PDA

View Full Version : Do rights protect autonomy or obligations?



Chris
08-30-2013, 06:31 PM
Do rights protect autonomy or obligations? Yet another difference of views and values between conservatives and liberal.

Grounding Our Right to Religious Freedom (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/08/10633/) w/ hat tip to Do Rights Protect Autonomy or Duties? (http://blog.acton.org/archives/59004-do-rights-protect-autonomy-or-duties.html).


Here we come to the fundamental paradox of modern liberalism. On the one hand, liberalism in all its stages has always treated human freedom as sacred. On the other hand, modern liberals also believe that in order to guarantee their freedom, they can in practice use the state’s coercive power to compel others to do what they believe is wrong.

This is the logical consequence of liberalism’s autonomy view of rights. Since the state is supposed to be “value-neutral” about what each party desires, in cases where human autonomy is at stake it really has no principled way to decide between competing claims. The result, more often than not, is not a fair contract between the two parties but an arbitrary exercise of political power, justified by the myth that we have a right to technological progress and convenience.

The natural law tradition avoids these problems by insisting that rights protect obligations rather than autonomy. Rights are tied to those goods objectively required by human nature for flourishing, such as life, truth, and virtue. Since we would suffer harm by neglecting to seek such goods, we have obligations to seek them.

Two consequences follow logically on this view of rights as protections of obligations:


This simple idea has two enormous consequences.

First, it entails that no earthly power, no government of men, has absolute dominion over our lives, freedom, or conscience. As our founding fathers argued in the Declaration of Independence, the priority of natural rights and duties over man-made rights and duties entails that governments are limited by natural law. Governments are instituted in order to secure our natural rights, they wrote, and “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”—or at the very least, to resist it.

The second consequence follows from the first. If rights protect our ability to do and be good, and if natural law has priority over civil law, then not only do we have a natural right to exercise ourselves in ways necessary for the fulfillment of our obligations, but we also have the right to refuse to obey when a government commands us to do what is wrong, which includes those things that we are obligated not to do. That argument also has a long pedigree, having famously been made by American abolitionists during the civil war, by the Nuremberg Court against Nazi war criminals, by Mahatma Gandhi against the British, and by Dr. Martin Luther King in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” to name a few.

Dr. Who
08-30-2013, 07:50 PM
While the constitution provides no specific guidance as to your questions other than dispensing with the government altogether, apparently as a result of many who have had issues with the government's absolute right to command, the Department of Defense does address the issue: http://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge#topic-the-process
This addresses the most obvious moral conflicts.

Chris
08-30-2013, 08:59 PM
While the constitution provides no specific guidance as to your questions other than dispensing with the government altogether, apparently as a result of many who have had issues with the government's absolute right to command, the Department of Defense does address the issue: http://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge#topic-the-process
This addresses the most obvious moral conflicts.



The Constitution doesn't create the people and their rights, it creates a government limited to enumerated powers and prohibits it from violating enumerated rights.

Dr. Who
08-30-2013, 10:04 PM
The Constitution doesn't create the people and their rights, it creates a government limited to enumerated powers and prohibits it from violating enumerated rights.
That may well be true, but the Constitution also contains some rights depriving language.:
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
THE MILITIA CLAUSESCalling Out the MilitiaThe States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection. The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war. The act of February 28, 1795, which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional. A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795. http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/47-militia.html

Chris
08-30-2013, 11:17 PM
That may well be true, but the Constitution also contains some rights depriving language.:
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
THE MILITIA CLAUSESCalling Out the MilitiaThe States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection. The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war. The act of February 28, 1795, which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional. A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795. http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/47-militia.html

Those are not rights conceded but powers under social contract under presumption of liberty protected by those powers.

Dr. Who
08-31-2013, 01:39 PM
Have you any examples of where modern liberals, in order to guarantee their freedom, have used the state’s coercive power to compel others to do what they believe is wrong? Outside of any military situation, the only examples that come to mind would involve compelling commercial enterprise not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation in hiring or in retailing of product or services, and where conceptually the wrong that they believe that they would be doing is very subjective indeed. Nevertheless, they have the right to stop doing business entirely and get a job where they would not be so compelled to violate their beliefs. Additionally, American history contains many examples of non-liberal coercion in the same vein - consider the segregation laws of the past.

Chris
08-31-2013, 01:56 PM
Social welfare. Anything beyond a temporary safety net is abhorrent morally and unconstitutional.

Corporate welfare as well.

You keep mentioning military/defense. That serves the common good as long as it serves common interest.

Yes, compelling the private sector to abide by public prohibitions. I find such discrimination in most cases abhorrent, but it's none of government's business.

Segregation was largely by liberal democrats.

I do agree there are social conservative coercions as well.


But we stray from the question, do rights protect autonomy or obligations?

Dr. Who
08-31-2013, 02:18 PM
The corollary of "they can in practice use the state’s coercive power to compel others to do what they believe is wrong" is that they can also use the state's coercive power to compel others not to do what society believes is wrong, which is the basis of the laws which protect society from the anti-social members of society. So in answer to your question, I believe that people have more, not fewer rights under rule of law.

Chris
08-31-2013, 02:35 PM
The corollary of "they can in practice use the state’s coercive power to compel others to do what they believe is wrong" is that they can also use the state's coercive power to compel others not to do what society believes is wrong, which is the basis of the laws which protect society from the anti-social members of society. So in answer to your question, I believe that people have more, not fewer rights under rule of law.


Problem is, who, government is incapable of knowing what society believes, knows, and wants. Would we were under rule of law, we are under rule of man. Rule of law refers to natural law, rule of man to posited law. Aquinas would tell us we could align positive law with natural law with right reason, but we see little of that in government, especially a government corrupted by power and crony capitalism.

Mister D
08-31-2013, 03:08 PM
It's nice to see good discussion return to tPF. Carry on.

Dr. Who
08-31-2013, 05:22 PM
Problem is, who, government is incapable of knowing what society believes, knows, and wants. Would we were under rule of law, we are under rule of man. Rule of law refers to natural law, rule of man to posited law. Aquinas would tell us we could align positive law with natural law with right reason, but we see little of that in government, especially a government corrupted by power and crony capitalism.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is predicated on the natural rights of man: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. It was adopted by 48 countries, including the US and is binding on all member states. Do you find that the US is in violation of these principals or do you disagree with any aspects of the Declaration as not being based on the natural rights of man?

Chris
08-31-2013, 07:08 PM
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is predicated on the natural rights of man: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. It was adopted by 48 countries, including the US and is binding on all member states. Do you find that the US is in violation of these principals or do you disagree with any aspects of the Declaration as not being based on the natural rights of man?



Right, up to about article 22 where there's a shift from rights as obligations to entitlements, from right to pursue opportunities to entitlement to equal outcomes. The latter is not natural law.

Dr. Who
08-31-2013, 10:48 PM
Right, up to about article 22 where there's a shift from rights as obligations to entitlements, from right to pursue opportunities to entitlement to equal outcomes. The latter is not natural law.

Yes, articles 22 to 27 would be economic, social and cultural rights that seem to be a slightly later amendment to the Declaration however the extent of their application would depend on the resources of each State. I suspect that it is articles 23 and 25 that you find particularly objectionable as they put the onus on the state to regulate business or provide a social safety net.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


Of course absent these things some would simply be unable to provide the necessities of life for either themselves or their families. In such circumstances people are liable to resort to self-help in the form of criminal enterprise. So as a society which is preferable, voluntarily providing for those who for lack of skill or ability, (whether by nature, inadequate education, bad fortune or linguistic barriers) are unable to adequately provide for themselves or should we allow nature to take it's course, as no one will willingly starve, and spend as much or more on policing and warehousing people in the penal system with increasingly diminishing returns? Would it cost the taxpayer less to pay for incrementally more police, more jails, higher costs of personal security and for the haves to live in self-made prisons for their own safety, as public areas would be the hunting grounds of the have nots, and would people then be more or less free? For myself I would prefer to pay additional taxes and have the freedom to walk the streets unmolested, than to have to live in a state of constant vigilance. That being said, there is no possible excuse for a government that spends money like a drunken sailor on outmoded and patently dysfunctional social welfare and healthcare schemes nor for a body of elected representatives who are either so partisan or so entrenched in crony capitalism that they will not unite for the common good and bring about such change in these institutions that they might operate at lower costs and with more efficiency and greater benefit to society.

Chris
09-01-2013, 08:56 AM
But they are not rights. Individual rights entail individual responsibilities and obligation to society each of us must pursue. Those entitlements, like FDR's Second Bill of Rights, pertain to obligations of government that not only go beyond natural law and rights but violate them in that the only means possible to achieve them for some is to deprive others their rights. That doesn't benefit society, it tears society down.

Dr. Who
09-01-2013, 11:33 AM
But they are not rights. Individual rights entail individual responsibilities and obligation to society each of us must pursue. Those entitlements, like FDR's Second Bill of Rights, pertain to obligations of government that not only go beyond natural law and rights but violate them in that the only means possible to achieve them for some is to deprive others their rights. That doesn't benefit society, it tears society down.

I beg to differ. While they may not be rights per se, I would view them as social obligations. As a moral society it is unconscionable to allow people to starve or live in circumstances that would be proscribed for animals. Consider the destitution of people following the stock market crash of 1929, the number malnourished children, people living in tents and shacks. Evidence of the result of the absence of a social safety net. Where were these people's natural rights then? They travelled from town to town seeking employment, working for nothing more than food and perhaps shelter, their children dirty and suffering from privation. The milk of human kindness was a commodity in scarce supply, yet for those not devastated by the crash, the truly wealthy, it was simply a time of opportunity where businesses and property could be picked up for a song.

Consider the status of the elderly at that time. "As late as 1932, only about 5 percent of elderly people in America had any kind of retirement pension at all. Most Americans working before Social Security had three options: work until they dropped, which many did; stop work on their own initiative or because their employer retired them, and suffer the economic consequences; or become a superannuated worker, someone kept on the payroll with reduced responsibilities and reduced pay in lieu of pension. Another option was institutionalization. Right up until Social Security was passed, there were more than 2,000 poor houses across America. The poor house was the place where old folks were sent for the crime of being old and poor and unable to support themselves." http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=46,7,4,2

What caused this horrid state of affairs other than a depressed economy? Post industrial America saw a steady migration of population away from rural areas and into large urban centers. The urbanization of America created a population dependent on plentiful industrial jobs. It was indeed an "eggs all in one basket" scenario. Nevertheless, since labor was plentiful, wage competition favored the factory owners and workers who at that time were largely semi-literate had little option but to accept work that did not pay enough to save for economic contingencies like a depression or for old age.

American demographics have really changed very little since that time, other than the relative disappearance of large industrial concerns. Absent a social safety net and other economic protections, there is no reason to believe that the third world circumstances that befell a large portion of the American public during the great depression would not become a reality again.

Chris
09-01-2013, 11:42 AM
I beg to differ.

Well, exactly, you're a liberal progressive and I'm a conservative libertarian. We look at rights altogether differently. That was the point of the OP.


As a moral society it is unconscionable to allow people to starve or live in circumstances that would be proscribed for animals.

I haven't argued we don't have that moral obligation, in fact I would argue for in, in individual voluntary moral action. The point raised had to do with government coercing solutions.


What caused this horrid state of affairs other than a depressed economy?

And what caused the depressed economy but the very government actions you advocate.

Dr. Who
09-01-2013, 12:15 PM
Well, exactly, you're a liberal progressive and I'm a conservative libertarian. We look at rights altogether differently. That was the point of the OP.



I haven't argued we don't have that moral obligation, in fact I would argue for in, in individual voluntary moral action. The point raised had to do with government coercing solutions.



And what caused the depressed economy but the very government actions you advocate.


I haven't argued we don't have that moral obligation, in fact I would argue for in, in individual voluntary moral action. The point raised had to do with government coercing solutions.


Individual voluntary moral action was in short supply during the thirties, hence all the starving people. Your theory relies on people feeling that it is their moral duty to help others less well off than themselves. Many people don't care about others, or at least those they don't know and thus don't subscribe to the same moral code. Morality is not a reliable instrument to prevent destitution.


And what caused the depressed economy but the very government actions you advocate.

The depressed economy in the 30's was not caused by any coercive government actions relative to social policies designed to alleviate poverty, because there weren't any, it was triggered by a stock market collapse and exacerbated by a contraction in the money supply* and was "cured" by government spending on WWII.

* there are multiple theories as to the cause of the contraction.

Chris
09-01-2013, 12:26 PM
Individual voluntary moral action was in short supply during the thirties, hence all the starving people. Your theory relies on people feeling that it is their moral duty to help others less well off than themselves. Many people don't care about others, or at least those they don't know and thus don't subscribe to the same moral code. Morality is not a reliable instrument to prevent destitution.



The depressed economy in the 30's was not caused by any coercive government actions relative to social policies designed to alleviate poverty, because there weren't any, it was triggered by a stock market collapse and exacerbated by a contraction in the money supply* and was "cured" by government spending on WWII.

* there are multiple theories as to the cause of the contraction.



People "feel" that way until government drives them to childlike dependence.



Individual voluntary moral action was in short supply during the thirties, hence all the starving people.

A depression caused by government action.

The recession of 1926 was deeper, government did nothing, we recovered quickly.



and was "cured" by government spending on WWII.

Nonsense. Productivity was up, but all that was produced was burned up in the war, unemployment was rampant, the people suffered greatly from what you call a cure.

Dr. Who
09-01-2013, 01:06 PM
People "feel" that way until government drives them to childlike dependence.A depression caused by government action. The recession of 1926 was deeper, government did nothing, we recovered quickly.Nonsense. Productivity was up, but all that was produced was burned up in the war, unemployment was rampant, the people suffered greatly from what you call a cure.
During the post-Civil War period and continuing into the early 20th century, the US and Europe had generally adopted a government-mandated gold standard. The US economy during this period went through a number of cycles of boom and bust. The depressions often seemed to be set off by bank panics, the most significant occurring in 1873, 1893, 1901, 1907, and 1920. Before the 1913 establishment of the Federal Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act), the banking system had dealt with these crises in the U.S. (such as in the Panic of 1907 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907)) by suspending the convertibility of deposits into currency. Starting in 1893, there were growing efforts by financial institutions and business men to intervene during these crises, providing liquidity to banks that were suffering runs. During the banking panic of 1907, an ad-hoc coalition assembled by J. P. Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan) successfully intervened in this way, thereby cutting off the panic, which was likely the reason why the depression that would normally have followed a banking panic did not happen this time. A call by some for a government version of this solution resulted in the establishment of the Federal Reserve.But in 1928-32, the Federal Reserve did not act to provide liquidity to banks suffering runs. In fact, its policy contributed to the banking crisis by permitting a sudden contraction of the money supply. During the Roaring Twenties, the central bank had set as its primary goal "price stability", in part because the governor of the New York Federal Reserve, Benjamin Strong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Strong), was a disciple of Irving Fisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Fisher), a tremendously popular economist who popularized stable prices as a monetary goal. It had kept the number of dollars at such an amount that prices of goods in society appeared stable. In 1928, Strong died, and with his death this policy ended, to be replaced with a real bills doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_bills_doctrine) requiring that all currency or securities have material goods backing them. This policy permitted the US money supply to fall by over a third from 1929 to 1933.When this money shortage caused runs on banks, the Fed maintained its true bills policy, refusing to lend money to the banks in the way that had cut short the 1907 panic, instead allowing each to suffer a catastrophic run and fail entirely. This policy resulted in a series of bank failures in which one-third of all banks vanished. According to Ben Bernanke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke), the subsequent credit crunches led to waves of bankruptcies. Friedman said that if a policy similar to 1907 had been followed during the banking panic at the end of 1930, perhaps this would have stopped the vicious circle of the forced liquidation of assets at depressed prices. Consequently, the banking panics of 1931, 1932, and 1933 might not have happened, just as suspension of convertibility in 1893 and 1907 had quickly ended the liquidity crises at the time.”
Keynes argued that if the national government spent more money to recover the money spent by consumers and business firms, unemployment rates would fall. The solution was for the Federal Reserve System to “create new money for the national government to borrow and spend” and to cut taxes rather than raising them, in order for consumers to spend more, and other beneficial factors.Hoover chose to do the opposite of what Keynes sought to be the solution and allowed the federal government to raise taxes exceedingly to reduce the budget shortage brought upon by the depression. Keynes proclaimed that more workers could be employed by decreasing interest rates, encouraging firm to borrow more money and make more products. Employment would prevent the government from having to spend any more money by increasing the amount at which consumers would spend. Keynes’ theory was then confirmed by the length of the Great Depression within the United States and the constant unemployment rate. Employment rates began to rise in preparation for World War II by increasing government spending. “In light of these developments, the Keynesian explanation of the Great Depression was increasingly accepted by economists, historians, and politicians”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression

Chris
09-01-2013, 03:37 PM
Freidman was right and Keynes was wrong, who. We're way off topic, do rights protect autonomy or obligations. To point to government obligations as solution is to abandon personal responsibility

Dr. Who
09-01-2013, 06:04 PM
Freidman was right and Keynes was wrong, who. We're way off topic, do rights protect autonomy or obligations. To point to government obligations as solution is to abandon personal responsibilityThe short answer is that it depends on how you define human rights. As we have different definitions, our answers would be necessarily different. According to my definition, the answer to the question is both.

Chris
09-01-2013, 07:35 PM
The short answer is that it depends on how you define human rights.

Wasn't that my point from the beginning? A conservative defines rights as personal obligations to society, a liberal as what society through government is obliged to provide, as the cost of depriving others their rights.

Dr. Who
09-01-2013, 08:32 PM
Wasn't that my point from the beginning? A conservative defines rights as personal obligations to society, a liberal as what society through government is obliged to provide, as the cost of depriving others their rights.
I think that oversimplifies the liberal view. Liberals also consider their obligations to society but differ in the method of delivery.

jillian
09-01-2013, 08:55 PM
I think that oversimplifies the liberal view. Liberals also consider their obligations to society but differ in the method of delivery.

of course it's oversimplification.

Chris
09-01-2013, 09:00 PM
I think that oversimplifies the liberal view. Liberals also consider their obligations to society but differ in the method of delivery.



Who, in 25 words or less what do you expect but generalizations the elaboration of which is the purpose of discussion.

Yes, the method of delivery differs, as I've said elsewhere, the ends are the same, the means differ. Conservative means are to take the obligations of liberty on oneself, the liberal means is to delegate that to government.

Chris
09-01-2013, 09:01 PM
of course it's oversimplification.

And that you contribute nothing.

Dr. Who
09-01-2013, 10:01 PM
Who, in 25 words or less what do you expect but generalizations the elaboration of which is the purpose of discussion.

Yes, the method of delivery differs, as I've said elsewhere, the ends are the same, the means differ. Conservative means are to take the obligations of liberty on oneself, the liberal means is to delegate that to government.
I'm not sure what you are asking but I must somehow respond to your 59 words with 25?

Liberals believe in personal freedom and freedom for others, not just the most fortunate or able. Freedom etc = more than subsistence existence. People are not all moral and historically have not preserved or considered the rights of others, hence the neutrality of government through taxation and legislation is the required instrument to ensure the preservation of natural rights for all.

Chris
09-01-2013, 11:00 PM
I'm not sure what you are asking but I must somehow respond to your 59 words with 25?

Liberals believe in personal freedom and freedom for others, not just the most fortunate or able. Freedom etc = more than subsistence existence. People are not all moral and historically have not preserved or considered the rights of others, hence the neutrality of government through taxation and legislation is the required instrument to ensure the preservation of natural rights for all.



My point was simple, who, in the few words of a post most of what's said will be generalizations that are elaborated through discussion.



Liberals believe in personal freedom and freedom for others....

Autonomy. All that you say substantiates a view of rights as autonomous. That was the point of the OP--half of it, the other half being that conservatives see rights as obligations to society.



People are not all moral and historically have not preserved or considered the rights of others, hence the neutrality of government through taxation and legislation is the required instrument to ensure the preservation of natural rights for all.

But government consists of the same people who are not all moral and historically have not preserved or considered the rights of others, and therefore are not nor ever will be neutral.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary," Madison, Federalist 51, agrees with you, but takes it further as I do: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

Dr. Who
09-02-2013, 01:29 AM
I don't disagree with Madison, government requires oversight. Nevertheless, I prefer that the distribution of charity and the assessment of human worth be done without the personal bias that is intrinsic to human interaction, but is instead guided by neutral legislation that focuses on the principles of morality and natural rights and the exigencies of life that stem therefrom.

Chris
09-02-2013, 08:42 AM
I don't disagree with Madison, government requires oversight. Nevertheless, I prefer that the distribution of charity and the assessment of human worth be done without the personal bias that is intrinsic to human interaction, but is instead guided by neutral legislation that focuses on the principles of morality and natural rights and the exigencies of life that stem therefrom.



If people are as you say they are then how can government implement your program? If people are incapable of assessing human worth how then can government people do so? If people are biased how then can government people be neutral?

If legislated law is artificial posited lw how then can it be natural law?

Dr. Who
09-02-2013, 01:44 PM
If people are as you say they are then how can government implement your program? If people are incapable of assessing human worth how then can government people do so? If people are biased how then can government people be neutral?

If legislated law is artificial posited lw how then can it be natural law?

Natural law is an abstract, it "refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature—both social and personal—and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it"- Wiki.

It cannot be applied without a legal framework as people would not reliably apply it to themselves or others.

Locke wrote," Anyone who deprives another person of his or her rights in the state of nature, violates the principle of equality" "The state of nature proves unsatisfying. Human liberty is neither equally fulfilled nor protected. Because individuals possess the liberty to delineate the limits of their own personal needs and desires in the state of nature, greed, narcissism, and self-interest eventually rise to the surface, causing irrational and excessive behavior and placing human safety at risk." Thus, Locke concluded," the law of nature leads people to establish a government that is empowered to protect life, liberty, and property."

Chris
09-02-2013, 02:31 PM
While we might use right reason to discover natural law (Aquinas) we do not create those laws, they are inherent in who we are naturally.

Indeed, we create governments (cf Declaration) in order to protect those natural rights. But not government to create and provide right, that's backwards.

Peter1469
09-02-2013, 02:39 PM
Natural law is a constant. The laws made by man may or may not conflict with natural law.

Dr. Who
09-02-2013, 03:00 PM
While we might use right reason to discover natural law (Aquinas) we do not create those laws, they are inherent in who we are naturally.

Indeed, we create governments (cf Declaration) in order to protect those natural rights. But not government to create and provide right, that's backwards.
Who said that government provides or creates rights? It creates laws and legislation predicated on those existing rights, moral obligations and system of ethics to the benefit of all citizens. It is a legal framework and means of preserving human rights.

Dr. Who
09-02-2013, 03:04 PM
Natural law is a constant. The laws made by man may or may not conflict with natural law.

Which is why those rights are enshrined in the Constitution, to preserve them to the people against the creation of such laws that are so in conflict.

Mister D
09-02-2013, 03:05 PM
Who said that government provides or creates rights? It creates laws and legislation predicated on those existing rights, moral obligations and system of ethics to the benefit of all citizens. It is a legal framework and means of preserving human rights.

There are several people on this forum who contend just that.

Dr. Who
09-02-2013, 03:12 PM
There are several people on this forum who contend just that.

I think there is some disagreement as to how these rights ought to be interpreted into legislation and law.

Mister D
09-02-2013, 03:20 PM
I think there is some disagreement as to how these rights ought to be interpreted into legislation and law.

There are at least two members who scoff at the very concept of natural law. Granted, they don't really understand what that entails.

Chris
09-02-2013, 03:53 PM
Who said that government provides or creates rights? It creates laws and legislation predicated on those existing rights, moral obligations and system of ethics to the benefit of all citizens. It is a legal framework and means of preserving human rights.


WHy you did, who, when you introduced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that went beyond natural rights to posited rights, went beyond protection to provision. A man has a natural right to pursue happiness, and a natural right to protection of what happiness he might create or find, but he has not right to happiness or provision of it.

Dr. Who
09-02-2013, 04:31 PM
WHy you did, who, when you introduced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that went beyond natural rights to posited rights, went beyond protection to provision. A man has a natural right to pursue happiness, and a natural right to protection of what happiness he might create or find, but he has not right to happiness or provision of it.

Are they posited rights or ethical extensions of natural rights?

Chris
09-02-2013, 04:50 PM
Are they posited rights or ethical extensions of natural rights?

They are posited, and they are not rights but entitlements. The real question is what entitles government to create these entitlements, what entitles government, the voices of a few elite planners to say what is ethical?

Dr. Who
09-02-2013, 05:20 PM
They are posited, and they are not rights but entitlements. The real question is what entitles government to create these entitlements, what entitles government, the voices of a few elite planners to say what is ethical?

Well, one could as readily ask why the intellectual meanderings of a bunch of ancient philosophers must be the last word in what constitutes a natural right?

Chris
09-02-2013, 06:54 PM
Well, one could as readily ask why the intellectual meanderings of a bunch of ancient philosophers must be the last word in what constitutes a natural right?



Why would you ask such an ad homish question. It doesn't matter who said it, it matters only what they said, what their arguments were, their reasoning, their evidence.

Dr. Who
09-02-2013, 09:38 PM
Why would you ask such an ad homish question. It doesn't matter who said it, it matters only what they said, what their arguments were, their reasoning, their evidence.As I didn't refer to you or your opinions in any fashion, it was not ad hom. It was a legitimate question. All thoughts with regard to the nature or meaning of human rights did not end two or more hundred years ago. You may not agree with these ethical extensions of the original precepts, but it does not mean that people will not continue to consider what natural rights are in the context of the current society. They will continue to do so 100 years from now and as long as mankind exists.

Chris
09-02-2013, 10:03 PM
Ad hom is attacking any messenger rather than their message, not just the one you're speaking to.

No one claimed all thought on the matter ended anytime, straw man.

I disagreed with your entitlements for reasons given you have not addressed with other than ad hom and straw men. Try and address my argument.

Dr. Who
09-02-2013, 10:58 PM
Ad hom is attacking any messenger rather than their message, not just the one you're speaking to.

No one claimed all thought on the matter ended anytime, straw man.

I disagreed with your entitlements for reasons given you have not addressed with other than ad hom and straw men. Try and address my argument.
Argumentum ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. It did not attack you or the ancient philosophers, I asked why they would be the last word on the subject. You are not prepared to address my question. So let me rephrase, if the context in which people live is radically different than the context that people lived even 200 years ago, why wouldn't the concept of natural rights or human rights be expanded to take that into consideration?

A primarily agrarian society is substantially different than a society where people live in an urban setting with no way to attend to their basic needs without employment or social assistance or begging on the streets. Furthermore none of the sages of the past that contemplated these issues were men of the people. The were the educated elite, for whom the idea of destitution was a foreign concept and not one that they lost any sleep over. They lived in rough and callous societies that did not particularly value human life unless that life was a member of the ruling classes. The natural rights as posited were primarily contemplated to create a moral code that would protect the rights of the wealthy from the conniving predations of each other, despotic sovereigns or the teaming hords of have nots, else the right to acquire property and wealth would not have figured so prominently in their considerations.

fyrenza
09-03-2013, 12:34 AM
I'm WAY behind the curve on this,

but my gut instinct is to say : Both.

We have "right" to believe what we're told,
i.e. a verbal contract,

and every right to seek our own happiness, in doing ^that,^

so though we "work for ourselves," we also work for the betterment of our society.

That's Ayn Rand, btw.

Chris
09-03-2013, 07:34 AM
Argumentum ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. It did not attack you or the ancient philosophers, I asked why they would be the last word on the subject. You are not prepared to address my question. So let me rephrase, if the context in which people live is radically different than the context that people lived even 200 years ago, why wouldn't the concept of natural rights or human rights be expanded to take that into consideration?

A primarily agrarian society is substantially different than a society where people live in an urban setting with no way to attend to their basic needs without employment or social assistance or begging on the streets. Furthermore none of the sages of the past that contemplated these issues were men of the people. The were the educated elite, for whom the idea of destitution was a foreign concept and not one that they lost any sleep over. They lived in rough and callous societies that did not particularly value human life unless that life was a member of the ruling classes. The natural rights as posited were primarily contemplated to create a moral code that would protect the rights of the wealthy from the conniving predations of each other, despotic sovereigns or the teaming hords of have nots, else the right to acquire property and wealth would not have figured so prominently in their considerations.




Argumentum ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. ...It did not attack you or the ancient philosophers

"Well, one could as readily ask why the intellectual meanderings of a bunch of ancient philosophers must be the last word in what constitutes a natural right?" was argumentum ad hominem against those ancient philosophers. It addresses the messengers and not their messages. Rational argument addresses messages. Emotional argument messengers.


I asked why they would be the last word on the subject.

I did not argue they did thus now you've moved from ad hom to straw man in your refusal to address the message.


why wouldn't the concept of natural rights or human rights be expanded to take that into consideration?

For the reasons I have more than abundantly given. Now, do you care to address and counter those reasons given?



The natural rights as posited were primarily contemplated to create a moral code that would protect the rights of the wealthy....

You've conflated natural law with natural rights. Natural rights are derived from natural law, which is a natural moral code based on who we are created to be. Natural rights are obligations, responsibilities to be what we are, political, social beings.

Positive law was created to protect natural rights. See the Declaration and Constitution. The Declaration, contrary to your contention of protection of only the wealthy, clearly states we're all equal before the law.

Unless you can show where such posited laws exist to protect only the wealthy your argument has no support.

Chris
09-03-2013, 07:41 AM
I'm WAY behind the curve on this,

but my gut instinct is to say : Both.

We have "right" to believe what we're told,
i.e. a verbal contract,

and every right to seek our own happiness, in doing ^that,^

so though we "work for ourselves," we also work for the betterment of our society.

That's Ayn Rand, btw.



The question being debated here is whether we have a right to pursue happiness or a right to happiness. I argue we have a right, an obligation, a responsibility to pursue it. Dr Who agrees with that but extends it to government has an obligation to provide a certain level of happiness, iow, he's turned individual obligations to society on its head to society's obligation to the individual.