View Full Version : what are 'natural' human rights (and how comes)?
On various occasions, especially on side of political, economical and moral debates, idea of 'natural' human rights and 'natural laws' comes up. There is no universal agreement on the definition and content of these natural laws, usually the consensus is about some basics- like 'right to live' (not be killed)- but still the definition is controversial (eg abortion). Then there goes all list of rights which are natural for some and not fot others. From very practical (freedom of speach, freedom of religion) to very elusive (right to happiness or right to decent quality of life).
The thing is, are any of these rights are actually 'natural'? Many if not most people seem to consider some rights as 'natural' and some as not.What mechanism is used to draw this kind of conclusions and lines.
For instance, in the eyes of libertines, the right to protection by the state of goods/land/ wealth is considered as 'natural', while for instance the right to be paid a minimum wage is considered as 'artificial'. Are not both of them a result of negotiations and agreements? What makes the former natural and the latter artificial?
This just one example. I dont want to go into endless field of abortion, death penalty, wars, its not about which rights are natural, but what makes them natural, apart from the social consensus, reached by the group of people in specific time and specific place (and if this is a result of social consensus, it may be changed or abolished as a result of social consensus. Is not it?)
On what stage a social consensus becomes a natural law?
No, there are not such thing as "natural." Talk about these laws to an Papuan or an Amazonian and he won't understand anything .They are Eurocentric laws applied for the entire humanity.
No, there are not such thing as "natural." Talk about these laws to an Papuan or an Amazonian and he won't understand anything .They are Eurocentric laws applied for the entire humanity.
I agree, thats the point of mine, but its not a view shared by everyone. Some people consider (believe or promote) some laws/rights as 'natural' but I have no idea how they evolve into this.
The field of natural law is dominated by catholic scholars. For 300 years they were dubbed as fanatics, idiots, etc. Until December 10, 1948, the day in which natural law was established as the Law above all Laws.
It was Jacques Maritain who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Prince Chupacabra
2012-04-15, 00:15
I suppose the only natural law applies to those living nomadic lives away from society. To be able to live completely freely without havin to submit to anyone's will. But for us living within the city have to conform on some level.
ALL
RE: NATURAL LAW
Natural Law was a product of church philosophy. It stated that there were 'divine' laws (of god or nature) that limited what 'positive law' (legislation) by the state could do to people.
When we say we live under 'rule of law', that means, not that we obey laws, but that there are limits to what positive laws the state is able to enact, without violating natural laws. That is the meaning of 'rule of law'.
In that sense, Natural Laws was the precursor to Human RIghts.
So there are A) positive laws: legislation. B) Common laws: 'found' laws, that develop organically in society. (Most law was considered 'found' in european history, and governments were not necessarily able to enact laws at will.). C) And Natural Law: what we would today consider human rights-- limits on what a government can do.
The movement toward democratic government has largely undermined rule of law, and natural law, under the assumption that if the state is synonymous with the people, then the people can enact whatever laws they desire, and therefore there are no limits. Hence, why, via the Commerce Clause, the constitution is all but meaningless now. And it is that last straw of meaning that the court is considering with Obamacare.
So, natural law is effectively human rights. And if there is no natural law, there can be no human rights. They are the same.
I hope that helps clarify the issue. It is somewhat troubling that we can get through twelve years of primary schooling without understanding what are the principles under which we live. :)
Austronesian
2012-04-18, 06:21
No, there are not such thing as "natural." Talk about these laws to an Papuan or an Amazonian and he won't understand anything .They are Eurocentric laws applied for the entire humanity.
I think there is a universal Right to property.
IF you ask a papuan what Crops or what trees belong to him, he will quickly respond without hesitation. He will probably say, "this is my land and these are my crops and if somebody messes with it, i'll cut his head off"
I think there is a universal Right to property.
IF you ask a papuan what Crops or what trees belong to him, he will quickly respond without hesitation. He will probably say, "this is my land and these are my crops and if somebody messes with it, i'll cut his head off"
Not all societies had a concept of land ownership though.
I think there is a universal Right to property.
IF you ask a papuan what Crops or what trees belong to him, he will quickly respond without hesitation. He will probably say, "this is my land and these are my crops and if somebody messes with it, i'll cut his head off"
He will cut your head off even quicker if you try to make him work for free, unless you threaten to cut his off. Also, he can cllaim this as long as there is noone stronger around who bangs his head and says 'not anymore', thats all about 'natural rights to property'.
Its good that we evolved more civilised attitude and regulation, but we went to another extreme, when we politely do not ask out people who occupy too much land, even if people have enough potential power to do so (millionairs and big land owners amount to 1% of society, so its 99 against one, how grateful they should be that this 99% is so cooperative and generous to not to strip them off it).
*sarcasm*, before someone calls me a communist:)
I think humanity realised that there is an element of randomness in this world (at least seemingly random) and to advance our need for control and meaning we created "natural laws". -Psychological answer
Natural laws are laws brought about by God to preserve objective morality and purpose- Theological answer
"Natural Law" is a rather misleading term. But I think that there are laws that are the foundation of civilization. They have been developed over thousands of years of development. If these rights are not respected by society, civilization ceases to grow. The ultimate criterion of whether something can be classified as "natural law" is an experience. If civilization, culture, society thrive in the system of fundamental rights can be said that these are "natural rights".
Sakarisker
2012-04-18, 13:38
Life, liberty and property. To find out more, read Lysander Spooner (http://www.panarchy.org/spooner/law.1882.html).
impasible
2012-04-18, 14:10
the only truly natural right of humans it's the same of the rest of living beings, the right to die; and it's not a right, it's a duty.
can you imagine people in front of a natural event like a tsunami, a eartquake, a black hole...
hey, and what about my natural right to life?
any right is natural, all are social constructions.
modernsappho
2012-04-19, 17:33
In modern societies, Natural Law would seem be the direct opposite of Capitalism: Since one could say it creates roadblocks between man and his pursuit of happiness(Roadblocks that, in a world bound only by nature, wouldn't exists). Or Natural Theory might (have) evolve(d) so that, as long as there are no unnatural(Maybe sociocultural) roadblocks between a man with the right amount of drive and passion and perseverance, Natural Law will still be able to run its course.
---------- Post added 2012-04-19 at 17:23 ----------
On various occasions, especially on side of political, economical and moral debates, idea of 'natural' human rights and 'natural laws' comes up. There is no universal agreement on the definition and content of these natural laws, usually the consensus is about some basics- like 'right to live' (not be killed)- but still the definition is controversial (eg abortion). Then there goes all list of rights which are natural for some and not fot others. From very practical (freedom of speach, freedom of religion) to very elusive (right to happiness or right to decent quality of life).
The thing is, are any of these rights are actually 'natural'? Many if not most people seem to consider some rights as 'natural' and some as not.What mechanism is used to draw this kind of conclusions and lines.
For instance, in the eyes of libertines, the right to protection by the state of goods/land/ wealth is considered as 'natural', while for instance the right to be paid a minimum wage is considered as 'artificial'. Are not both of them a result of negotiations and agreements? What makes the former natural and the latter artificial?
This just one example. I dont want to go into endless field of abortion, death penalty, wars, its not about which rights are natural, but what makes them natural, apart from the social consensus, reached by the group of people in specific time and specific place (and if this is a result of social consensus, it may be changed or abolished as a result of social consensus. Is not it?)
On what stage a social consensus becomes a natural law?
"Natural Laws" were a reactionary stance against the bourgeois in Restoration France. The proletariat middle and lower classes were fed up that their station in life never changed...Nor did their wages. Writings like the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man gave them a feeling of divine vindication on an socioculturally cruel earth. This same reactionary stance against perceived injustices is what drives other "Natural Laws".
My example: In most cultures throughout history, children once worked long hours to support themselves or their families. But now, we deem it natural for them to spend most of their days in school...Learning. Playing on other days. That's why most people are shocked when they learn that near or abroad, there are kids in sweatshops or selling their bodies for money or getting pregnant very young...Our "Natural Law" concerning kids now is that they're too young and underdeveloped to be involved or burdened by certain things. In the past it clearly wasn't always so.
But there's a clear divide between that which enables men to comfortably live (Such as in having a decent minimum wage at more unspecialized jobs where the pay rate can be abused) and simply saying that everyone who desires a yacht, deserves a yacht. Obviously the latter makes no sense. Some things are in clear need of reformation...Others are just obviously wishy washy liberal/libertine dribbel.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.