Are rights natural?

>>2504532
The only rights you have are things you can do and defend, the word is a buzzword

>>2504532
No

Humans have all the rights. Where rights infringe on other peoples right is where the real stuff is

File: Squidwardeyes.png (75KB, 325x244px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 325x244px

of course not you fucking retard

>obligatory butthurt post about stirner, /lit/, /leftpol/ and brainlets

>>2504532

NO.

THE FACT THAT YOU ASK THAT INDICATES THAT YOU EITHER IGNORE WHAT RIGHTS ARE, OR WHAT "NATURAL" MEANS —OR BOTH.

RIGHTS ARE ARTIFICIAL.

>>2504532
No, but just because they aren't natural does not mean they are not worth protecting and enforcing.

>>2504574
This, if the humanity followed what was "natural" we'd never get out of caves.

>>2504574
>>2504581

DO NOT PROJECT IMPLIED ETHICOMORAL JUDGMENTS ON SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

>>2504591
Do not reply to me without permission you shizo.

>>2504532
Directions are a human invention, but all things have sides.

>>2504595
May i reply to you in another few posts?

Yes.

God exists, so natural rights exist.

>>2505123
God is supernatural so actually supernatural rights exist.

Depends on what you mean by that.

If you mean mystical floating commands that everyone has to respect, then no.

If you mean aspects of human nature that have been identified as crucial for the maintenance of society and achievement of a rational man's life, then yes.

>>2504532
yes because no threat of human law can ever fully take away your ability to live how you want, express yourself, and hold property.

>>2504532
No they are legal and ideological constructs that arose to answer and justify the needs and desires that individuals within a society experience

>>2504532
>Are rights natural?
Painful consequences are natural, inevitable.
We get what we would do onto others.
When they go to court for their rights, they feign innocence. They pretend they wouldn't do the same or worse in their own way.

Power is the only natural "right", necessity is the only natural "duty". Any other conception of natural law is fictitious.

>>2505334
Therefore we have the right to live how we want, to express ourselves and to hold property, and those rights should be respected, I suppose? If so, that is just mental gymnastics. A right that needs to be "respected" to exist is not natural, just conventional.

>>2505123
>>2505128
>believing in skyfairies.

>>2505139
>If you mean aspects of human nature that have been identified as crucial for the maintenance of society and achievement of a rational man's life, then yes.
Cannibilsm is okay ? Because many societies have no problem with it.

>>2504532
Yes

The natural law is the law of reason

Why are you so unreasonable?

>>2504581
you have no understanding of what youre talking about

>Nature (the art whereby God hath made and governs the world) is by the art
of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an
artificial animal. For seeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning
whereof is in some principal part within, why may we not say that all
automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a
watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart, but a spring; and the
nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving
motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the Artificer? Art goes
yet further, imitating that rational and most excellent work of Nature, man.
For by art is created that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth, or State
(in Latin, Civitas), which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature
and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended;
and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and
motion to the whole body; the magistrates and other officers of judicature
and execution, artificial joints; reward and punishment (by which fastened
to the seat of the sovereignty, every joint and member is moved to perform
his duty) are the nerves, that do the same in the body natural; the wealth and
riches of all the particular members are the strength; salus populi (the people’s
safety) its business; counsellors, by whom all things needful for it to know
are suggested unto it, are the memory; equity and laws, an artificial reason
and will; concord, health; sedition, sickness; and civil war, death. Lastly,
the pacts and covenants, by which the parts of this body politic were at first
made, set together, and united, resemble that fiat, or the Let us make man,
pronounced by God in the Creation.

Youre the type of person who will invoke the idea of the "social contract" espoused by Hobbes meanwhile Hobbes was a staunch defender of natural law

>>2504532
Is genocide a crime?

>>2507934
>>2507958
Natural law ≠ natural rights
If you understand natural law as "you don't mess with a gangster unless you want to end up dead", "you don't try to stop a plane with your hands for the very same reason" or as simple as "you dress up well to a diplomatic dinner if you dong want to have a hard time" which I think might be as Hobbes understood it, then or there are no "natural rights" or the only natural right you have is to all you can get by any mean. That is very different from, say, Locke's "inalienable, self-evident natural rights" which don't make any sense to me.

>>2504532
No, rights are something you have to fight for. That's how we gained them in the first place.

>>2505123
>so natural rights exist.
non sequitur