What is a "right"?

I read today two definitions:

1. a right is nothing more than a prohibition on the initiation of force against a person and his or her property;

2. a claim on things such as the "right" to "free" schooling, "free" health care, etc.

It seems to be fruitful distinction.

Should there be civil rights of the second type at all?

Dmitri.

I read today two definitions:

1. a right is nothing more than a prohibition on the initiation of force against a person and his or her property;

2. a claim on things such as the "right" to "free" schooling, "free" health care, etc.

It seems to be fruitful distinction.

Should there be civil rights of the second type at all?

Dmitri.

A right of the second kind should exist, but only as a misfortune. I hold that knowledge of what construes your rights is derived from your own expectations of how others should treat you. You can rightly expect a chance to be heard, a chance to compete freely and fairly for a job, or to buy the house you want, etc.

You shouldn't expect a lot of "free" goodies at all your neighbors' expense, however. Such things as "free" health care are not rights but means to generate political demand.

You can expect a government that has taken your money under one pretext or another to live up to its promise, however. You have a right to insist that others live up their words, promises and contracts towards you. Which is why huge entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and the like must be entered into with great caution and care, if at all, or we wind up with enormous financial burdens that we force unfairly onto future generations who were not original party to such contracts and are wronged by them.

I read today two definitions:

1. a right is nothing more than a prohibition on the initiation of force against a person and his or her property;

2. a claim on things such as the "right" to "free" schooling, "free" health care, etc.

It seems to be fruitful distinction.

Should there be civil rights of the second type at all?

Dmitri.

The notion and morality of "right" evolved rationally, beginning with the strong desire to avoid social chaos and predatory threats from others so we can get along with the business of getting on with life and producing the things we need to avoid scarcity and living according to our own designs. Spry is right in that it is also connected with the symmetrical ethical thinking underlying the golden rule. The acknowledgment of others as being essentially the same as us who seek the same natural goals leads to the "rights" solution to the political problem. The acceptance of freedom, equality and the consequent rights as the core justification for the legitimacy of any regime is one of the stellar achievements of modern political thinking. It represents a victory for the Left, in the total scheme of things, and its force is unmistakable.

The struggle between the West and Al Quaeda represents a volatile antagonism between the Left and Right today.

The notion and morality of "right" evolved rationally, beginning with the strong desire to avoid social chaos and predatory threats from others so we can get along with the business of getting on with life and producing the things we need to avoid scarcity and living according to our own designs.

The acceptance of freedom, equality and the consequent rights as the core justification for the legitimacy of any regime is one of the stellar achievements of modern political thinking.

Hi John,

I know that evolutionary approach to analysis of existing phenomena is fashionable,
but it is untenable in most cases. One of the reasons is that very little is known how humans come to be and how various cultural and political institutions came to be. That's why all "explanations" how human consciousness evolved from "natural" demands of environment are so fishy.
As far as rights, avoiding "social chaos and predatory threats from others" does not necessitate the idea of rights -- just that of "the guy with the biggest stick rules". So, I think there should be some other important considerations for arising the idea of rights.

As far as "acceptance of freedom, equality and consequent rights", a good ground for discussion is the behaviour of groups of people when social order breaks down. There are definitely those who accept others freedom, equality, etc., but they are either philosophers or those with big guns and a lot of ammo.
What about the rest of the populace? Did they accepted freedom,etc. before but stoppped accepting it when disaster stroked? Or, they never accepted it to begin with, but were following social norms?

Dmitri.

I know that evolutionary approach to analysis of existing phenomena is fashionable,
but it is untenable in most cases. One of the reasons is that very little is known how humans come to be and how various cultural and political institutions came to be.

Here is a picture of how humans came to be:


If you look closely, you will see yourself represented in the third or fourth figure.

Hope that helps.

Here is a picture of how humans came to be:


If you look closely, you will see yourself represented in the third or fourth figure.

Hope that helps.

It would help only if "being human" is reduced to body morphology.

Here is a picture of how humans came to be:


If you look closely, you will see yourself represented in the third or fourth figure.

Hope that helps.

It would help only if "being human" is reduced to body morphology.

LOL. If you do look closely, the fourth figure does have a beard like Dmitri and likes to walk around in sandals in the dead of winter.

The notion and morality of "right" evolved rationally, beginning with the strong desire to avoid social chaos and predatory threats from others so we can get along with the business of getting on with life and producing the things we need to avoid scarcity and living according to our own designs.

The acceptance of freedom, equality and the consequent rights as the core justification for the legitimacy of any regime is one of the stellar achievements of modern political thinking.

Hi John,

I know that evolutionary approach to analysis of existing phenomena is fashionable,
but it is untenable in most cases. One of the reasons is that very little is known how humans come to be and how various cultural and political institutions came to be. That's why all "explanations" how human consciousness evolved from "natural" demands of environment are so fishy.
As far as rights, avoiding "social chaos and predatory threats from others" does not necessitate the idea of rights -- just that of "the guy with the biggest stick rules". So, I think there should be some other important considerations for arising the idea of rights.

As far as "acceptance of freedom, equality and consequent rights", a good ground for discussion is the behaviour of groups of people when social order breaks down. There are definitely those who accept others freedom, equality, etc., but they are either philosophers or those with big guns and a lot of ammo.
What about the rest of the populace? Did they accepted freedom,etc. before but stoppped accepting it when disaster stroked? Or, they never accepted it to begin with, but were following social norms?

Dmitri.

It is true that you won't find natural rights existing independently (and apart from our perception) in nature. But that doesn't mean that it is wrong or incorrect to use the world "natural" when discussing the kind of right that can be derived from the inherent nature of human being residing in a natural world. To dismiss the existence of rights from a realist perspective is to miss the point.

Natural rights, derived from reasoning from the perspective of all conscious beings in the world, is to elaborate on the most essential way to arrive at a peaceful and fair agreement concerning the basic situation faced in the world. Human Beings have the natural desire to persist and live without coming to a premature demise. This premature demise can come from two potential sources: other human beings and nature itself. The natural rights musings are designed to most effectively, fairly and practically meet these two basic natural hostilities in this world.

What do you do amongst others in this basic situation to best satisfy your natural desire to live? To consciously and best assure that hostility from others doesn't end our existence prematurely, we all are strongly convinced and motivated to enter into agreement equally to respect the right to life, since everyone has this mutual and natural basic desire. Being that human being has the inherent capability of being individually aware with choice to make an individual life, we would all strongly agree to the right of liberty. And since we must deal with the hostility of nature concerning our needs to subsist (well) we agree to a right of property, most intuitively made manifest from the result of our labor. There?s a strong intuitive logic to calling something your own when you have invested the time and energy to make it.

The rational awareness of our shared essential desires leading to natural rights conclusions is designed to foster peace and stability amongst a populace and produce an industrious, sober minded morality to produce the kinds of goods and services we need to make our way through this world in a rational, healthy, efficient and fair way without a lot of cultural baggage and extraneous false stories that often can bring in a lot of dysfunction, scarcity and strife. People who accept the cogency of natural rights are grounded in the basic awareness and desires and have little tolerance for grandiose metaphysics and unjustifiable (and extra-natural) claims. Natural rights souls are hostile to cultural memes that serve to subsidize practices and beliefs that are unjustifiably unequal, unfair, irrational, tyrannical, and not grounded in nature in the pursuit of life.

This is, in sketch form, the kind of thinking that informs a natural rights regime, and why, since it deals with the basic natural situation and desires of human being, it logically cuts across cultural boundaries. It is universal in scope, not particular or accidental, since we are all essentially equal as conscious beings that desire to live a full life

Thanks for defining the term "natural rights" as you're using it; that makes all the difference, and it makes much more sense to me now.

I do think that this intuitive concept of "rights" may be natural. I think it's certain that without a natural tendency toward altruism and cooperation, humans, like other primates, couldn't have survived. At least not without developing in a completely different and much less civilized direction, perhaps as wild predators like lions and wolves. The altruistic tendency in all primates, including humans, has been demonstrated in countless studies. Humanistic inclinations are apparently inborn.

And yet, at the same time, humans (and many other primates) also clearly have natural tendencies in the opposite direction. Humans are inclined to war and murder and torture and enslave, and that's been a recurring pattern throughout history, so that those tendencies must also be natural. They can be organized and officially sanctioned by authorities, as depicted in the beheading scene John posted in another thread. Or they can be actions of rogue individuals or gangs, as in the case of U.S. soldiers in Iraq who have raped and murdered innocent people. So the concept of our own rights probably IS natural, but the acceptance of others' rights might be rejected by individuals or regimes under some concept that would be the opposite of "natural rights."

Human Beings have the natural desire to persist and live without coming to a premature demise.
...
What do you do amongst others in this basic situation to best satisfy your natural desire to live?
...
The rational awareness of our shared essential desires leading to natural rights conclusions is designed to foster peace and stability amongst a populace and produce an industrious, sober minded morality to produce the kinds of goods and services we need to make our way through this world in a rational, healthy, efficient and fair way without a lot of cultural baggage and extraneous false stories that often can bring in a lot of dysfunction, scarcity and strife. People who accept the cogency of natural rights are grounded in the basic awareness and desires and have little tolerance for grandiose metaphysics and unjustifiable (and extra-natural) claims.

Hi John,

I can agree with "natural desire to persist" thesis, but will argue with others.
"Natural desire to persist" is universal to all cultures, but the idea of rights, natural or otherwise is not.

How to deal with this "natural desire to persist"?
Other than rights, there are at least two other approaches:

1. Establish strong social hierarchy that provides for means to suppress potential aggression from others
Traditional societies are like that.
2. Do not allow this desire to drive behaviour -- the desire itself is caused by ignorance of causes of suffering and thus should be dissolved.
This is a Buiddhist idea.
What is it in "intuitive logic of natural rights" that makes one to accept it above these two, quite developed views?

Next,
"The rational awareness of our shared essential desires leading to natural rights conclusions is designed to foster peace and stability amongst a populace ..." . As far as I observed such rational awareness might lead to
conclusions like "Only I should have the right -- others -- not". The idea of respect of other sentient beings desires as a basis of social stability is foreign to at least Russian culture -- don't know others as well to make such strong statement.
What should be added to the rational awareness to lead to the conclusion of natural rights?

Last, the idea Liberty as essential human value, or right is absent from many cultures.
Comfortable slavery is preferred by many to uncertainties of freedom.
In fact, freedom all too often leads to worsening material conditions, not to mention outright death.
(Yes, Abel! The example of Athenians and Spartans come to this mind, lost in darkness of the ages.)
How your "intuitive logic of natural rights" would appeal to huge parts of populace that is busy
looking for a benevolent Lord of who's beloved slaves they long to make themselves?

There is some component that I feel should be present in order to make the idea of rights
"natural" and intuitively correct. But I don't know what it is.

Dmitri.