Objective, Inalienable Natural Rights - Without Authority

Mr. Stolyarov shows that the authority-based view of rights - the idea that rights "come from" an external source such as God or government - is ultimately a weak, unstable, and unreliable basis for any reliable understanding of rights. The far more reliable and accurate view is that natural rights exist in human beings *by virtue of their nature*, i.e., what they are. They do not "come from" an external source. Mr. Stolyarov further argues that no unitary authority is necessary for enforcing rights in every case.

By Gennady Stolyarov II

http://rationalargumentator.com
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Category:

Education

Tags:

• natural
• rights
• authority
• government
• individual
• freedom
• classical
• liberal
• god
• truth
• humanities
• social
• science

[heyheymonkees]

As you said, natural rights exist in humans by virtue of their nature. I respectfully disagree that nature is only an internal and not an external force. Being that Locke and other thinkers of the enlightenment considered God and nature as nearly synonyms (or at least symbiotic), I would respectfully contend that God, also, is both internal and external to humans. Therefore God and the natural rights derived from such a concept, is objectively verifiable. What do you think of this idea?

[GStolyarovII]

@heyheymonkees Thank you for your comment. If one takes the pantheist view that God = Nature (which was indeed held by some Enlightenment thinkers), then I have no fundamental differences with the position you articulated. However, to me, in such a case, the very use of the word "God" would then be redundant, since "Nature" would suffice to describe the domain in which rights exist. My critique here is leveled at the use of a *personified* God to explain the origin of rights.

[JohnScott700]

Locke didn't need God. When I first read Locke 20 years ago, I read it that way. After studying him extensively, he is simply saying that natural law (as opposed to moral law - he drew a distinction) indicated that each man owned his own body and labor. Basically, he offered us a near-tautological "if I don't give you the right to do something to me, then you don't have a right to do something to me."

As such, he based rights on consent and not moral theory.

[GStolyarovII]

@JohnScott700 I agree with you that Locke's theory can function splendidly without invocation of a deity; later natural law thinkers were able to explicitly make that separation. Locke, however, probably had to insert God into his theory (along with a strong dose of anti-Catholic and anti-atheist rhetoric) in order to appease the establishment of his time (the Anglican regime of William and Mary) and prevent his already quite radical work from being censored by the religious authorities.

[Califacience]

@JohnScott700

Everyone sees the warts of others more clearly, but make no mistake, the Human nature basis for rights is the MOST unsupportable of all theories of right.

[highwaysong007]

This is WHY they are un-a-LIEN-able rights... not un-alienable rights.

you can waive them... but NO ONE can put a lien on them.

[heyheymonkees]

@GStolyarovII

Cool.

[anastamotic]

 I have always enjoyed how Rand ignored centuries of Philosophy, and some of the most basic problems of Philosophy, in favor of supposing that by purely stating her preferences she had proven something.

[waypor1]

God is an "ideology" and conceptual assertation, God isnt the issue the people with no money are the issue because america is failing her people

[waypor1]

Hey look I have a plan to take this country back from the machine are you interested? My writing is based upon a science in what I call egonomics which explains many things especially communication breakdowns due to "Ideology"; Ideaology is based in the lack of definition of purpose I have defined purpose in which is the basis to a center of principles; Ideals create slavery and money is a human extension in the loss of foraging natures, if you want more info let me know because this will happen