sure I am clear. These "rights" apply ONLY to those within the society that utilizes that right. For example if the society of America has freedom of speech as a right its because of the collective ideologies of Americans. If another place does not have free speech it is either due to collective reasoning within the party of that society that it is not a "need" or something they feel is necessary to their daily lives. OR its due to a totalitarian overbearing controlling government that is attempting to control the masses.
The case for the latter is exempt from the normal case. when a few stand atop many without and the few disreguard the need of many then unrest is due. These cases are special. And denial of rights comes from the government not from the society.
I mean, sociobiologists exist. They're wrong, but they definitely exist. Thayer, for example, turns descriptions of evolution and makes normative sentiments of them about international relations. They're definitely wrong, but it does exist as a philosophy.
What are you talking about? Sociobiology is a branch of biology. It's suitably descriptive. I have no idea who "Thayer" is, and the name is too common for Wikipedia or Google to be of any use, but Edward O. Wilson definitely wasn't in the habit of making normative statements. Some sociobiological hypotheses are certainly controversial, but right or wrong they're not "ought" claims.
I mean, sociobiologists exist. They're wrong, but they definitely exist. Thayer, for example, turns descriptions of evolution and makes normative sentiments of them about international relations. They're definitely wrong, but it does exist as a philosophy.
What are you talking about? Sociobiology is a branch of biology. It's suitably descriptive. I have no idea who "Thayer" is, and the name is too common for Wikipedia or Google to be of any use, but Edward O. Wilson definitely wasn't in the habit of making normative statements. Some sociobiological hypotheses are certainly controversial, but right or wrong they're not "ought" claims.
Dr. Bradly A Thayer. Applies sociobiology to international relations to make normative claims about the prevalence of realism. Others do it too, he just wrote a book on it.
It's also a branch of sociology and anthropology, both of which quite often make normative claims even if they also make descriptive ones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Dr. Bradly A Thayer. Applies sociobiology to international relations to make normative claims about the prevalence of realism. Others do it too, he just wrote a book on it.
I don't know if this is what he does, but one can certainly apply science to other fields like international relations to predict consequences of actions, then go beyond the science to say, "This is the most desirable consequence, so we should do it this way." That's just the relationship between science and engineering. Nothing contentious about that. The problem is when you start thinking of the science itself as determining what is desirable. It's the difference between "Here's how to build a machine that will fly" and "Gravity, therefore we shouldn't build flying machines".
Some argue that natural rights aren't natural at all, hence the question.
If you're defining them as "natural" then--for the purpose of that argument with that definition--they are tautologically natural. You would have to define them as something else if you wanted to debate about it at all.
Anyway,
"Rights" are a value judgement. They must be granted by something capable of evaluation, of conscience thought. Thus, it must be a MIND of some kind that grants them. Given the nature of the argument, I can really only think of 3 entities that could have any say in the matter:
A) God (which could represent the opinion of 'nature')
B) "Mankind" as a collective entity.
C) A government.
From there:
A) is an completely different argument, and I will table it.
B) Does all mankind think that all of mankind is worthy of some kind of collective rights? I would say, based on war and the "us vs them" tribal mentality we seem to exhibit, no. Mankind does not have an inborn respect for mankind, just kin.
Which leaves us with "C."
But, that's only because I was only able to think of 3 options. If anyone has away out of this trilemma, I'd like to hear it.
So in your opinion, did the colonists lose their rights when they declared independence from the king? If they weren't under the subject of any government, did they still have rights?
Government is somewhat natural, but somewhat a construct.
As for rights they are not natural. We are not born with any certain rites without a governing body to make sure these rights are not infringed upon. In anarchy the only rights are to fight for survival and hope not to fall short.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Some argue that natural rights aren't natural at all, hence the question.
If you're defining them as "natural" then--for the purpose of that argument with that definition--they are tautologically natural. You would have to define them as something else if you wanted to debate about it at all.
Anyway,
"Rights" are a value judgement. They must be granted by something capable of evaluation, of conscience thought. Thus, it must be a MIND of some kind that grants them. Given the nature of the argument, I can really only think of 3 entities that could have any say in the matter:
A) God (which could represent the opinion of 'nature')
B) "Mankind" as a collective entity.
C) A government.
From there:
A) is an completely different argument, and I will table it.
B) Does all mankind think that all of mankind is worthy of some kind of collective rights? I would say, based on war and the "us vs them" tribal mentality we seem to exhibit, no. Mankind does not have an inborn respect for mankind, just kin.
Which leaves us with "C."
But, that's only because I was only able to think of 3 options. If anyone has away out of this trilemma, I'd like to hear it.
So in your opinion, did the colonists lose their rights when they declared independence from the king? If they weren't under the subject of any government, did they still have rights?
When exactly did the colonists not exist under the rule of a government? The Declaration of Independence was a governing document. (It failed horribly as such, but it was one.)
When exactly did the colonists not exist under the rule of a government? The Declaration of Independence was a governing document. (It failed horribly as such, but it was one.)
When exactly did the colonists not exist under the rule of a government? The Declaration of Independence was a governing document. (It failed horribly as such, but it was one.)
I'll rephrase my question, because we are getting off topic.
If someone is not under the sovereignty of a government, do they have no rights?
That's cool, we'll pretend you weren't ignorant of American history too.
What rights are you talking about? Even assuming that a society existing without government could exist (it could not), you're not specifying which rights you're curious about? Are you asking if a person alone in a jungle has the right to life? If so, what are you comparing that to? The general assumption in our society is that your rights extend to the degree that they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
It ultimately seems like this question has to be theistic in nature, because in an atheist worldview there can be no arbiter/granter of "natural" rights.
That's cool, we'll pretend you weren't ignorant of American history too.
Because it would take us very off topic, I don't want to expand on the point I was trying to make. Feel free to PM me if you are really that interested though.
It ultimately seems like this question has to be theistic in nature, because in an atheist worldview there can be no arbiter/granter of "natural" rights.
I disagree. I am an atheist, but I don't completely dismiss the idea of natural rights.
Any rights. Could any rights exist without a state?
This doesn't seem to be a useful question—you have the rights afforded to you by natural laws; for instance, the right not to implode because you live on a planet with an atmosphere. Nature affords you that "right." I'm just not clear on what good it is to discuss that.
Conversely, I argued that our rights are natural and exist regardless of whether or not a particular government protects or disrespects these rights. As examples, I cited human sociology, namely natural self-preservation. This eventually led to me posing a philosophical question to him, which I would like to pose to you all as well.
Food for Thought
Have you considered that rather than being entities which grant freedoms, governments are instead entities that infringe upon them? Some governments have chosen to take precautions in order to best ensure that some rights are never infringed upon, a prime example being the United States Constitution.
While some argue that government isn't a natural body, let's assume for a minute that it is. Let's assume that the government is a natural organ that develops out of sapient societies, be this the United States or an African tribe, there is a system of organization, a government, if you will.
So I ask you, what is the natural purpose of this organ? Is it to control the people and constantly restrict them under the auspices of "keeping us safe" and/or people being "too stupid" to make their own decisions? Or does this organ exist solely to perform the necessary functions in order to ensure those who violate the three basic rights (life, liberty and property) are punished?
Feel free to pose any additional questions and/or statements on the role of government, whether or not it is natural or an artificial construct, etc.
In this case, moral rights, which is effectively just another term for "natural rights." To have the right to do something is to have the moral empowerment to perform the task. Whereas a legal right would be whether or not you can practically exercise the right. Infringing upon the right would consist of limiting or even outright restricting the task from being performed.
Does might make right?
Gee, that's a real stumper you've got there.
Some argue that natural rights aren't natural at all, hence the question.
However, might (as in strength) being right (as in justified) is a true natural law. If a stronger man needs to kill or take in order to preserve his existence, then it is justifiable- naturally, as in instinctually, to live, to survive. But governments prevent anyone from doing such a thing because they create non-existent bindings (laws) in order to preserve "fairness" and "equality" (rights) among many.
I believe that complete anarchy is the truest form of freedom. Jeffersonian Yeomen were self sufficient and capable of surviving on their own in the American frontier in order to avoid political sway, take away the politics and all that remains is a self sufficient man. A man's right to exist should remain solely on his own strength and willpower. No law should forbid a man from becoming his own master, for the only thing that laws do is limit a man from doing so.
The only true laws that exist are those of nature. If temperatures cause water to freeze and people to die, there is no way to write it off as unjustifiable because 1) the people who would cry folley are dead and 2) nature knows no boundaries. If a drought causes a man to starve to death, or another man kills him for his foodstuffs, or the man dies of disease, nature has ended his life because he was not strong enough to survive.
Governments create false ideas and binding laws to protect people from others and themselves, as well as work against nature in order to keep as many people alive as possible and grant them false ideas such as "freedom," "liberty," "rights," and "property" in order to keep them in check. Medical institutes exist because governments do. The reason why the sick, elderly, retarded, injured, disabled, and obese continue to exist is because governments exist, and governments prevent nature's way of extinguishing the weak in order for the strongest to survive because human's are plagued with conscience.
I reccommend reading into Jean Rousseau's idea of the "Social Contract" and Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" in order to gauge the true purpose of government. Although pure survival and anarchy is a logically ideal way to live a truly "free" life, it is impossible to revert back to such primitive ways of survival because humanity has lost much of its sight of logic and what is ideal.
1. What is government?: For the purposes of this discussion, it appears that we are using the term "government" to refer to any agreed upon system of authority. (Note that this doesn't mean mutually supported. To rebel against a particular authority, one must agree that said authority exists. Also note that this authority need not be a human or group of humans. Abstract ideals or codes of behaviour also count as agreed upon authorities.)
2. Are such systems of authority natural? (Do they spring up themselves in all relevant situations?): Humans are social by nature. There has been too much study into this to really debate this fact. When deprived of social contact over a period of time, humans will either invent social contact (like "Wilson" from a certain Tom Hanks film, which actually happens with stranded survivors), or loose contact with reality and become self-destructively imbalanced. Humans, by their nature, seek out other humans.
Are humans different than other animals in this? Not really. All animals that procreate by sexual reproduction need to have some form of contact with their own kind to continue the species; and every animal has, by instinct, knowledge of things they should our shouldn't do for successful contact with another of their own kind. They limit their own actions in order to achieve the purpose of their contact with the other. Most animals do this without conscious thought, as their instincts have them "pre-programmed" to interact properly with their own kind. The more social the species, the more prominent and more restrictive these instincts become. Humans have sacrificed many of their instincts in favour of higher brain functions and problem solving, but it seems that social instincts are particularly strong. Babies come into the world with a set of instincts that drive them to learn to communicate and relate to others. Before a child can care for it's own needs (find food, water and shelter, move efficiently under it's own power, etc.) it can communicate with a degree of precision and clarity almost without compare in the animal kingdom. Humans learn to speak in complete sentences before they learn to gather food; that's significant. The most important survival skill in the human species is our ability to interact and cooperate. As such, in every known human culture, there is an authority of one form or another that people submit themselves to for the sake of that key survival trait. Such authorities are created by people, but are done so largely by instinct. Even where there is no law or formal government, if one person hits another person, the injured party feels "wronged." Anarchy may be an ideal that many people hold to, but even anarchy itself conveys an authority. If you have no power (physical or otherwise) to enforce "You can't stop me from doing what I want," then it's a moot point, because you have no authority to say it. Even claiming that it comes from "natural evolution" is to appeal to an authority (that is, precedent in nature) to govern human interactions. Those rare individuals who find themselves incapable of adhering to authority we term as sociopaths or insane. Those who are unwilling we call criminals or pariahs. We do this to preserve the only thing that allows our species to survive in a world where most things have the power to kill us and would gladly do so: our community. Think about it: how long would someone who was born and raised in modern North America survive on their own, making all their own tools and walking eighty miles a day just to find enough roots, berries, meat and muddy water to survive, not to mention fighting off other humans for said resources? Some could, I'm sure, but most (including many who argue in favour of such independence) would simply not pass on their genes to the next generation. So, authority seems to be naturally occurring among humans.
3. Is this authority always beneficial to the well-being of the individuals involved?: Two points made above are important to this. First, as implied, not all humans will conform to authority. Humans are flawed; we are all imperfect and some are just down-right nasty. Our survival-need drives us into community, but taken to excess (which everyone does to some extent or another) it pushes us to selfishness and the willingness to manipulate others to promote survival of the self over survival of the group (which, by the way is actually counter-intuitive based on the evidence presented in point 2). Why is this important? Because, secondly, authority is created by people. Imperfect creators make imperfect creations. Because the people who agree upon a particular authority can be selfish and cruel, the authority can be selfish and cruel. Totalitarian governments, brutal gang leaders, abusive husbands and fathers, all these occur because those that seek selfish gain as opposed to mutual gain build an authority to suit their own needs. Even authorities that are built for mutual gain like democratic governments, the "rule of law" and trade unions can become oppressive and brutal; because their creators (humans) are flawed and limited and fail to foresee the the consequences of their actions.
In the end, there is no perfect solution. To dissolve all authority is to dissolve all society and to fly in the face of human nature. To embrace any authority without reservation is to invite corruption and violence. Some societies have a system of "checks and balances," but even these can be manipulated and broken. Constant vigilance as a society is required, as is a consistent desire as a group to value both individual and corporate survival.
If you're defining them as "natural" then--for the purpose of that argument with that definition--they are tautologically natural. You would have to define them as something else if you wanted to debate about it at all.
Anyway,
"Rights" are a value judgement. They must be granted by something capable of evaluation, of conscience thought. Thus, it must be a MIND of some kind that grants them. Given the nature of the argument, I can really only think of 3 entities that could have any say in the matter:
A) God (which could represent the opinion of 'nature')
B) "Mankind" as a collective entity.
C) A government.
From there:
A) is an completely different argument, and I will table it.
B) Does all mankind think that all of mankind is worthy of some kind of collective rights? I would say, based on war and the "us vs them" tribal mentality we seem to exhibit, no. Mankind does not have an inborn respect for mankind, just kin.
Which leaves us with "C."
But, that's only because I was only able to think of 3 options. If anyone has away out of this trilemma, I'd like to hear it.
Oh, for ****'s sake.
Though your reading of Rousseau's theory is basically correct, the term "social contract" is not originally his. Furthermore, Rousseau was a romantic-minded idiot who idealized a lifestyle he had never lived or even seen, and certainly could not demonstrate the viability of. In fact, Rousseau wouldn't recognize a good philosophical demonstration if it walked up to him and punched him in his vile hypocritical face. Rousseau's narrative of the noble savage and the social construct is a myth, a fairy tale, with no more merit than the racial theories of the early-20th-Century eugenicists. In serious political philosophy, the concept of the "social contract" is associated with two other names: Thomas Hobbes, who originated it, and John Locke, who expanded upon it. And in their theories (which unlike Rousseau's are based on reason over romance) the social contract is an unambiguously good thing.
As for Darwin... if you think the theory of evolution by natural selection is a recommendation for a way human society ought to be organized, then you do not understand it. Or the scientific process generally. A scientific theory is strictly descriptive, not prescriptive: it describes the way the natural world does behave, not the way human beings ought to behave. Darwin's theory of evolution does not say that the weak ought to be allowed to die any more than Newton's theory of gravity says that people ought always to move towards the nearest center of mass. And hospitals are no more "wrong" by Darwinian standards than airplanes are "wrong" by Newtonian standards. So unless you're prepared to go boycott your local airport, do not speak of Darwin.
I hope that no citation is necessary here.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I mean, sociobiologists exist. They're wrong, but they definitely exist. Thayer, for example, turns descriptions of evolution and makes normative sentiments of them about international relations. They're definitely wrong, but it does exist as a philosophy.
lol
Humans develop society. However problems arise from this new development as we are not normally able to function the same way we did when it was just us an our families. When you live at home there are no "rights" but simply a shared sense of responsibility to maintain survival to pass no the genes.
In a larger society where there is no sharing of genes or mates within the general population (if you look into a crowd and if your not having sexual relations or related to them then thats what I mean. Not that there was an absense of it). There is no biologically engineered reason to strive for their health or well being. In fact we are a tribal species and our instinct would normally have been to fight them. We have a "them" and "us" mentality and that exists even today.
So if biological instinct to preserve our genes no longer plays a vital role in our interactions with our fellow man then several problems arise. Us being the most intellegent beings on this planet thus far have devised a set system of rules so as to maintain an order. It is a contract that everyone has with each other. I won't stab you in the eye and you won't rape my wife. I'll be fair and you'll be fair. The only way to gurantee that you are treated fairly is if you treat others fairly. At least that is the basis of laws.
These "rights" are simply our collectively aggreed liberties that everyone wants. In order to maintain these pre-selected liberties we set up laws or "rights" to protect them.
A good example is this.
I don't want to be murdered. I have no real intention of murdering anyone else if it means I am safe from it. Everyone agrees this is good and we now have right to life.
IF everyone wanted the ability to vote then we get the right to vote.
IF everyone wants a voice then we get the right of free speech.
These rights don't come from god. They don't come from the government (thought that is the tool used to impliment them) but the combined agreement within a society.
EDIT:
To make sure I am clear. These "rights" apply ONLY to those within the society that utilizes that right. For example if the society of America has freedom of speech as a right its because of the collective ideologies of Americans. If another place does not have free speech it is either due to collective reasoning within the party of that society that it is not a "need" or something they feel is necessary to their daily lives. OR its due to a totalitarian overbearing controlling government that is attempting to control the masses.
The case for the latter is exempt from the normal case. when a few stand atop many without and the few disreguard the need of many then unrest is due. These cases are special. And denial of rights comes from the government not from the society.
What are you talking about? Sociobiology is a branch of biology. It's suitably descriptive. I have no idea who "Thayer" is, and the name is too common for Wikipedia or Google to be of any use, but Edward O. Wilson definitely wasn't in the habit of making normative statements. Some sociobiological hypotheses are certainly controversial, but right or wrong they're not "ought" claims.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Dr. Bradly A Thayer. Applies sociobiology to international relations to make normative claims about the prevalence of realism. Others do it too, he just wrote a book on it.
It's also a branch of sociology and anthropology, both of which quite often make normative claims even if they also make descriptive ones.
I don't know if this is what he does, but one can certainly apply science to other fields like international relations to predict consequences of actions, then go beyond the science to say, "This is the most desirable consequence, so we should do it this way." That's just the relationship between science and engineering. Nothing contentious about that. The problem is when you start thinking of the science itself as determining what is desirable. It's the difference between "Here's how to build a machine that will fly" and "Gravity, therefore we shouldn't build flying machines".
Which says far more about their merit as sciences than about the theory of evolution's normativity.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So in your opinion, did the colonists lose their rights when they declared independence from the king? If they weren't under the subject of any government, did they still have rights?
As for rights they are not natural. We are not born with any certain rites without a governing body to make sure these rights are not infringed upon. In anarchy the only rights are to fight for survival and hope not to fall short.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
Prove it.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
When exactly did the colonists not exist under the rule of a government? The Declaration of Independence was a governing document. (It failed horribly as such, but it was one.)
Standard: W/R Aggro
The Declaration did not institute a government?
Yes, it most certainly did.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
If someone is not under the sovereignty of a government, do they have no rights?
In my opinion, no, they do not have no rights. (You worded your question with a double negative, so it's hard to answer without one.)
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
That's cool, we'll pretend you weren't ignorant of American history too.
What rights are you talking about? Even assuming that a society existing without government could exist (it could not), you're not specifying which rights you're curious about? Are you asking if a person alone in a jungle has the right to life? If so, what are you comparing that to? The general assumption in our society is that your rights extend to the degree that they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
It ultimately seems like this question has to be theistic in nature, because in an atheist worldview there can be no arbiter/granter of "natural" rights.
Standard: W/R Aggro
Because it would take us very off topic, I don't want to expand on the point I was trying to make. Feel free to PM me if you are really that interested though.
Any rights. Could any rights exist without a state?
This is clearly a hypothetical so this is irrelevant.
I disagree. I am an atheist, but I don't completely dismiss the idea of natural rights.
This doesn't seem to be a useful question—you have the rights afforded to you by natural laws; for instance, the right not to implode because you live on a planet with an atmosphere. Nature affords you that "right." I'm just not clear on what good it is to discuss that.
Okay? What natural rights do you believe in?
Standard: W/R Aggro