Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

drblackdahlia t1_j74grfg wrote

Hello. I think a dog has the natural right to defend themselves. Would this require a discussion on biological language? For example, if everything in the natural world is by default, self serving and trying to survive against anything that can threaten their life, does that imply everyone has natural rights if they are a living being? I suppose the tangent of owning a firearm is not, by any means, a natural right. I think. If this is true, would that imply we are slaves to nature and the rest of our biological processes as we continue to live? Forget Locke’s view, I would like to get to the bottom of this because this is the perfect time for this dialogue to gain attention.

Questions:

  1. Is there a gap in understanding the actual natural right and the right that cannot literally be taken?
  2. I can take someone’s property (Locke), but why does he claim it’s inalienable right?
  3. I want to be on the same page as everyone as far as vocabulary is concerned, so, do we use inalienable rights or natural rights?
  4. Prior to the Enlightenment period, who decided/managed the hierarchy of natural rights.
  5. Who’s rights were more important?
  6. Does this shift your view when this conversation is later considered in (let’s say) a political issue?
  7. Are we obligated, by default, to allow everyone to enjoy their natural rights?
  8. What happens when natural rights conflict? I have a lot more questions but I’m sure you would want to sleep soon. Lol.
−1

locri t1_j74hbbl wrote

> 3. I want to be on the same page as everyone as far as vocabulary is concerned, so, do we use inalienable rights or natural rights?

I'd use them interchangeably and get annoyed and yell semantics if someone disagrees. I know it's fun to make philosophy difficult but let's at least make the words simple?

Also, I might post back later and answer some of those questions as an exercise.

2

contractualist OP t1_j74k1eu wrote

  1. I argue that natural law is based on social contract theory and those rights would have to be within the powers of one's freedom
  2. I wouldn't claim its an unalienable right (we allow government takings and adverse possession). Property rights require specification and prioritization, which social contract theory specifies.
  3. There is no consensus that I'm aware of. Inalienable rights is misleading, since rights require specification and are subject to reasonable restrictions. They aren't trumps according to my conception of them. I use natural rights.
  4. In Europe, before the enlightenment, natural law theory was based on divine providence, so god.
  5. It may have depended more on power than reason, so the most powerful.
  6. No, this is actual the strengths of contractualism/social contract theory. It can explain moral obligations and political legitimacy.
  7. Yes, since rights implies duties.
  8. Then reason must figure out an ordering of rights. This ordering may be universal (the social contract stage), based on national values (the political constitution stage) or based on the applicable law (the formal law creation stage).
1