Do humans have natural rights?

[Bono]

discuss

[Gabu]

Not exactly, in that no rights are manifest independently of any other factors.  People have the rights granted to them by either the government or by their peers, no more, no less.

[John Dibble]

Well, if a human were alone, nobody could interfere with their basic rights, so from that standpoint I suppose yes. Of course, that's not saying that one can't infringe on those rights.

[minionofmidas]

Not exactly, in that no rights are manifest independently of any other factors.  People have the rights granted to them by either the government or by their peers, no more, no less.

To put it differently: People have the rights they grant themselves, as a group.

[Gabu]

Well, if a human were alone, nobody could interfere with their basic rights, so from that standpoint I suppose yes. Of course, that's not saying that one can't infringe on those rights.

That's not what I would consider a right; I think of a right more as something that can never be infringed upon.

[John Dibble]

Well, if a human were alone, nobody could interfere with their basic rights, so from that standpoint I suppose yes. Of course, that's not saying that one can't infringe on those rights.

That's not what I would consider a right; I think of a right more as something that can never be infringed upon.

Well, then there really are no rights, now are there? Because I can't think of a single one that can't be infringed on in some way or another.

[Bono]

Well, if a human were alone, nobody could interfere with their basic rights, so from that standpoint I suppose yes. Of course, that's not saying that one can't infringe on those rights.

That's not what I would consider a right; I think of a right more as something that can never be infringed upon.

Rights are defined as something cannot morally be infringed upon, not things that cannot be infringed upon at all.

[Emsworth]

As there is no such thing as objective morality, there can be no such things as objective rights. Rights are not "natural"; on the contrary, they are human creations that arise as a result of subjective preferences.

[Gustaf]

Yes, they do, based on the fact that God created man equal, one human being has no right to infringe on the rights of another.

[Gabu]

Rights are defined as something cannot morally be infringed upon, not things that cannot be infringed upon at all.

Who is the one who decides what things can morally be infringed upon and which can't?

Yes, they do, based on the fact that God created man equal

Not to sound like opebo, but that isn't really true.  While I don't exactly agree with the notion that your entire life is dictated at birth, your opportunities in life and the ease with which you can achieve things are at least somewhat determined by who your parents are, which does not exactly sound to me like all are created equal.  This is not to mention differing intelligence levels, differing personalities...

[Bono]

Rights are defined as something cannot morally be infringed upon, not things that cannot be infringed upon at all.

Who is the one who decides what things can morally be infringed upon and which can't?

That's what this thread is supposed to discuss.
I was just presenting the commonly accepted definition of a natural right for the benefit of the discussion.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No.

[ilikeverin]

As there is no such thing as objective morality, there can be no such things as objective rights. Rights are not "natural"; on the contrary, they are human creations that arise as a result of subjective preferences.

You always say that (all that stuff about everything being a result of subjective preferences) so negatively.  Why is that so bad?

[Gustaf]

Rights are defined as something cannot morally be infringed upon, not things that cannot be infringed upon at all.

Who is the one who decides what things can morally be infringed upon and which can't?

Yes, they do, based on the fact that God created man equal

Not to sound like opebo, but that isn't really true.  While I don't exactly agree with the notion that your entire life is dictated at birth, your opportunities in life and the ease with which you can achieve things are at least somewhat determined by who your parents are, which does not exactly sound to me like all are created equal.  This is not to mention differing intelligence levels, differing personalities...

I was talking more in a moral sense than in a strictly tecnhical way.

[David S]

The founders believed that rights were god given and that the constitution only protected those rights. Jefferson put it this way in the Declaration of Independence:

"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

[Nym90]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "natural".

I do believe that all humans should have fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, freedom to control their own destiny, freedom of religion, freedom from want and fear, etc. However, these are not always fully compatible with each other, but our overall aim should be to increase these freedoms on the whole even if this means occasionally decreasing them slightly for some individuals.

I do agree in a sense with what others have said, that the decision of what rights we have is essentially made by humans. God does not bestow us with any inherent rights.