Natural Rights may be possible so long as it can be proven that these have been conferred by an external party.
Are we endowed with Natural Rights from the day we are born? Are these rights conferred to us by God or Nature notwithstanding and beyond any legal rights prevailing at any given time?
Instinctively, we would reply in the affirmative. A close study of the concept of Natural Rights, however, would lead us to a different conclusion.
What we propose to do is "to peel" the concept of Natural Rights in order to ascertain and assess what there is behind its seemingly appealing and persuasive exterior.
Rights, as such, are conferred either directly or indirectly by an external party; by explicitly allowing an act or implicitly permitting an act through the lack of a prohibition thereof.
Both cases entail the existence of a conferring party. Rights cannot emerge out of the blue. They have to be conferred. One is not born with rights in the same manner one is born with legs or arms. An authoritative, enabling, factor has to confer a right. The only apparent exception to the rule would be rights that are conferred unilaterally upon oneself by an absolute ruler.
Thus, Natural Rights may be possible so long as it can be proven that these have been conferred by an external party.
Theists may argue that Natural Rights are conferred by Divine power. Theists may sincerely hold that belief. However, both agnostics and atheists may argue otherwise. Theists may be able to argue their case rationally. But so long as Natural Rights bestowed by Divine power cannot be proven empirically, this stance can only constitute a belief in Natural Rights and not an objectively verifiable existence of Natural Rights.
Others may argue that Nature confers on all newly-born individuals Rights that are independent of human-made legally-derived rights. Again, those espousing such a view may sincerely hold that belief. But, as in the case of Divine power-derived-rights, this stance cannot be proven empirically and thus can only represent a belief in Natural Rights rather than an objectively verifiable existence of Natural Rights.
This is not to belittle the enormous power of belief in human affairs; far from it. Belief may be a powerfully motivating force. Thus, a belief in Natural Rights can cause social, political and legal changes; some of these changes may be seen by contemporary protagonists and/or by future generations as historical landmarks.
However, a belief in Natural Rights, notwithstanding their causal effect, cannot by itself be a proof to the effect that these rights actually exist.
In a sense, it could be contended that if a right depended on the unilateral decision of an individual or a group of individuals, the end-result might be the emergence of a conflict of rights, which might ultimately lead to anarchy.
Unilaterally one could advance a claim to a right, not a right as such. Opposing claims can be settled; opposing rights cannot.
A claim to a right is a result of a process initiated by an assumption of a right, followed by a belief in a right. These three phenomena are subjective in nature and can emerge unilaterally. They are not dependent on an external factor. A right, on the other hand, is dependent on an external factor conferring it.
All too often, we hear people uttering the following statement: "I have a right!" It's one thing if the statement "I have a right!" is backed up by an existing legal right, either explicitly conferred or implicitly allowed; it is another, though, if it is not. In the latter case, the true meaning of "I have right!" should be "I have a claim to a right!"
There are two, distinct claims to a right. The claim advanced for the granting of a hitherto non-existing right; and the claim put forward not to ignore and implement an already-existing right. The first could be defined as a pre-right claim and the latter as a post-right claim.
An obvious example of the pre-right claim would be the French Revolution; a clear example of the post-right claim would be the civil rights campaign conducted by Martin Luther King, Jr. in the United States in the 1960s.
Although we question the existence of Natural Rights, we do not cast doubt on the deep-rooted belief in them. Indeed, we stress that a belief in Natural Rights may be a potent causal force. The problem, beyond what we have already outlined, is that a certain person's belief in Natural Rights may be different from his or her fellow citizen's belief. Such a scenario leads to different interpretations of what these rights should be all about. We thus end up with interpretations of Natural Rights, not with Natural Rights.
To be sure, the fact that there may be different interpretations does not necessarily mean that Natural Rights do not exist. After all, there were different views on whether the Earth was round or not, or whether the Sun revolved around Earth, and not vice versa. But these differing views could be proven right or wrong by an empirically, objective study; something that cannot be done in relation to the existence of Natural Rights. We thus have to conclude that different interpretations of Natural Rights are, and can only be, different interpretations of Natural Rights.
It could be argued, of course, that Natural Rights can be discovered by reason, without having to resort to empirical proof. However, what can be discovered by reason is not the objective existence of Natural Rights, but the subjective belief in their necessity.
Natural Rights are not self-evident, as their proponents have claimed. If Natural Rights were self-evident, there would be no debates as to what these are, let alone as to their existence.
The author wants empirical proof that a state of being exists? Rhetorical nonsense.
The author goes on to misrepresent the nature of rights: “Rights, as such, are conferred either directly or indirectly by an external party; by explicitly allowing an act or implicitly permitting an act through the lack of a prohibition thereof.”
The author has actually defined “privilege.” A privilege is controlled by the operating authority and established and defined by laws and regulations.
Clearly, anything that can be granted by an external power can also be rescinded. Marriage, for example, is not a right. It is restricted and controlled by government. Certain people cannot get married. They do not qualify. Marriage, therefore, is a privilege granted by government to those who conform to the criteria.
A right cannot be granted or rescinded. Otherwise it ceases to be a right. If rights were truly subject to the whims of government and pop culture, then there is no such thing as human dignity, property ownership, or self-defense. We then are all slaves to the objectives of government, and can only pursue our lawful self-interest with the permission of bureaucrats and congressmen.
A right can be forfeited, however. For example, a person who commits a murder has forfeited his right to life and can be executed. Criminals forfeit their right to liberty and can be incarcerated.
The framers of the Declaration of Independence disagree with you: We are “…endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…” If you disagree with the founders, I would say you are not conservative.
Mountain Man cites the Declaration of Independence to reinforce his assertion that we are endowed by our “Creator with certain inalienable Rights.” I presume he is talking about the Creator referred to in the Scriptures, the Scriptures I adhere to.
Well, if the Scriptures do reflect God’s word, which I believe they do, what exactly do they say about the Right to Life, for example? First, they say that if man eats of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, he shall “surely die”, and as we all know, that is exactly what man did. It should be noted however, that God also planted a “tree of life” in the garden, and man was not prohibited from eating of that tree. But once man had eaten of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, God chastised him, saying, “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return”. [Genesis 3:19] And when man was kicked out of the garden, it was to prevent him eating of the “tree of life”. And God placed Cherubim’s and “a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” [Genesis 3:24] So rather than a “right to life”, it seems God condemned man to an endless cycle of toil, and then death – not life. Any ‘right’ man had to eat of the “tree of life” was lost when he ate of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” And Christ said, “he that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” [Matthew 10:39] No “right to life” there either!
The fact that someone makes a statement does not make it true, even someone as esteemed as Thomas Jefferson.
Our so-called ‘rights’ can be summed up perfectly well by those notices we see in cinemas and the like – Right of Admission Reserved. As I explain in my book Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights, we do not build a Temple of Freedom by stacking up our ‘rights’ like bricks – instead we build ourselves a prison, a prison governed by a Tyranny of Rights.
Does reflecting on what the Scriptures actually say disqualify me from being a conservative. I don’t think so!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Mr. McMillan,
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. However, I did not disqualify you or anyone else from being a conservative by believing Scripture, now did I?
So what does Scripture say about life?
It is a gift of God (especially eternal life – Ro 6:23)
A long life is a blessing from God (Deut 5:16)
Our lives have a calling for which we live (1 Thes 4:7)
Life is to be loved and cherished (Ps 34:12)
Our life does not belong to us (Gal 2:20)
Our life is to be lived for God (Phil 1:21)
Murder is wrong (I don’t need to cite the reference for this, do I?)
Conclusion: Our lives are precious, both to God and man, and they have value that is to be preserved. To cut short that life is contrary to the purpose of God.
I am not interested in asserting, trumpeting, accumulating, or manufacturing rights. I never asserted that my life belongs to me. My life and yours are God’s possession. Therefore, He possesses my right to life, not me.
Only God gives life, and He has ordained our days. This does not contravene the statement of the Declaration at all, and in fact complements it.
Tyranny of rights? Who is talking about this? I am asserting no rights for myself, I am only contesting the idea presented by the author that government somehow confers rights.
Is it wrong to invoke rights? No, Paul did as a Roman citizen. Rights as expressions of human dignity are human concepts based on spiritual principles.
Mountain Man said:
A right cannot be granted or rescinded. Otherwise it ceases to be a right. If rights were truly subject to the whims of government and pop culture, then there is no such thing as human dignity, property ownership, or self-defense. We then are all slaves to the objectives of government, and can only pursue our lawful self-interest with the permission of bureaucrats and congressmen.
How do you define “human dignity”? Secondly, I’d take issue with your belief that property ownership and the right to self defense are intrinsic rights. Those are also privileges and they can be revoked by government. The only “right” that a human has is the right to think. No government, no political system, no human concept of God can revoke right to think independently. Other than that, you either surrender to man or God. Either way, you’ll surrender your “right” to think to some degree simply by being alive.
Gregin NY
Greg,
1) Human dignity… not enslaved, not experiencing genocide, not oppressed. Having intrinsic worth. Being as much valued by others as the Creator values you.
2) All rights can be violated. That does not diminish their fundamental status as rights. The right to think? This cannot be rescinded? A tranquilizer will rescind your “right” to think in short order.
Being alive compromises your right to think? Being alive is a universal condition of living human kind, so no one is more compromised than anyone else. Being dead or unconscious are the only alternatives, where you do not think at all. Your statement is nonsense.
Property ownership is fundamental. The first principle of ownership is that I own myself. The second is that I own the fruit of my labor, that is, what I trade my labor for. This is the pay I receive by laboring for my employer, or the profit I receive by engaging in capitalism. The fourth is I am free to defend my property (myself, the fruit of my labor, and by extension, my family and my community) from those who might come to take it without paying fair compensation.
These are pretty basic things, Greg.
Mountain Man?? The Scriptural references you cite demonstrate the reverse of what you claim.
Ro. 6:23 – “The wages of sin is death.” To get eternal life, we need to meet certain obligations – do the will of our Father. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” [Matthew 7:21]
Duet 5:16 – “Honor thy father and thy mother” That’s how we prolong our days – an obligation.
I Thes 4:7 – What has this got to do with a Right to life. Verses 1 – 6 set out obligations, not ‘rights’.
Ps 34:12 “What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days ..?” An admonishment for those who want to ‘prolong’ their life. Verse 16 – “The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. No right to life there – only obligation.
Gal 2:20 – “I am crucified (killed) with Christ, nevertheless I live.” Not a Right to Life, but an obligation to lose life.
Phil 1:21 – “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
“If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant.” Exodus 19: 5. God invites us to freely accept the Ten Commandments. “Thou shalt not kill” is an obligation God invites us to accept. It does not bestow a Right. All the other Commandments are the same – all obligations.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” [Mathew 5:16-17, and see Luke 16:17]
Ever since God sentenced man to a life of hard labor, followed by death, He has sought to persuade man to adopt obligations in order to escape from that condition. He has never revoked the sentence.
The fact is, Mountain Man, government, and the courts, ‘award’ us ‘rights’, and they can, and regularly do, revoke them. God has only ever offered us obligations.
Joseph BH McMillan. http://www.freedomvrights.com
Mr. McMillan,
I must be not making myself clear. If God values us, that value cannot be diminished by an act of government. Government can infringe on rights, but it cannot bestow them. Only God can.
I’m not talking about the contemporary manifestation of “rights,” where the court discovers them, the legislators codify them, expand them, curtail them, etc. These are not rights.
I’m talking about the inherent value and worth God imputes to us, so much so that He would send His son to die for us. I’m hopeful you understand this.
“God has only ever offered us obligations.” This is patently false. Maybe I assumed too much when I thought you were a man of Christian faith. Must I take the time to refute this? Reluctantly, I shall.
John 1:12-13 “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”
Galatians 4:4-7 “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.”
1 Pe 1:3-4: “In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade–kept in heaven for you…”
Eph 1:13-14: Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory.”
We have rights as sons of God, an inheritance, a seal, a future expectation. Clearly we do not have obligations and nothing else.
I’ve said enough. If you want to discuss this further, contact the moderator and get my e-mail address.
Mountain Man, never would I doubt your faith.
But does not your very quote – John 1:12 per the KJV “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” – denote an obligation?
I’m sure you are not suggesting that everyone is saved simply by virtue of being a human being. Do we not have to assume an obligation, an obligation to ‘receive Him’, and ‘believe on His name’?
I certainly hope we can continue this discussion. My email is on my web site. Shall I leave the ball in your court?
Joseph BH McMillan. http://www.freedomvrights.com
Mountain Man, forgive me this final Word, but I do think it wraps the issue up.
Revelations 22:14: “Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”
I look forward to hearing from you.
Joseph BH McMillan. http://www.freedomvrights.com
Question: Are We Endowed With Natural Rights?
Answer: Uhhh…is the pope Catholic?
You are all beating a dead horse and going around in circles.
We are talking about humans, and humans are as varied as can be. There are a multitude of beliefs, ideas, idiologies, religions and social systems in the world. The human race is not one universal, homogonous group of clones. Hence you have an endless series of clashes and even wholesale wars.
So where are universal rights from on high? If they existed they certainly are not being followed.
Also consider this: If I have a right to do this, and you have a right to do that, and the rights conflict, what is the right? Rights stem from beliefs, and since there are conflicting beliefs where does that leave us? Aren’t rights, especially from on high, supposed to be absolute?
In the end the old adage, “Might makes Right” is probably closer to the truth than all the academic arguments. After all, doesn’t the winner write the rules?
I agree. This is psycho babble. Everbody is right because they say they are. Whatever gets you through the night is fine. People a lot more intellgent than the average Intellectual Conservative poster (myself included) have argued points like this for centuries. It’s a waste of time and it doesn’t matter. Whether your intrinsic rights come from God, man or self, your life goes on just the same. Everyones concept of “rights” is different. Clearly, the author of this article has a lot of time on his hands.
GreginNY
Outstanding article since it addresses what I believe is the key conflict between individualists of all ilks and groupists of all kinds.
I strongly disagree with this contention: “Rights cannot emerge out of the blue. They have to be conferred.” Mountain Man, you nailed it. Yoav uses “rights” as a synonym for “privileges”, more specifically within the context of “civil liberties” where these “rights” are conferred by The State.
But, our rights (aka, individual liberties) predate The State. The State confers nothing here. More importantly, we individuals retain the absolute right to enforce our inalienable rights, up to and including revoking the provisional right we ceded to The State to even exist.
I’ve read millions of words on this topic from many fine folks but have never been able to advance my core argument as posited in the above paragraph. It seems that every argument always concludes by requiring The State to have some absolute power to enforce our rights, which logically mandates that the “rights” of The State trump our individual liberties.
Utopian egalitarianism seems the only solution.
Liberty does not exist by degree of state sanction. It is either complete or it is an illusion.
g8r hed,
Then it has always and everywhere been an illusion, and good thing.