Where do rights come from?

[Libertarian01]

I don't believe anything has a "right" to life, but that may just be my thinking.

In my thinking a "right" is our, as an advanced() species, acknowledgement of a sentient organisms need to try to fulfill some basic function due to its design.

Every wolf has the need to feed, ergo every wolf has the "right" to hunt the deer. Note that the wolf isn't guaranteed success, only that we acknowledge that it must do a thing (hunt) as part of its design to try to survive. At the same time the deer has a "right" to try to survive the wolf's hunt. It may hide, run away, or turn and gore the pesky wolf if its antlers are big enough. But again, the deer isn't guaranteed squat, only that we acknowledge that it has the need to try to survive AND that its attempt is justified as an inherent "right" of its existence.

There is no guaranteed success at anything in life, only the attempt to do so. To say that someone/something has a right to life is to say that success is guaranteed, which I do not believe it is. Our right to keep and bear arms is only understood that we are fulfilling a biological need to try to survive, and by being armed we may repel an attack that could harm us.

What are the core basic needs we all must have to live? Food, water, shelter. These are 100% absolute necessities to survive. Without all of them we all die. Do we have a "right" to food? Does our country/government/society guarantee that we will all be fed? What about water, or shelter? In the larger species context we must all breed or the species will die. Do we have a "right" to sex? (I'm a libertarian so we could talk here)

But seriously, to elevate life to a right is to guarantee it to everyone, irregardless of the threat to the life.

Methinks this concept is much, much more communistic than people normally consider.

Kind Regards,

Doug

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Doug, I think you're confusing "needs" and "rights". When you talk about the basic things needed to sustain life, that's describing life at its very basic level. Kind of like keeping a patient on life support. Making the hospital have to accept you in an emergency situation without proof of insurance fulfills a "need", and rightfully so in a true emergency situation (vs. going to the ER with a cold because you have no insurance.) If you choose not to have insurance, then it's on you. Obamacare was supposed to make it affordable to all, remember? It was officially called "The Affordable Care ACT", which it turned out not to be. I dunno... seems like a need that is (or was) being fulfilled, not a right that is guaranteed.

 

[nonobaddog]

Rights are not guaranteed. They are violated all the time.

 

[Tombs]

Rights, in reality don't exist. They're a niceity, something lofty that you wish for. The experiment with our constitution and bill of rights has demonstrated, no matter how hard you try to enshrine rights, they're nothing more than a piece of paper that will simply be ignored. One only needs to read a history book to realize that we haven't had rights protected by government since long before the civil war even began.

The only rights you have are the ones you take for yourself and are prepared to die for. Relying on a single other person or thing for those rights has never worked and will never work, and if you think it will, then you haven't learned much from history.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Rights, in reality don't exist. They're a niceity, something lofty that you wish for. The experiment with our constitution and bill of rights has demonstrated, no matter how hard you try to enshrine rights, they're nothing more than a piece of paper that will simply be ignored. One only needs to read a history book to realize that we haven't had rights protected by government since long before the civil war even began.

The only rights you have are the ones you take for yourself and are prepared to die for. Relying on a single other person or thing for those rights has never worked and will never work, and if you think it will, then you haven't learned much from history.

Rights were never meant to be protected "by" the government. They are meant to be protected "from" the government.

 

[chipbennett]

Rights were never meant to be protected "by" the government. They are meant to be protected "from" the government.

"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..."

What I consider to be the founding document of our country explicitly states that the purpose of Government is to secure - i.e. to protect - individual rights.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

"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..."

What I consider to be the founding document of our country explicitly states that the purpose of Government is to secure - i.e. to protect - individual rights.

I can see your point, but for example, when we talk about our 2nd Amendment right being infringed upon, who is doing the infringing if not the government? Same for 1st Amendment. It doesn't protect you from your employer restricting what you say in the work place or while serving as a representative of them, or from TwitFace canceling your account because of your views. It only says the government can't infringe upon your rights as described in the 1st.

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug, I think you're confusing "needs" and "rights". When you talk about the basic things needed to sustain life, that's describing life at its very basic level. Kind of like keeping a patient on life support. Making the hospital have to accept you in an emergency situation without proof of insurance fulfills a "need", and rightfully so in a true emergency situation (vs. going to the ER with a cold because you have no insurance.) If you choose not to have insurance, then it's on you. Obamacare was supposed to make it affordable to all, remember? It was officially called "The Affordable Care ACT", which it turned out not to be. I dunno... seems like a need that is (or was) being fulfilled, not a right that is guaranteed.

Rights and needs go hand in hand at the most basic level. When I'm talking about rights being based on needs, these are core needs, not, "Oh, I need the salt and pepper please." All sentient organisms have a need for food. There is NO way get around this. So every sentient organism has a right to try to fulfill that need. Not a guaranteed success, only that we intellectually acknowledge that by feeding the lion/shark/anteater have a "right" to hunt and kill their prey for food. At the same time their prey has a right to do everything in their power to avoid becoming dinner. Do you think the rabbit should be guaranteed success in escaping the predator? I do not.

But a right is an individual dominion. It doesn't exist for a group or government or society.

Yes, we have a need to stay healthy and take care of ourselves or we could die. So we have the "right" to do everything in OUR power to do so! We can learn about medicine and health to better understand what it takes to stay healthy. We can buy insurance to help pay for large medical bills. However, it is incumbent upon US to provide these things, not the government. We all agree here that we have the need/right to defend ourselves with firearms, but the government doesn't issue us our guns. WE buy them, care for them, train with them, buy the best ammo for them, etc.

In our country our legal system under the Constitution recognizes these preexisting rights and promises to protect our ability to exercise our rights, but not to fulfill them for us. Along with rights comes responsibility, and it is our responsibility to act to fulfill our needs that are protected by the Constitution.

As I believe a right goes only so far as to try to succeed, I do not believe in a "right" to life. To do so is to guarantee success in fulfilling the biological need to continue existing.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

I think what Doug is talking about is more based on self-determination. The idea being, morally, people have a right to self determination; that is, because I exist and live and think, I have a right to self-determination, which includes pursuing life and what I need to sustain it. But I'd add that morality is the basis. Without a sense of morality, rights can't exist. I'll not go into it again why I think that's so, since that's all in this thread.