- 03 Mar 2024 05:27
#15306170
I was reading an article from Politico, one of those typical Leftist screeds against "Christian Nationalism" in politics. But that's not what this thread is about.
In the article, I saw something that stood out as very alarming to me.
The relevant paragraph in the article says:
"In 2019, Trump’s then-secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, set up a federal commission to define human rights based on the precepts Vought describes, specifically 'natural law and natural rights.' Natural law is the belief that there are universal rules derived from God that can't be superseded by government or judges. While it is a core pillar of Catholicism, in recent decades it’s been used to oppose abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and contraception."
Trump allies prepare to infuse 'Christian nationalism' in second administration, by Alexander Ward and Heidi Przybyla, Politico, February 20, 2024
So not only are they attacking what they see as "Christian Nationalism", but they also seem lumping together "natural rights" with that.
Do these political writers have any idea what "natural rights" actually are?
If they ever took a civics class, they would have to know.
They bring up "natural rights" and then treat it with contempt alongside with the Christianity that is the main subject the article is complaining about. It seems they either do not know what "natural rights" are (which in itself is very worrying), or they do know what the philosophy of natural rights are but despise it (even more concerning).
Natural rights, for any who may not know, is a set of moral standards and rights which it is believed are self-evident, that most all people can know is true and correct. (Or in some cases can use logic to derive offshoot conclusions from that)
For example, it is wrong to murder another person, or to steal. That is very basic natural rights.
The idea of natural rights was important to the founding of the United States. If you take any civics class, they will probably refer to John Locke, and how the idea of natural rights was expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and set the foundation for democracy.
It seems perhaps many on the Left are annoyed at the idea of natural rights, because it can interfere with what they want government to do to implement their policies. In the mentality of many on the Left, the ideal government is all-wise and should be given all power. Only then can it solve all the problems. If there are certain things that government is not allowed to do, it is seen as an impediment.
This of course ignores the crucial role that the philosophy of natural rights has played in bringing about democracy and establishing human rights and individual rights. But now the Left seems to just take all of those things for granted. Maybe natural rights was useful for bringing about that progress, they might argue, but now the society should move beyond that and progress.
But if you throw out natural rights, you are stuck with moral relativism, where anything goes. This seems to be the dictum of the Left, any sacrifice is justified for the supposed better good of the collective.
For someone who is Libertarian, this is deeply problematic.
It is true there is a connection to God in the philosophy of natural rights, but this is not completely so. There are plenty of atheists who would support the idea of "natural rights". And many of the U.S. founders who believed in natural rights had a view of God that fit more into what is called "deism", a more distant and impersonal God, less involved in the personal affairs of men, certainly a much less religious concept of God. They could claim "natural rights" ultimately came from God, but it was mostly a much more philosophical view rather than an article of religious faith.
To automatically equate the idea of "natural rights" to religion shows a deep ignorance, or even a disingenuous intellectual assessment. Natural rights is really more a philosophy, that if all human beings were created by God, then all human beings have inherent worth. And furthermore that human beings do not have the right to trespass upon the natural rights of another human being. That is hardly an idea that is "religious" or wholly confined to Christianity.
I've always taken the concept of "Natural Rights" for granted, as if it is obvious and self-evident. But could it be that it's a completely foreign and unknown idea to many other people?
In the article, I saw something that stood out as very alarming to me.
The relevant paragraph in the article says:
"In 2019, Trump’s then-secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, set up a federal commission to define human rights based on the precepts Vought describes, specifically 'natural law and natural rights.' Natural law is the belief that there are universal rules derived from God that can't be superseded by government or judges. While it is a core pillar of Catholicism, in recent decades it’s been used to oppose abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and contraception."
Trump allies prepare to infuse 'Christian nationalism' in second administration, by Alexander Ward and Heidi Przybyla, Politico, February 20, 2024
So not only are they attacking what they see as "Christian Nationalism", but they also seem lumping together "natural rights" with that.
Do these political writers have any idea what "natural rights" actually are?
If they ever took a civics class, they would have to know.
They bring up "natural rights" and then treat it with contempt alongside with the Christianity that is the main subject the article is complaining about. It seems they either do not know what "natural rights" are (which in itself is very worrying), or they do know what the philosophy of natural rights are but despise it (even more concerning).
Natural rights, for any who may not know, is a set of moral standards and rights which it is believed are self-evident, that most all people can know is true and correct. (Or in some cases can use logic to derive offshoot conclusions from that)
For example, it is wrong to murder another person, or to steal. That is very basic natural rights.
The idea of natural rights was important to the founding of the United States. If you take any civics class, they will probably refer to John Locke, and how the idea of natural rights was expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and set the foundation for democracy.
It seems perhaps many on the Left are annoyed at the idea of natural rights, because it can interfere with what they want government to do to implement their policies. In the mentality of many on the Left, the ideal government is all-wise and should be given all power. Only then can it solve all the problems. If there are certain things that government is not allowed to do, it is seen as an impediment.
This of course ignores the crucial role that the philosophy of natural rights has played in bringing about democracy and establishing human rights and individual rights. But now the Left seems to just take all of those things for granted. Maybe natural rights was useful for bringing about that progress, they might argue, but now the society should move beyond that and progress.
But if you throw out natural rights, you are stuck with moral relativism, where anything goes. This seems to be the dictum of the Left, any sacrifice is justified for the supposed better good of the collective.
For someone who is Libertarian, this is deeply problematic.
It is true there is a connection to God in the philosophy of natural rights, but this is not completely so. There are plenty of atheists who would support the idea of "natural rights". And many of the U.S. founders who believed in natural rights had a view of God that fit more into what is called "deism", a more distant and impersonal God, less involved in the personal affairs of men, certainly a much less religious concept of God. They could claim "natural rights" ultimately came from God, but it was mostly a much more philosophical view rather than an article of religious faith.
To automatically equate the idea of "natural rights" to religion shows a deep ignorance, or even a disingenuous intellectual assessment. Natural rights is really more a philosophy, that if all human beings were created by God, then all human beings have inherent worth. And furthermore that human beings do not have the right to trespass upon the natural rights of another human being. That is hardly an idea that is "religious" or wholly confined to Christianity.
I've always taken the concept of "Natural Rights" for granted, as if it is obvious and self-evident. But could it be that it's a completely foreign and unknown idea to many other people?