There are also inherent rights. Those inalienable things such as life, liberty, happiness, freedom etc.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
From where are rights derived?
- Thread starter EconGuy
- Start date
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I think the Rule of law has value in and of itself, simply as an ideal. There is a quote, sometimes attributed to Socrates, to the effect that it's "Better the law should rule, than a tyrant." But both the law itself, and the principle of the Rule of Law, break down when there's no authority capable of administering it. And, for that matter, in states where the legal authorities have no respect for the law.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Which are held to be self evident. Yes, I think so too. But without law to enshrine them, they're values rather than rights, perhaps.
I think 'rights' are a mental construct of sorts, formed by culture and relationships.
The simplest way of looking at rights come from simply observing what the government lays out for a person, but these aren't always observed. There are little laws that people 'test' all the time(like the many folks who realize they can go 80 on the interstate even though the speed limit is 70 and its unlikely they'll be pulled over).
There's also 'rights' that we create or deny for ourselves based on our relationships. If a person believes they must, or must not, do something a parent or spouse demands, trying to get them to go against that might feel for them the same anxiety that it would if you were trying to get them to steal a Buick...
A religious person may see 'rights' in their religion(and these vary, religion to religion, deity to deity). A person from a specific cultural background might believe that what their culture says are rights are true and proper as well.
What do we have the right to do? Pretty much whatever we can stomach, and for what we are okay with facing the consequences for. Thankfully, most folks are tempered enough to consider others when exercising or defending 'rights'.
The simplest way of looking at rights come from simply observing what the government lays out for a person, but these aren't always observed. There are little laws that people 'test' all the time(like the many folks who realize they can go 80 on the interstate even though the speed limit is 70 and its unlikely they'll be pulled over).
There's also 'rights' that we create or deny for ourselves based on our relationships. If a person believes they must, or must not, do something a parent or spouse demands, trying to get them to go against that might feel for them the same anxiety that it would if you were trying to get them to steal a Buick...
A religious person may see 'rights' in their religion(and these vary, religion to religion, deity to deity). A person from a specific cultural background might believe that what their culture says are rights are true and proper as well.
What do we have the right to do? Pretty much whatever we can stomach, and for what we are okay with facing the consequences for. Thankfully, most folks are tempered enough to consider others when exercising or defending 'rights'.
Augustus
…
Someone like Henry VIII perhaps, but the Civil War, Glorious Revolution, and selection of the House of Hanover were all steps in establishing the primacy of parliament over the monarchy.
Divine right relates to absolutist monarchy, not constitutional monarchy with parliamentary sovereignty.
I guess they appeal to a creator as they were a mix of Providential Deists and Christians. Enlightenment era Providential Deism still believed in a benevolent creator who willed human flourishing, just one who wouldn’t intervene after creating a world in which this could be achieved.
It was basically liberal Christian ethics without the ritual, miracles and theology, hence things like the Jefferson Bible.
Well, we are a social animal by nature, so that would seem to make some sense.
It has, however, the slight drawback that frightening people with bogeymen of all sorts (Jews, gays and other such-like terrors) can sometimes lead us to backslide on some of that consensus.
Thus conveniently explaining away why God doesn't seem to do anything where and when it would actually accomplish something.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yup. And they are not inherent or fundamental or even rights but rather glorified privileges as they can be denied amd taken away.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Which is why politics are so important. One cannot preserve one's right just by trying to claim them. One often has to find a means of defending them.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Rights come from the causes and effects of the ideals of virtues. The more we stray from virtues the more consequences there are to pay inherently. The closer we draw to virtues the fairer we become with our selves and others. Quality of life depends on the ideals of all the virtues. Virtues are character traits that form the basis of trustworthiness and deserve in all relationships to life and nature.
It's up to humanity to agree upon rights that are enforced. There's no guarantees of rights and freedoms deserved. Time and time again throughout history people ignore and abuse the virtues. Time and time again people don't know virtues in their truest sense. Rights come from the truth of virtues and we all pay the worst prices when those virtues are ignored.
Rights come from having the wisdom and desire to recognize that virtues form the basis of trust and deserve, and that to cheat the virtues is to cheat one's self and others.
So there's a truth in play that can't be ignored if a person desires a quality of life and a quality of freedom. Nature and reality are not in harmony with this truth. The truth is all virtues of good character.
The fact that this truth is always a factor in life compels me to search for a higher power beyond the shackles of human religions. Nevertheless I'm an atheist because of the savage nature, and indifferent nature of the physical world.
It's up to humanity to agree upon rights that are enforced. There's no guarantees of rights and freedoms deserved. Time and time again throughout history people ignore and abuse the virtues. Time and time again people don't know virtues in their truest sense. Rights come from the truth of virtues and we all pay the worst prices when those virtues are ignored.
Rights come from having the wisdom and desire to recognize that virtues form the basis of trust and deserve, and that to cheat the virtues is to cheat one's self and others.
So there's a truth in play that can't be ignored if a person desires a quality of life and a quality of freedom. Nature and reality are not in harmony with this truth. The truth is all virtues of good character.
The fact that this truth is always a factor in life compels me to search for a higher power beyond the shackles of human religions. Nevertheless I'm an atheist because of the savage nature, and indifferent nature of the physical world.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
This is a very interesting subject, and one I have considered a lot.
It is my conclusion that a right is something that is given to a less powerful entity (person or group of people) by a more powerful entity. That applies to God as well if you want to bring up "God-given" rights. I can't see anything that demonstrates the existence of "natural rights" or anything similar.
I'll address a few expected responses.
Is that might makes right? No. I'm just addressing where rights come from, not whether any particular right is "good" or "bad".
What I say applies to both the most liberal democracy and the most oppressive dictatorship and all points in between. If you want your particularly favored right to apply, make it happen, don't rely on some "natural" right to apply automatically.
Laws and even constitutions are codification of some (currently) powerful people's idea of how things should be. That doesn't make them bad but it also doesn't make them holy writ.
It is my conclusion that a right is something that is given to a less powerful entity (person or group of people) by a more powerful entity. That applies to God as well if you want to bring up "God-given" rights. I can't see anything that demonstrates the existence of "natural rights" or anything similar.
I'll address a few expected responses.
Is that might makes right? No. I'm just addressing where rights come from, not whether any particular right is "good" or "bad".
What I say applies to both the most liberal democracy and the most oppressive dictatorship and all points in between. If you want your particularly favored right to apply, make it happen, don't rely on some "natural" right to apply automatically.
Laws and even constitutions are codification of some (currently) powerful people's idea of how things should be. That doesn't make them bad but it also doesn't make them holy writ.
I think the history of political abuse by England and what you sugest are both plausible motives. It is the only document that appeals to a divine, so I've always been curious why it is the only one.
It would seem to me that what you would wish for yourself, you should be prepared to grant to everyone else. Do you want the right to make your own choices about your career, your spouse, whether to have children or not? Then you should be prepared to grant the same to all others. Rights come from the social contract that makes living with each other as social animals not only possible, but enjoyable to the extent possible. If you would deny to someone else the right to marry whom they choose (so long as their intended also has the same choice), then you should be prepared to marry whom you are told to, and when.
Consensus isn't a perfect basis for
discerning rights. But it's what happens.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
What makes it worse it wouldn't even take a decade to purge elected positions of all Dems and Reps. Amd we don't even have to fight a war for it like in times past. All we have to do is quit voting for them to make real change happen. But even just one election could end the two party deadlock by changing the House and inject enough compition into the Senate to instantly destroy the two party system Americans widely don't like.
Instead we just keep rubber stamping what comes as close to our approval as it gets on those the D-bag and R-tard nuts the fan clubs send us.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I agree, but that doesn't alter what I said. You can wish to grant as many rights as you choose, but in order to make those rights universal (and we're talking about rights that apply to everyone, aren't we?) you need the power to enforce those rights. In a democratic country, that involves persuading enough people of like mind to vote for politicians that will pass laws that enforce your desired rights.
Orbit
I'm a planet
For all practical purposes, rights are granted by those who have power to those who don't have power. Rights ultimately come from power.
Unhappily, that doesn't always seem to work, though, does it? I mean, in the US, support for same-sex marriage stands at 71%, which is not bad at all, and for abortion in most cases 61%, and yet shady manipulation by conservatives is actively working against both. For contraception, the support stands at 90%, yet Clarence Thomas has managed to put it at least on the agenda of many conservatives in his concurring opion in Dodds.
Unscrupulous political machinations -- even in the most democratic of countries -- can defeat the will of the majority more often than you might like to think.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
You're preaching to the choir, brother. You do understand though that my point was about how rights are created, not whether any given right is "good" or that it can be difficult to do?