Reply #60: I agree there's no such thing as "natural rights" [View All]

[Euromutt]

It strikes me that if the endowing entity, be it Nature or some deity, were serious about endowing us with "natural rights," that entity would have made it physically impossible for those rights to be violated. We wouldn't need a right to self-defense, because it would be impossible to deprive us of life or liberty against our will. But you try telling a grizzly or a tornado that you have a "natural right" to life. The fact is, nature doesn't care whether you live or die.

Human rights are, to my mind, a product of the human sentiment famously put into words by Rabbi Hillel, to "Do not unto others that which is hateful unto thee." We don't want anyone dictating to us what we can or can't say, or what gods we can believe or not believe in, or arbitrarily and capriciously taking away our lives, liberty or property, so it's only fair we extend that same courtesy Rights come into existence when a sufficient number of people agree that humans shouldn't do a certain thing to each other because they wouldn't want to have it inflicted upon themselves. That can be codified, but it doesn't have to be; what really matters is people's reaction to the idea of having a particular activity done to them. The overriding argument why slavery is wrong, for example, is the fact that a vanishingly small number of slave owners throughout history ever willingly became slaves themselves; if they don't want it done to them, it is wrong for them to do it to others.

Because it is not physically impossible to deprive us of life, liberty and/or property, but we universally would not want such a thing inflicted on ourselves, we must needs acknowledge a right for people to defend themselves from such depredations. That's only natural, but it's not "Natural Law."