[Left Behind]

Assuming an atheistic world, are there any unalienable rights which can be considered natural? When people used the phrase "natural rights" they don't generally mean some moral system derived from evolution (à la T.T.P) or some other biological phenomenon it seems they think that humans are born with rights woven into their very being in a weird platonic sense, as if moral oughts are somehow part of our physical nature. Frankly I don't see how such rights can be shown to exist empirically, logically or otherwise. Pragmatic arguments like: society is much better with a belief in natural rights merely prove the use of the belief in natural rights not their existence.

Frankly I find the whole theory to be a convenient absurdity, but please, prove me wrong!

[kobe]

If you believe in God, you could justify natural rights through that mechanism. Not empirically, of course, but that would be a mechanism through which natural rights could be said to exist.

[Left Behind]

Assuming an atheistic world

If we remove god from the equation

[EU rope]

Well, that's easy.

Happy anniversary!

[Left Behind]

Well, that's easy.

Happy anniversary!

I had no idea I was being so topical

[Zamuel]

Frankly I find the whole theory to be a convenient absurdity, but please, prove me wrong!

Again ... ?

While they CAN be illustrated, no one is ever going to PROVE an intangible ... The proof of inalienable rights and their equal distribution is an unchallengeable human perception. Those who fail to discern these natural rights are defectives ... blocked by abnormal behavioral development caused by a variety of circumstances. The simple fact that you asked for PROOF of an intangible illustrates a perverse and defective mental pattern ... And ... you ain't no Rumpelstiltskin ...

Zam

[Left Behind]

The proof of inalienable rights and their equal distribution is an unchallengeable human perception.

There is no such thing as an unchallengeable human perception, this sounds a lot like the argument of theists who take their 'unchallengeable perception' of divinity to be proof of god's existence. All human perceptions should be challenged by any mildly rational individual no matter how widespread they are or how infallible they seem, the challenging of intuitive or 'obvious' notions could be considered one of the objectives of philosophy. Such a claim is similar to saying that "we all see something, so that thing must exist!" This is a blatant appeal to popular belief and intuition.

There is also the fact that for a long time hardly anyone on believed in natural rights, and then as if by magic they acquired their unchallengeable faculty of perception (or perhaps it was something with the theory being invented?).

You also blame my disbelief in human rights on the fact that I lack some necessary faculty of perception, I did for a time 'believe' in the theory of natural rights but I now regard my perception of them as illusory. In other words, I have the ability to not believe in everything I perceive without other supporting evidence to back up my perceptions.

no one is ever going to PROVE an intangible

The simple fact that you asked for PROOF of an intangible illustrates a perverse and defective mental pattern

I assume that by intangible you mean non-physical or abstract. If this is truly what you mean then you have ignored the reality of logic which gives us the ability to prove and disprove intangibles without the use of empirical information.

Those who fail to discern these natural rights are defectives ... blocked by abnormal behavioral development caused by a variety of circumstances.

Call your opponents defectives, you'll never have to talk rationally to them again. This is a fantastic strategy.

[Zamuel]

The proof of inalienable rights and their equal distribution is an unchallengeable human perception.

Call your opponents defectives, you'll never have to talk rationally to them again. This is a fantastic strategy.

Opponents ... ? Where did that come from ? You got problems with imaginary conflicts too ? Now that you've "Pounced" upon the prey that took your bait, do you feel better ?

Zam

[Left Behind]

Opponents ... ? Where did that come from ? You got problems with imaginary conflicts too ? Now that you've "Pounced" upon the prey that took your bait, do you feel better?

Your practice of amateur psychiatry is most entertaining. We are by definition, opponents in this debate, you support natural rights theory and I oppose it.

Is there anything else with which you hope to diagnose me? Only 2 disorders so far.

[Zamuel]

you support natural rights theory and I oppose it.

Sorry, Natural rights need no support, least of all from me. As I mentioned, they are easily perceived by healthy humans. You on the other hand need an opponent, as your lack of perception only proves inadequacy ...

Zam

[Truth To Power]

Well, that's easy.

Those are just (imo in some cases absurd) claims without evidence.

Sorry, Natural rights need no support, least of all from me.

Well, they aren't GETTING any from you, at any rate....

As I mentioned, they are easily perceived by healthy humans.

BZZZZZZT. Fail. Healthy humans once thought slavery was perfectly moral.

<cue "no true Scotsman" fallacy>

You on the other hand need an opponent, as your lack of perception only proves inadequacy ...

What an eloquent self-refutation...

[Heinie]

No rights come from Nature; rights are recognized by people who have been educated in the principle of equality.

[Aether]

I suppose an argument could be made that what we consider rights are natural in the sense that they logically follow from "natural" instincts. For instance, a desire to live is a natural instinct, and murder is therefore wrong seeing as it violates this instinct. Though I don't think this is a nuanced or logical enough way to conceptualise rights (indeed, as a moral nihilist I don't think such a way exists), and in most cases claims that a certain right is "natural" is just an attempt to legitimise some piece of legislation through an appeal to nature.

[SolarCross]

I suppose an argument could be made that what we consider rights are natural in the sense that they logically follow from "natural" instincts. For instance, a desire to live is a natural instinct, and murder is therefore wrong seeing as it violates this instinct. Though I don't think this is a nuanced or logical enough way to conceptualise rights (indeed, as a moral nihilist I don't think such a way exists), and in most cases claims that a certain right is "natural" is just an attempt to legitimise some piece of legislation through an appeal to nature.

That won't work though, the predatory or vengeful instinct to kill or steal is as natural an instinct as the instincts to stay alive and keep one's assets safe from others. Natural rights can only be the rights of power, or the right of might.

[Godstud]

The rights, as we see them now, would not be any different in an atheistic world, as a society needs those rights to perpetuate and preserve itself. Religion is just another tool to maintain and enforce those same rights.

[EU rope]

Those are just (imo in some cases absurd) claims without evidence.

Well, of course they are, I was somewhat ironic. "Natural rights" are something like "common sense" (mainstream sense/moral), which is not the same as "sound mind". People decide who has rights and who doesn't. Usually, very powerful people.

[snapdragon]

There aren't any natural rights, although there's definitely natural laws. If someone was to lift you up and chuck you up in the air, you'd certainly come back down again. That wouldn't be because it was your right to do that, but the law of gravity proving itself.

[Truth To Power]

No rights come from Nature; rights are recognized by people who have been educated in the principle of equality.

Incorrect. Even infants far too young to have been educated in any sort of principles exhibit aversion to evil: deliberate abrogation of another's rights without just compensation. This moral compass is part of what we are as normal human beings; only sociopaths lack it. IMO this recognition by A that C's mistreatment of B is also somehow harming A (even when it is quite obscure how that might happen) is the foundation of objective morality.

I suppose an argument could be made that what we consider rights are natural in the sense that they logically follow from "natural" instincts. For instance, a desire to live is a natural instinct, and murder is therefore wrong seeing as it violates this instinct. Though I don't think this is a nuanced or logical enough way to conceptualise rights (indeed, as a moral nihilist I don't think such a way exists), and in most cases claims that a certain right is "natural" is just an attempt to legitimise some piece of legislation through an appeal to nature.

That won't work though, the predatory or vengeful instinct to kill or steal is as natural an instinct as the instincts to stay alive and keep one's assets safe from others.

False. Most people exhibit a quite strong aversion to killing others, even to killing animals. And the natural right principle is to keep OTHERS' lives and rightful property safe from killers and thieves, not just one's own.

Natural rights can only be the rights of power, or the right of might.

The Law of the Jungle is not a rights theory.

[Heinie]

Incorrect. Even infants far too young to have been educated in any sort of principles exhibit aversion to evil: deliberate abrogation of another's rights without just compensation. This moral compass is part of what we are as normal human beings; only sociopaths lack it. ...

It is nonsense to suggest that infants have an aversion to "evil". Knowing right from wrong is acquired after about 7 years of socialization. Sociopaths never learned this due to some mental disorder.

[SolarCross]

False. Most people exhibit a quite strong aversion to killing others, even to killing animals. And the natural right principle is to keep OTHERS' lives and rightful property safe from killers and thieves, not just one's own.

Who are these "most people"? If you are thinking supermarket fed, 9 to 5 ers of a first world country of only the last few decades then that isn't really "most people". Anyway that does nothing to refute that the killer instinct is natural, even if more people have a herbivore morality that hardly makes those few with a carnivore morality unnatural.