From where are rights derived?

[Heyo]

That is your error. You cannot assume that everything is like the US. And why even bring up the Declaration of Independence? That has very little to do with where your rights came from in this country.

Yep. I've stated that time and time again. E.g. in the Declaration of Independence it is stated that humans have an inalienable right to life but that statement never made it into federal law. A US citizen doesn't have an inalienable right to life - I have.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Fundamentally, from where do you believe that rights come from??

People.

 

[wellwisher]

Fundamentally, from where do you believe that rights come from??

God given rights are similar to fundamental human rights, in that they are same for all humans, regardless of culture. Governments create a subset of these human rights, based on their own need for power and control.

All humans have human DNA, therefore we all have a similar neural operating system. This neural operating system defines human behavior as a species. We call this human nature. Fundamental to the needs of that natural operating system of the human brain, are basic human rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Governments places limits of this ideal set of rights, with the limits often based on self interest at the top of the food chain.

The analogy is what is called an asymptote in math; In analytic geometry, an asymptote of a curve is a line such that the distance between the curve and the line approaches zero as one or both of the x or y coordinates tends to infinity.

God given rights is like the asymptote which goes to infinity; the god given rights curve touches all humans. But in practice, rights from Governments stop short and leave a gap between the curve and asymptote, where even some basic humans rights are not allowed for all. God, by definition is infinity, so only God given rights are fully inclusive to all humans by definition.

Freedom of speech is an important human right since we all have ideas and opinions and allowing the free exchange of ideas, is useful since different cultures have differences perspectives. Big Brother style government often limits free speech, since they need the idea data base limited, to create an illusion of an asymptote; pseudo-final truth. Laws of man and laws of God are also similar in terms of curve and asymptote; theoretical way to explain real versus ideal.

 

[Augustus]

That was stated when the USA was being formed and that language had to be used to push back on the divine rights of kings, like the King of England

The British king didn’t rule by divine right though, especially post “Glorious Revolution”.

The British system was one of parliamentary sovereignty, as it is today, where the king ultimately is subservient to parliament (although the king then was obviously far more powerful than now).

That’s how George became king, his family were chosen by parliament to prevent Catholic succession (which was, rightly or wrongly, associated with Divine right)

 

[PureX]

Fundamentally, from where do you believe that rights come from??

From mutual agreement, based on mutual need and cooperation.

Humans are a social cooperative species. We need to help each other to survive and thrive. Affording each other "rights" is how we begin that process.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Do you really have a right if no-one is there to enforce it?

I don't know, do you? Are you arguing that right depends on might?

 

[Rival]

Yup, it is an agreed upon set of rules by humans. Don't get distracted by some references to a God. That was stated when the USA was being formed and that language had to be used to push back on the divine rights of kings, like the King of England. By sayoing rights are God-given is a way to say that citizens had rights equal to the King and couldn't be taken away.

King of Great Britain.

The Act of Union occurred in 1707!!!

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

There's two ways to look at rights. One is the selfish perspective where people focus on what they themselves feel they are entitled to. A focus on responsibilities can be a path to eliminating personal selfishness and growing closer to Divinity.

Rights can be that which enables people to live together - which promotes a just and free society allowing people to reach their full potential. In this sense, to me, a real right is the freedom to, in Jewish terms, practice mitvot.

I can't really imagine rights coming without attendant responsibilities. For example, a lot of people in the U.S. speak about their right to own all sorts of guns. While this is a recognized Constitutional right, is this also a right from God? And should we consider the responsibilities attendant on gun-ownership -- that they might supersede that right to own guns if the gun-owner has demonstrated irresponsible behavior in exercising his right?

People should have the right to live their lives as they see best for themselves. The "pursuit of happiness" is a Constitutional right, and it can be argued that it is also a God-given right. But aren't there also attendant responsibilities to living our lives the way we see best for ourselves, if our exercise of that right impinges on the right of others to do the same? For example, should a person have the right to blast his music at all hours of the night in his pursuit of personal happiness, if it destroys his neighbor's peace and ability to sleep at night?

Laws constrain the rights to which many of us believe that we are entitled, whether they be civil laws enacted by government or religious laws followed by their adherents. In Judaism, our religious laws are incumbent only upon other Jews -- if you are not Jewish, you are not expected to follow Judaic law. In Christianity, I think that there has always been a movement to make Christian law the law of the land, and examples of this are seen in some recent Supreme Court decisions, such as SCOTUS's 5 to 4 decision in 2019 to permit the State of Alabama the right to deny a Muslim prisoner (Domineque Ray) the comfort of his religious advisor at his execution. Only Christian chaplains were permitted in Alabama's execution chamber.

The granting of and perception of rights in this country all too often stand on uneven ground. I think we all need to consider our responsibilities and equitable treatment of others first and foremost.

 

[Estro Felino]

Fundamentally, from where do you believe that rights come from??

Darwinistically speaking, I think there is both evolution and devolution.

Devolution takes place whenever an intellectually evolved species (man, in this case) regresses to more primitive and animal stages, and animals lack self-awareness, so they don't know what they are like, why they are on Earth, and whether they are rights.
It's humans who defend their rights, indeed. Basically animals are born, they mate, procreate and then die.

I think man is much more than that. It's a spiritual being whose existence has a meaning. Rights derive from this meaning.

Nevertheless I think that the modern man is devolving, as for self-awareness. And certain élites who want to enslave people are in on it.

 

[Estro Felino]

I can't really imagine rights coming without attendant responsibilities. For example, a lot of people in the U.S. speak about their right to own all sorts of guns. While this is a recognized Constitutional right, is this also a right from God? And should we consider the responsibilities attendant on gun-ownership -- that they might supersede that right to own guns if the gun-owner has demonstrated irresponsible behavior in exercising his right?

People should have the right to live their lives as they see best for themselves. The "pursuit of happiness" is a Constitutional right, and it can be argued that it is also a God-given right. But aren't there also attendant responsibilities to living our lives the way we see best for ourselves, if our exercise of that right impinges on the right of others to do the same? For example, should a person have the right to blast his music at all hours of the night in his pursuit of personal happiness, if it destroys his neighbor's peace and ability to sleep at night?

Laws constrain the rights to which many of us believe that we are entitled, whether they be civil laws enacted by government or religious laws followed by their adherents. In Judaism, our religious laws are incumbent only upon other Jews -- if you are not Jewish, you are not expected to follow Judaic law. In Christianity, I think that there has always been a movement to make Christian law the law of the land, and examples of this are seen in some recent Supreme Court decisions, such as SCOTUS's 5 to 4 decision in 2019 to permit the State of Alabama the right to deny a Muslim prisoner (Domineque Ray) the comfort of his religious advisor at his execution. Only Christian chaplains were permitted in Alabama's execution chamber.

The granting of and perception of rights in this country all too often stand on uneven ground. I think we all need to consider our responsibilities and equitable treatment of others first and foremost.

That's an inherent perspective...I am curious what you think (and what your religion says) about free will.

The issue here is that people (me too and you too) have free will.
So I think that an American citizen has the right to defend themselves with a gun, because that's what the Second Amendment says.
Owning a gun is the consequence of evil people's free will. Because it's evil people who want to kill others with a gun: the average law-abiding American citizen just wants to be able to defend themselves.

We all have right to happiness. The problem is free will that enables wicked people to harm innocent people.
So our rights are threatened ...but yes, we are all entitled to happiness.

The question: who starts to respect the other?
Because if I respect you and you respect me, nobody's rights are threatened.

 

[F1fan]

The British king didn’t rule by divine right though, especially post “Glorious Revolution”.

The British system was one of parliamentary sovereignty, as it is today, where the king ultimately is subservient to parliament (although the king then was obviously far more powerful than now).

That’s how George became king, his family were chosen by parliament to prevent Catholic succession (which was, rightly or wrongly, associated with Divine right)

Divine rights was definately something the English kings used when it suited them. I can't think of any other reason why the D of I would appeal to a Creator for the basis of rights except to counter the rights the king could have claimed. It's more odd since they formed a secular government.

 

[EconGuy]

I believe human rights are ultimately given by God

I'm often confused by this deceleration. How can God grant rights?

In order for rights to exist as a concept I submit the following (though not limited to) must be agreed upon.

1. Recognition of Individual Dignity: Rights are often grounded in the belief that every individual possesses inherent dignity and value, irrespective of their background, status, or abilities.
2. Social and Political Framework: Rights typically emerge within a social and political context, where societies come together to establish rules and norms that protect individuals from harm and ensure fair treatment.
3. Consent and Agreement: Rights are often based on a social contract or an agreement among people to respect and uphold certain fundamental principles to promote peaceful coexistence.
4. Rule of Law: A functioning legal system is essential to safeguard and enforce rights, providing a framework to resolve disputes and protect individuals from abuses.
5. Government and Authority: In most cases, rights are recognized and upheld by a governing authority or institution responsible for enumerating the rights of society and protecting the interests and freedoms of the citizens.
6. Mutual Respect: Respect for the rights of others is crucial for a rights-based society. It requires individuals to recognize that their rights end where another person's rights begin.

Justice, in essence, provides the moral and ethical foundation for the recognition and protection of rights, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly, equitably, and with respect.

Lastly, in order for rights to carry any weight there must be a system of enforcement. Rights are not self-enforcing. They need to be backed up by a system of enforcement, such as the law or social norms. This means that there needs to be a way to hold people accountable for violating other people's rights.

God doesn't do any of this. Even if you believe that somehow God is essential, perhaps the inspiration for a concept of rights the fact remains that the theist and non-theist alike have the exact same job when trying to establish a society that recognizes rights. You have to convince others that rights are something that each person and by extension should value.

With respect, I humbly suggest that recognize that it is people not God convincing other people of the value to certain fundamental rights is what makes rights possible. As a theist you could claim that your God is the inspiration or source of the concept (something I'm not convinced is true, but understand and respect that you feel different), but, by recognizing that society needs to appeal to each other why it should hold certain values and enumerate rights as a way to enshrine rights, the effect would be that you and I, theist and non-theist, could find solid footing and common ground to fight for rights.

Thoughts?

 

[Heyo]

I don't know, do you? Are you arguing that right depends on might?

Yes, I think so. If, e.g., I grant everyone the right to smoke weed on my property, and the polices comes by and arrests us all, my granting of rights was pretty worthless, wasn't it?
If the Bundestag grants the right to smoke weed, a police person who arrests me will be arrested themselves for kidnapping.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

That's an inherent perspective...I am curious what you think (and what your religion says) about free will.

The issue here is that people (me too and you too) have free will.
So I think that an American citizen has the right to defend themselves with a gun, because that's what the Second Amendment says.
Owning a gun is the consequence of evil people's free will. Because it's evil people who want to kill others with a gun: the average law-abiding American citizen just wants to be able to defend themselves.

We all have right to happiness. The problem is free will that enables wicked people to harm innocent people.
So our rights are threatened ...but yes, we are all entitled to happiness.

The question: who starts to respect the other?
Because if I respect you and you respect me, nobody's rights are threatened.

If I am reading correctly what you wrote, you are saying that some people's exercise of their free will makes it necessary for others to have rights in order to protect themselves? I can see the logic in that. But what if one abuses one's rights?

A right is presumed to place justice on your side, otherwise you would not have been granted that right. It doesn't mean that your right is actually a just one -- it only means that somebody has determined that your right is a just one and you are entitled to it. (See my previous post about the State of Alabama and its SCOTUS-approved right to not permit an Iman to stand at the side of a Muslim undergoing execution, yet a Christian chaplain may stand at the side of a Christian undergoing execution.)

I think that the exercise of a genuinely just right should entail a sense of fairness and responsibility towards others to a reasonable degree. For example, one has the right to defend oneself -- but should that right be taken to the extreme use of violence that does more than merely defend, but also utterly obliterates the person who threatened you in some way? While I personally do not believe in pacifism, I also don't believe in unrestrained carnage.

A choice made through one's free will does not necessarily involve justice -- it involves only your own desire. Furthermore, if you make your choice contrary to God's will (for those who are religious) or contrary to your government's will, then there will be consequences dealt by either God or your government. You may have free will, but you don't have free reign to do as you please without consequences.

My only hope, as I attempt to navigate this often distressing world, is to know the difference between what is good and what is evil, and have the courage to choose good over evil.

 

[Estro Felino]

If I am reading correctly what you wrote, you are saying that some people's exercise of their free will makes it necessary for others to have rights in order to protect themselves? I can see the logic in that. But what if one abuses one's rights?

A right is presumed to place justice on your side, otherwise you would not have been granted that right. It doesn't mean that your right is actually a just one -- it only means that somebody has determined that your right is a just one and you are entitled to it. (See my previous post about the State of Alabama and its SCOTUS-approved right to not permit an Iman to stand at the side of a Muslim undergoing execution, yet a Christian chaplain may stand at the side of a Christian undergoing execution.)

I think that the exercise of a genuinely just right should entail a sense of fairness and responsibility towards others to a reasonable degree. For example, one has the right to defend oneself -- but should that right be taken to the extreme use of violence that does more than merely defend, but also utterly obliterates the person who threatened you in some way? While I personally do not believe in pacifism, I also don't believe in unrestrained carnage.

A choice made through one's free will does not necessarily involve justice -- it involves only your own desire. Furthermore, if you make your choice contrary to God's will (for those who are religious) or contrary to your government's will, then there will be consequences dealt by either God or your government. You may have free will, but you don't have free reign to do as you please without consequences.

My only hope, as I attempt to navigate this often distressing world, is to know the difference between what is good and what is evil, and have the courage to choose good over evil.

That's exactly what I said. That free will can be used to harm, so people are not entitled to do harm.

People don't have this right.

But they are entitled to whatever harms nobody. Either directly or indirectly. So they do have rights.
Do you agree with this statement?

 

[EconGuy]

I don't know, do you? Are you arguing that right depends on might?

If I may interject.

Rights are predicated on people sharing values.

For instance I value my life and you value yours. Intellectually we understand that if I don't value your life you are unlikely to value mine. We also desire to live in a world free of chaos, suffering and hunger all of which increases when we don't value each others lives.

Valuing your life and you valuing mine doesn't require force.

However, once we agree that these ideas are worth defending, we can agree to enforce our rights though force. For those that don't share the values of the group, those people would be met with force. The trick is that we create institutions that allow people the right to challenge ideas free of force. This is what free-speech is.

When the rules are created by an individual and are maintained though force, where no one subjected to those rules has a method to repeal or change them, that is "might makes right".

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, I think so. If, e.g., I grant everyone the right to smoke weed on my property, and the polices comes by and arrests us all, my granting of rights was pretty worthless, wasn't it?
If the Bundestag grants the right to smoke weed, a police person who arrests me will be arrested themselves for kidnapping.

So rights are defined and protected by law. Which is as it should be, imo. But the question then becomes, what value does the law have, if it’s not enforced (force being the operative word)?

 

[EconGuy]

what value does the law have, if it’s not enforced (force being the operative word)?

Again, interjecting....

"The Law" has enormous value as it is the method we use to enshrine what most people agree are our shared values.

"A law" can fail to live up to the goals originally set for it, or they can become anachronistic. So what you've really identified is a system that is not only capable of enshrining values in law, but a system that can adapt, change and re-evaluate laws over time.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

That's exactly what I said. That free will can be used to harm, so people are not entitled to do harm.

People don't have this right.

But they are entitled to whatever harms nobody. Either directly or indirectly. So they do have rights.
Do you agree with this statement?

I agree with any and all rights that do no harm to others. I don't agree with some people who imagine that giving rights to others will somehow subtract from their own rights. Like the claims made by anti-LGBT folks, racial bigots, etc.

 

[Heyo]

So rights are defined and protected by law. Which is as it should be, imo. But the question then becomes, what value does the law have, if it’s not enforced (force being the operative word)?

Countries which have lost the ability (or will) to enforce it's laws and defend it's citizens are called "failed states". There are quite a few of them. It happens when a stronger authority grants its partisans the right to break the rule of law of the country and has the power to prevent the rule breakers from being prosecuted.