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:
Is there a gap in understanding the actual natural right and the right that cannot literally be taken?
I can take someone’s property (Locke), but why does he claim it’s inalienable right?
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?
Prior to the Enlightenment period, who decided/managed the hierarchy of natural rights.
Who’s rights were more important?
Does this shift your view when this conversation is later considered in (let’s say) a political issue?
Are we obligated, by default, to allow everyone to enjoy their natural rights?
What happens when natural rights conflict?
I have a lot more questions but I’m sure you would want to sleep soon. Lol.
drblackdahlia t1_j74grfg wrote
Reply to There Are No Natural Rights (without Natural Law): Addressing what rights are, how we create rights, and where rights come from by contractualist
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: