The Right to Happiness

[Private Pickle]

Makes no sense. Natural rights are those right inherent in who we are as reasoning, social human beings. Right humanity agrees on is mere moral relativism.

Not all humans agree on what rights are inherent.

[Private Pickle]

Of course there is such a "thing" as a natural right. We're discussing them right now.



"Humanity" is an abstraction every bit as much as a natural right is.

We can discuss unicorns too. Doesn't make them real.

And fine...human kind then...

[Chris]

We can discuss unicorns too. Doesn't make them real.

And fine...human kind then...

Huh? You're the one talking about unicorns. What the OP is talking about are natural rights. Take the right to life. That right is a responsiblity to act to live by feeding, clothing, and sheltering oneself. It entails for human beings the exercise of reason to plan out how to do that, and the interaction with others in production and trade. There's nothing unicorn about that. It's who we are, what we do.

[Private Pickle]

Huh? You're the one talking about unicorns. What the OP is talking about are natural rights. Take the right to life. That right is a responsiblity to act to live by feeding, clothing, and sheltering oneself. It entails for human beings the exercise of reason to plan out how to do that, and the interaction with others in production and trade. There's nothing unicorn about that. It's who we are, what we do.

By that logic an oak tree has that same right given it has the responsibility to act to live by feeding itself as well. Living does not require reasoning. It is mankind that created the notion of rights in order to preserve society but every society is different in how they view and practice those rights. If rights are not universal across mankind than they cannot be inherent in every human. Only philosophically can one make that connection and that is a subjective conclusion.

[Chris]

By that logic an oak tree has that same right given it has the responsibility to act to live by feeding itself as well. Living does not require reasoning. It is mankind that created the notion of rights in order to preserve society but every society is different in how they view and practice those rights. If rights are not universal across mankind than they cannot be inherent in every human. Only philosophically can one make that connection and that is a subjective conclusion.

I suppose you could stretch the nothion of rights like that but natural rights have to do with morality and I doubt trees make moral choices the way human being do in reasoning out their actions toward others.

Mankind invented the right the OP rejects, the human rights of FDR or the UN, liberal rights that are really no more than special privileges.

The fact that not all societies protect these natural rights does not in any way imply they don't exists. Rights, being inherent in who we are, are universal--as opposed to special privileges.


We do not have a right to happiness. We do have a right to pursue happiness.

[Private Pickle]

I suppose you could stretch the nothion of rights like that but natural rights have to do with morality and I doubt trees make moral choices the way human being do in reasoning out their actions toward others.

Mankind invented the right the OP rejects, the human rights of FDR or the UN, liberal rights that are really no more than special privileges.

The fact that not all societies protect these natural rights does not in any way imply they don't exists. Rights, being inherent in who we are, are universal--as opposed to special privileges.


We do not have a right to happiness. We do have a right to pursue happiness.

It's not that societies don't protect natural rights. Most societies protect their version or what they believe are natural rights.
With regards to reasoning, an individual who is mentally impaired to the point where they cannot make a moral choice or themselves reason has no natural rights? The question is rhetorical given natural rights don't exist beyond what any one society deem them to be...

[Chris]

It's not that societies don't protect natural rights. Most societies protect their version or what they believe are natural rights.
With regards to reasoning, an individual who is mentally impaired to the point where they cannot make a moral choice or themselves reason has no natural rights? The question is rhetorical given natural rights don't exist beyond what any one society deem them to be...

Thanks, you just admitted all societies protect their version of natural rights. Natural rights are not created by reason but discovered by reason. That some societies envision them differently, protect them differently, does not imply they don't exist. That all societies recognize them in some form implies they do exist.

With regards to reasoning, an individual who is mentally impaired to the point where they cannot make a moral choice or themselves reason has no natural rights?

1) Right are not created by reason but discovered.

2) Rights are social. Some people speak of individual rights, but they are actually the rights of the people, shared by all since we're created equal before the law.

[Private Pickle]

Thanks, you just admitted all societies protect their version of natural rights. Natural rights are not created by reason but discovered by reason. That some societies envision them differently, protect them differently, does not imply they don't exist. That all societies recognize them in some form implies they do exist.

Natural rights are created by reason depending on each societal viewpoint. If they were discovered they would be the same across all societies. They are not.

1) Right are not created by reason but discovered.

2) Rights are social. Some people speak of individual rights, but they are actually the rights of the people, shared by all since we're created equal before the law.

1) Natural rights are created not discovered given they are not consistent across mankind.

2) Rights are not shared by all as can be evidenced in the various societies across the globe.

[Chris]

Natural rights are created by reason depending on each societal viewpoint. If they were discovered they would be the same across all societies. They are not.





1) Natural rights are created not discovered given they are not consistent across mankind.

2) Rights are not shared by all as can be evidenced in the various societies across the globe.

Sorry, but by definition, natural rights are not created by man. Simply discovered, or not.

Different societies are, well, different, so naturally they view natural rights differently and protect them differently.



Are you actually saying there is no right to life?

[Private Pickle]

Sorry, but by definition, natural rights are not created by man. Simply discovered, or not.

Different societies are, well, different, so naturally they view natural rights differently and protect them differently.



Are you actually saying there is no right to life?

I know the definition and how we as humans apply that definition. I just happen to believe that natural rights do not exist.
There is a right to life. That we as humans have created in order to sustain order in our various societies. However; that right to life varies on the specifics across different societies and even within our own. For example...honor killings or executions.