Natural rights are rights that we have regardless of any laws governments may or may not make. — bert1
I voted yes, but it's paradoxical. In saying "we hold these Truths to be self-evident", we're making a choice. Natural rights are stipulated or asserted under certain social conditions, and we thereby create them, according to how we want to live in those conditions. — jamalrob
Building on what Pfhorrest says, it's as if we cannot conceive of universal rights unless we conceive of them as features of the natural world. The idea of moral objectivity without naturalism is a difficult one for us to handle. — jamalrob
But if we create them, and only in certain conditions, then how can they be natural and universal? — jamalrob
If we take the definition of "natural law" as "a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct," then I would see natural law as referencing an absolute standard necessary for all human beings.
While we can pretend that these moral laws are "self evident," clearly they're not because there's nothing specifically we point to to show what that evidence is.
I voted "no" because I don't think it appropriate to speak of "rights" that are unenforceable. or the violation of which is without recorse. — Ciceronianus the White
Something I've always wanted to ask you, do you think a law can be immoral? — fdrake
Even if there was no government there could still be consequences for violating someone's natural rights whether they're in a legal, written document or not. — BitconnectCarlos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.