Natural Origin of Rights

Determining this though is very subjective. It is very problematic to try and derive universal rules or rights from a subjective basis.

If mercy is the desire of rational man and not judgement, then how can one derive justice from the concept of rational desire? For instance, from the desire of rational man to not be killed or robbed, you derive the principle that justice consists of not killing or robbing. By the same logic, from the fact that rational man desires not to be punished one would have to derive that justice consists of not punishing wrong. Is such a conclusion acceptable? If not, then that would indicate that your logic needs to be refined at the least.

Which of these derived natural rights from the Golden Rule?

1. It only conjures up these ideas if one insists on adding extra meaning to it. A rational person does not do this. I assume the reader is rational. Thus I have no problem with the term.
2. I didn't use it to counter the idea of the right to life, but the idea that such a right could successfully be derived from Scripture. That one may not able to derive rights from Scripture does not mean they don't exist.

 

I don't know that such a thing as "natural rights" exist for men. If they do not, then they can't be derived from any source. Instead I would hold that all rights reside in God alone. God may grant us with life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, but this does not mean that He has endowed us with any sort of right to these things.

 

No one is saying that the law is derived from someone's feelings, it's only perceived thereby.

No, because to desire mercy is to recognize that 1) One's actions were misdeeds in the first place, and 2) That his misdeeds deserve punishment. What we're talking about here is the concept of natural rights and how they're recognized. The law does make provision for mercy in some cases.

The point is that they recognized natural law. All men by nature know the law, Christian or not. Again, the law is not derived from one's feelings, it is only sensed by them.

 

It might be a semantics issue, but consider this:
1. If I am endowed with the certain rights then who's responsibility is it to see that my rights are protected? The logical conclusion of natural rights is that it is up to men to protect their rights.
- Men hold the rights but cede some portion of them to government in order to better secure their rights.
- But if government doesn't secure these rights it is the duty of men to change the government.
- And if government becomes a positive danger to these rights then it is the duty of men to rebel and overthrow the government

2. Yet if these rights reside with God, then it God's duty alone to protect these rights (or not as He chooses). Hence the logical conclusions would be
- God holds these rights but may use temporal agents (men, nature or circumstances) to help prevent violation of these rights. Government is one explicit agent of God in this regard (Rom 13:1-7).
- But if government doesn't do its job, it is God's responsibility to see to a change in government (or not, bad government is just as much an agent of God as good. It may be that God is using bad government to affect some judgement or change in the attitude of the nation. See Judges.).
- And if government does the exact opposite of its job and actively violates these rights, it remains with God to effect change, not with man. Thus the unqualified command for believers to not rebel against authority.

As you can see, agree or disagree with my position, its more than semantics. It can have a very powerful impact upon the Christian's relationship to government.

That the distinction was pretty straightforward.

 

FWIW, the question is over how they are derived. Sure, if one already holds that they exist and has a pretty clear idea of what they are, then finding ways to recognize them in Scripture is easy. But this gives no way to determine if they actually exist in the first place.

I see your reasoning giving a way to recognize an inborn sense of law and natural a conscience, but not a system of natural rights.

I will hold a more complete response to this for later. For now I will just point out that natural law is different than natural rights. The former can exist w/o the latter being true.

 

1. Fallacy of division - what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the parts.
2. That something/someone may be God's agents does not imply that they are doing what is within their rights - not unless God gave explicit commands. So, for instance, God used Assyria as an agent to bring justice and judgement to Israel, yet God also judged Assyria for the same act general acts (Isa 10:5-7).
3. So, that man may make up government and that man may be an agent of God does not necessarily imply that man holds the rights in any real way. Nor does man's tendency to rebel against oppressive authority may also be an agent of God does not imply that such acts are necessarily good or approved.

One must keep clear that God makes use of evil to accomplish His good ends. Thus, the fact that one is an agent of God does not imply God's approval of the agent. God used the Jews and the Romans to accomplish Christ's act of atonement, yet He in no way approved of their crucifying of His son.

The same is true even if He did not give those rights. In fact, the unqualified command to obey authority in Rom 13 would imply that God does not view rights as having been given to man. Otherwise, one would expect a command to disobey if government violated rights. Instead all I find is a necessity to disobey only when duty to obey government comes in conflict with duty to obey God.

So, if rights are given to men and thus are to be defended, then the Christian seems to be in the position of not having these rights, or at least not being able to defend them.

Not necessarily. It might merely indicate the lack of a right. That a man may lack the right to kill another does not necessarily mean that man therefore holds the right to life.

Consider David's statement when he says that his act of murder and adultery were a sin against God and only God.

There is that problem as well. Plus the whole difficulty that, even if one grants the existence of natural law, determining what those laws are presents many problems - problems that have never been resolved. In fact, Scripture seems to hint that its not possible to determine good law by means of natural law.

 

Oh. They're endowed by God.

That was easy.

The real question is, how does one know that?

Yes, it is easy. And it would be just as easy to rebut them if the Scriptures held forth otherwise.

The Scriptures say thou shalt do no murder. How does one know by nature that murder is wrong?

He just does.

The law simply exists. It just is. And all men know it by nature, and all men are accountable to it. That's why "ignorance of the law is no excuse," because no one is ignorant of it.

You cannot perceive something that does not exist.

Now it's just a case of semantics. I can say one has a right to life, or that it is unlawful for any one, pauper or king, to murder you.

I can say one has the right to the pursuit of happiness, or I can say it is unlawful for any one, pauper or king, to steal from you.

 

derive: to trace a sequence of statements (as in logic or mathematics) showing that a result is a necessary consequence of previously accepted statements

That is the question I mean when I ask how they are derived. I don't ask where you derive them from (that is obvious), but *how* you derive them. How do logically get from point A to B? How do know, for instance, that they are endowed by God? Or what they are? Or what they are not?

I grant that a universal law exists. I grant that the existence of such a law is recognized by all men (tacitly at least). Those points are in question. The question is one of rights. That killing may be wrong and that this fact may be recognized by all men does not lead necessarily to the conclusion that men have rights. Thats the point I am harping on

You haven't yet demonstrated that you perceive that they exist. I grant that we perceive the existence of law. Its the question of rights that I am asking about.

They are not logically equivalent statements. Its certainly not just semantics. I demonstrated that in an earlier post.

 

Not a bad analogy. I think sometimes people think its merely semantics because
a. the practical results are the same in "normal" situations
b. and its usually a lot easier to talk about and conceive of me having the right-of-way or me having rights
c. plus I think its a conception that fits better with man's view of things

Another example where the concept of God holding rights seems to fit better with Scriptural teachings:
Rom 12:19 "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." If men possess rights then it would seem to follow that vengeance is the right of men, either individually (which OT law seems to tacitly recognize) or collectively (ie. government). Even those who would deny personal vengeance would hold that government still holds a right to this. However, God explicitly states that vengeance is His. It doesn't just say that vengeance is contrary to love and thus Christians shouldn't do it, it also says that vengeance is God's, period. We as Christian's often see our following Christ in loving our enemies and forgiving as a giving up of some right. Rom 12 indicates that such is not the case - we never legitimately possessed such a right to begin with.

Really, there is a whole lot more to this in Rom 12 and 13, but that particular verse makes my essential point clear.

The rational basis is man's self-centered and self-seeking nature - man's hope for gain, combined with his fear of loss. Mix that together with an inward sense of the existence of a universal law and inherent natural order and the concept of human rights follows.

 

The origin of natural rights is a person swinging a chunk of tree limb.

 

Still looking forward to your input.

 

Everyone has a natural, God-given right to the fruits of his or her own labor.
No one has a natural or God-given right to that of another without consent.

 

The second part is easily demonstrated. How do you know the first is true though?

 

Apologies - I have only just now had time to log on, sadly, real life goes on - I haven't even been able to read through the thread. First part of the week was very busy and now I am in Germany visiting my very pregnant daughter and that has prioritised my time.

I won't be home now till Saturday and then church responsibilities Sunday.

I just had a few minutes to log on this morning while the house was quiet.

Just gave the thread a quick read through (not thorough) and am impressed at the level of discussion.

My main thought at the moment is how man's perceived 'rights' relate to his sinful nature and enmity to God. Does God really gives 'rights' to His enemies? Or are these right created and maintained by societies?

If mankind indeed has some kind of God endowed rights, and Jefferson and his team believed that, why did they deny those right to women, blacks, and the native Americans?

Did Jefferson et al believe that only white, male, landowners had those God given right?

Won't be back for a few days - real life and my only 'little girl' and our son-in-law are a little more important that an internet discussion

 

Because violating the first violates the second.

 

IF right exist, this is certainly true. But it is also possible to violate the second without the first existing. So this does not lead logically to the fact that the first actually exists. It is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

An example of the fallacy to show the problem inherent in the reasoning:
- If I have the flu, then I have a fever. (true)
- I have a fever. (true)
Therefore, I have the flu. (not necessarily true - you might have a bacterial infection or something else that causes a fever)

The only way to make this logic work is to assume that the ONLY way to violate the second is by violating the former. But such is not the case. So, therefore it is not possible to assume the first by the fact of the second being violated. There are other ways to violate the second w/o the first existing.