Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Sallow]

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.

A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.

I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.

That's not a right.

 

[G.T.]

Of course things being abstract does not lead to the conclusion that everything is permitted, first off. Second off, within the parameters of "mans reason" is not EVERYTHING.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions. No one can prove they exist; no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.

No one has to prove they exist.

Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.

Then I'm exactly right. They only exist as ideas or opinions. There is nothing 'natural' about them. They are not God given.

They are merely opinions that form a part of the basis for how certain forms of government should function.

So, life is an idea?
Cogito ergo sum?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Of course things being abstract does not lead to the conclusion that everything is permitted, first off. Second off, within the parameters of "mans reason" is not EVERYTHING.

Sure it is. Without reason this conversation ceases immediately. Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.

A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.

I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.

Since wolves starve to death all the time, that 'right' as you would call it only exists as an opinion. You are rendering the term meaningless,

mostly because you know you're wrong.

By your logic, humans have the natural right to kill and eat other humans, and in fact in our long history that was probably fairly common. By your logic they would also have the natural right to steal food from other humans.

When did those 'natural rights' as you would call them stop being 'natural'?

 

[Sallow]

We should agree, first..what are "rights"?

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]
<snip>
Natural rights versus legal rights
painting of a dark gray skies with trees and water, and a human image, flying, with arms outstretched
According to some views, certain rights derive from God or Nature
Main article: Natural and legal rights

Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.
Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.

And that "government" is wholly not necessary.

I dispute that contention.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're several pages late, dude. been there, done that. won the stuffed animal over it.

 

[G.T.]

Without reason nothing ceases to exist except for reason. And reason can make conclusions based on physical facts. It cannot in regard to rights. They are an abstract manifestation of mans reason. Thek being abstract does not indeed mean everything is abstract and nothing is real. Thats a cop out to having to prove rights exist, because it cannot be done.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No one has to prove they exist.

Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.

Then I'm exactly right. They only exist as ideas or opinions. There is nothing 'natural' about them. They are not God given.

They are merely opinions that form a part of the basis for how certain forms of government should function.

So, life is an idea?
Cogito ergo sum?

What say you? Is life an opinion or an idea? You gonna go full "abstract" on this one? Or are you going to concede you either aren't sure whats going on, or aren't sure whats going on?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.

Cogito ergo sum?

So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,

and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.

 

[percysunshine]

Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.

A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.

I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.

That's not a right.

It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Without reason nothing ceases to exist except for reason. And reason can make conclusions based on physical facts. It cannot in regard to rights. They are an abstract manifestation of mans reason. Thek being abstract does not indeed mean everything is abstract and nothing is real. Thats a cop out to having to prove rights exist, because it cannot be done.

Without reason, you do not have the mental power to form judgments, conclusions or inferences. You're left with nothing but instinct. Which means the conversation is over. Which means nothing is real, because the only real we know is in defining it through reason/logical deductions.

The natural right to life is real. This has already been gone over ad nauseum.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.

Cogito ergo sum?

So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,

and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.

So you do not understand the phrase and what it means?

Let me help you out. The right to life is a natural right once you're in existence. Does that help? You want me to help you some more?

 

[G.T.]

No, rights being abstract do not mean everything is abstract or even that all of reason is abstract either. Youre taking liberties with logic that do not exist as a cop out because you cant lay out a logicAl proof for rights existing in nature.

Ya cant. Ya wont. Ya havent.

Instinct is not rights.
ability to act....is not rights.

Facts.

You fail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.

I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.

That's not a right.

It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.

Did you know there are certain species of rabbits that if pregnant during a time of severe food shortage will spontaneously abort their fetuses?

I guess abortion was a 'natural right' long before humans ever showed up an invented abstract philosophy, eh?

 

[G.T.]

Cogito ergo sum?

So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,

and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.

So you do not understand the phrase and what it means?

Let me help you out. The right to life is a natural right once you're in existence. Does that help? You want me to help you some more?

nope that is illogical. You just tried to pass off ability as right, again.

Thats been debunked. Long time ago. Thank you come again.

Living does not equal a riht to live anymore than killing is a right to kill....but what you just said tries to say so. Fail.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I've done it on this very page! You just insist that you're right, because you want to believe, I dont know, that you're philosophically groundbreaking? It's silly!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So there is no natural right to life. Wow. Someone should inform the entirety of man. We have a ground breaker!!!!

 

[Sallow]

A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.

I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.

That's not a right.

It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.

It's not a right.

The rabbit doesn't recognize it as a right.
The wolf doesn't recognize it as a right.

Eating is a function.

You don't eat..you die.

And not because some force outside yourself will kill you.

Rights are a legal concept.

 

[G.T.]

So there is no natural right to life. Wow. Someone should inform the entirety of man. We have a ground breaker!!!!

Nope... XXXXXX

We naturally are born.
we naturally live.

That does not make the leap to either being a right.

Thats taking liberties with logic that do not exist. XXXXXX