Are Rights Inherent or Given?

[Sara27]

Yes, everyone has rights, but:

Are human rights inherent? Do we all have them no matter what the political climate?

Are human rights given by those in power?

What is your definition of a right?

[Antares]

I'd say human rights are given by social contract. Before we had societies, who speaks of rights? It's my food or yours. No. In that circumstance I wouldn't give a damn about your rights. Other advanced animals with social contract also has rights; for example, dolphins work together and they're generally not allowed to just do whatever they want to another member.

[muguly]

The only right we have is to live. Everything else is an added bonus of living, but not a right.

[Homini Lupus]

Human rights are what people is able to get, from cooperation, state laws, revolution etc. They may also be a political tool (I wage a war on you because you don't respect human rights, by example). But I don't think they are born with humans or that they can be found in any common conscience. If you look in the disposition of men, you also find the will to rape or kill and torture people just to vindicate yourself, wich is not considered human right.

[Latte]

Rights are made by people and integrated into the reality-view of other people, making it seem a part of reality which.... face it, is largely for most a mass of learned stuff we merely absorb from those around us. The concepts like "rights" are usually seen as self-evidently real. Some happily discuss how to define the concepts, claiming that the standard definition is not necessarily self-evident too, though rarely even thinking about whether the concept has any connection with the world whatsoever other than how it influences our actions when we believe it.

Same with ownership and such. In reality, you are only using the stuff, the ownership-connection between oneself and an object is only in the mind.

[png1977]

Rights are made by people and integrated into the reality-view of other people, making it seem a part of reality which.... face it, is largely for most a mass of learned stuff we merely absorb from those around us. The concepts like "rights" are usually seen as self-evidently real. Some happily discuss how to define the concepts, claiming that the standard definition is not necessarily self-evident too, though rarely even thinking about whether the concept has any connection with the world whatsoever other than how it influences our actions when we believe it.

Same with ownership and such. In reality, you are only using the stuff, the ownership-connection between oneself and an object is only in the mind.

I was going to say, "The idea of "rights" is made up so you can make up the idea of whether they're given or inherent according to your preference" except Latte said it much better than I could.

[blueback]

Rights are allowances made by the powerful for the powerless. The only time anyone worries about rights is when they are threatened with a limitation on their actions.

[Claptonian]

You can't give "rights," you can only give privileges. This is really all a matter of your chosen definition, though.

[blueback]

True. All communication is a matter of definitions.

I like Hobbe's definition of rights (at least I think it's Hobbe's). Basically, a right is not being forbidden to do something. In the state of nature (Hobbes) everyone has a right to everything, including each other. That is why the state of nature is a constant state of war. To put a stop to the war everyone has to agree, at the same time, to give up certain rights to a soverign power. That soverign power then enforces the cease-fire among all the people.

The definition holds. In America, we have rights because they are things we are not forbidden to do. I'm in the service, so I have fewer than a civilian because there are things I am forbidden to do that a civilian is not. Rights only matter when there is someone more powerful than you. The powerful one allows the powerless one to do things (does not forbid) and those things are called rights. No one speaks of rights between two equally powerful individuals who don't exist under a more powreful soverign.

[royalstar]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Source: The United States Declaration of Independence

I believe the overall attitude towards 'rights' by humanity is something that is MEANT to be by some divine authority or higher power. God meant us to have freedom of speech...nature wanted us to be free...ect.

I believe that "rights" are relative...if that makes any sense.
What is an 'inherent right' for one person may not be so for another. I also believe in consensus, or the general opinion of a group. Americans all believe in freedom of speech so it is an inherent right. Within that group, trying to prohibit someones speech is a violation to that right...make any sense?

[Sara27]

The only right we have is to live. Everything else is an added bonus of living, but not a right.
Why do we have the right to live? Who gives us that right?

[Antares]

Why do we have the right to live? Who gives us that right?

Society. No society, no rights. Or unlimited rights. Depends on how you see it. It's dog eat dog.

[Sara27]

Society. No society, no rights. It's dog eat dog.
True. Dog sure is tasty with a little Tabasco.

[Claptonian]

I'm in the service, so I have fewer than a civilian because there are things I am forbidden to do that a civilian is not.

But you're only unable to do those things because you signed them away voluntarily. A civilian would be in the same position if they signed a similar contract. I don't see you as having fewer "rights," you just made an agreement not to do certain things. No one has the right to break a voluntary contract.

[blueback]

Yeah you pretty much just supported my point. I said that rights are things you are not forbidden to do by someone/thing more powerful than you.

[Claptonian]

Yeah you pretty much just supported my point. I said that rights are things you are not forbidden to do by someone/thing more powerful than you.

I don't see how I supported that point. In this example, the U.S. military and government are the most powerful entity in the country, but I don't believe they have the right to break a contract either. It's not because they're forbidden from doing so by any authority, it's because they aren't allowed to violate your rights no matter how powerful they are.

Of course, this doesn't stop them from doing so.

[muguly]

Why do we have the right to live? Who gives us that right?

We have that right because we did not choose to be born. We were thrust into a world unknown and unwanted. So the right to live is our burden. (damn, that was depressing)

[ArchonAlarion]

Are human rights inherent? Do we all have them no matter what the political climate?

No they are not inherent. The Is-Ought problem shows that there isn't actually such a thing as objective morality. We don't have any inherent rights nomatter the political climate.

Are human rights given by those in power?

Nope because there is no such thing as rights.
What is your definition of a right?

An objective morality cannot even be comprehended. There would need to be a "purpose" to the universe, and even then, what is the purpose of working towards this purpose. The argument is circular.

However, I do believe that humans in general wish to be happy. So I'm suggesting a made up morality, which works to make the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number (utilitarianism). There's no actual universal reason to do it, but I think most people would like to be as happy as possible and enjoy the company of other happy people. Any other belief is nihilistic oppurtunism.

I think following the non-aggression principle and respecting the "right" to private property (anarchism) will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. At this point we must leave philosophy and enter into economics to see if the free market does produce the most happiness in the long run. I think it does.

[blueback]

I don't see how I supported that point. In this example, the U.S. military and government are the most powerful entity in the country, but I don't believe they have the right to break a contract either. It's not because they're forbidden from doing so by any authority, it's because they aren't allowed to violate your rights no matter how powerful they are.

Of course, this doesn't stop them from doing so.

The reason the United States works well is that power is divided. Rather than concentrate it the founding fathers split the power up into different hands. There is a division of power between the body-politic and the politicians; on the one hand they make laws we have to follow and on the other hand we can vote them in and out of power. The politicians can't take our power away from us because they are all divided against each other, with the three branches, the seperation of church and state, the civilian control of the military, etc.

Our system closes the loop by having us give up our rights to the government but also having the government give up its rights to us. The government isn't powerful enough to violate our rights for very long. They can do it (the Patriot Act) but it gets harder to hide/justify the longer they do it.

When you say "voluntary contract" you are supporting my point that, without any voluntary contracts, there are no rights. If every single person in the world claimed everything they were capable of as their right then we would be in a constant state of individual, free-for-all, war. We must voluntarily sign a contract promising that we won't do certain things and in return we get safety. Service members then sign another voluntary contract in which they promise to do or not do more things, etc.

[comet]

Humans are no more than a "thinking" mammal. In the 21st Century with over 200 countries with differing political, cultural and religious points of view, it's difficult to determine what are human rights.

I think at the very basic level, everyone has the right to shelter, food and water. In saying this though, there are countries like Zimbabwe which would deny it's population food for the sake of returning the incumbent regime.

Living in a democracy like Australia, I guess I have more "rights" than other parts of the world, for that I'm very grateful.

[blueback]

All morality is derived from the only thing that every single living person can agree is good: self-preservation. We only derive further morality from that standard when it helps us. Most of what people consider moral; no murder, no lying, no stealing, etc are simply rules which must be followed if a group of people is going to exist. If everyone could murder anyone at any time then a group would never form. It is a logical requirement which becomes moral because it helps us to attain reliable self-preservation which is good. Members of a group are more successful than individuals at staying alive.

Beyond those logical requirements are further extrapolations of what is "good" but they are subjective. Cultural relativism is basically a list of all the different things that groups of people can do without violating the logical requirements of what it takes to keep a group together.

Ultimately, might makes rights. If one group is powerful they will dictate terms to the group that is powerless. There is nothing "wrong" about that becuase morality does not exist outside the environment of an individual's mind. The simple fact is that nature induces competition between different 'things' and the more successful one wins and survives. There is little evolutionary difference between a collection of cells and a collection of ideas. Competition between systems of thought work to produce the best system of thought. The unfortunate thing about competition is that it's kind of a zero-sum game.

[SnakeFeather]

I think rights are presented as if they're inherent and a given, but are actually earned through the attainment of status.

[kevintr]

I beleve there is an absalute right and wrong. There are consiqinces for ones actions and thoughts that cant be mesured in materal terms. For instance an angry greedy person may be able to amass alot of material goods but there anger and greed will still keep them from being as happy as they could be if not misrable. I beleve right action or the best appromiximation thereof considering ones circumstances will cause happyness.
Since I beleve in an absalute morality I beleave rights are inherant but they can be violated. It is goverments ideal job to protect the peoples rights but in order to do so it has to take some rights away so it can enforce order in society.

[Monte314]

According to Thomas Jefferson (the guy who coined the phrase "separation of church and state", which occurs nowhere in America's founding documents), rights are endowed by the creator.

They include both freedom FROM (e.g., unreasonable search and seizure), and freedom TO (e.g., the pursuit of happiness).

They exist whether they are enforced or not. Therefore, they do not derive from the social contract, but exist independently of it. Indeed, America's founding documents merely recognize the rights that humans already have by virtue of their humanity.

This does not necessarily make rights inherent. Rights are still derivative, that is, they are endowed by another, and do not arise from the individual themselves. Since they do not derive from the state, and are inalienable (Declaration of Independence), they must derive from something higher than the state: as Thomas Jefferson put it, they derive from "the creator".

[blueback]

Yeah. . .

Rights only exist when there is an imbalance of power. There is no such thing as a right between two people of equal power. A right is only created when a powerful entity allows a powerless entity to do things.

The "inalienable" nature of the rights is a simple product of logic. It is impossible for a group of people to exist if they are all allowed to kill each other. Even the worst thugs all agree not to kill the members of their gang. Therefore, "no murder" rule is a simple necessity. Groups all agree on it because a group couldn't exist without it. You can't establish a system of government in which it is okay to kill everyone, so the "right to life" is "inalienable" not because it comes from a universal morality but because it is a cold, logical requirement.

[kubrickfan]

Yes, everyone has rights, but:

Are human rights inherent? Do we all have them no matter what the political climate?

Are human rights given by those in power?

What is your definition of a right?

I like how you start very meaningful posts that require alot of thought!

Human rights are inherent, and they are supposed to be upheld no matter what.

Rights can be given, but they should be enforced by those in power.

A right is this: Life, speech, and thought. But should be used in a way that promotes: Life, speech, and thought. those that infringe on these rights do not deserve theirs.