@carramrod posted Sen. Kaines’s natural law comment in another thread.
https://hoosierhuddle.com/community/postid/20295/
This deserves its own thread.
Giving Kaine the benefit of the doubt, he could have been thinking about the role God plays in granting human rights. Even that is ignorant, though because the notion of natural human rights flows from the fact of human existence, no matter what we believe about the Creator of human life.
One of the founding, and bedrock, principles of the United States is a recognition of certain human unalienable (inalienable) rights. This means that such rights cannot be taken or surrendered.
Hidden beneath the flashy definition of a woman in Justice Brown-Jackson’s confirmation hearing is her much more important, and troubling, refusal to acknowledge the existence of natural, and inalienable, human rights. Senator Kaine shows us she is not alone. There are others too.
The notion that rights come from the sovereign (government) is a seductive argument because we trust governments to protect human rights. But it is important to understand that neither governments, nor government officials, have rights. Nor do governments create basic rights.* We often hear that government or officials have a right to take some action. Not true. Governments and officials only have authority; and that authority comes from the people who have all the rights.
Where human rights come from is one of many distinctions between conservatives and liberals @bradstevens and I have discussed. IMO, many liberals tend to believe governments create rights. This is because of the fundamentally differing views about the role of sovereign authority.
*Thats not to say government can’t create any rights. It can. But these are not generally seen as inalienable.
Playing devil's advocate, if there is natural law why haven't these laws been fairly universal? Asia has virtually no history of Western rights, are they part of a different nature? Even Rome and Greece didn't come close to our Bill of Rights. We can look to Socrates about Greek freedom of speech, Paul about Roman freedom of religion. Nor was Greece better on religion not Rome better on speech.
And of course both accepted slavery, better than chattel slavery but still slavery. It would seem universal natural rights would preclude slavery, full stop. I don't know that all ancient civilizations had slavery but a huge number did.
Heck, we accepted natural rights "endowed by our creator" and immediately excluded other races and women (and often Irish).
So if these rights come from nature, why didn't they manifest far sooner? Is it like saying rayon comes from nature because eventually it was created?
I do think we have natural rights, but I am stumped how it can be natural and didn't really exist until the 1960s.
You've gone from natural law to natural rights. Define your terms.@carramrod posted Sen. Kaines’s natural law comment in another thread.
https://hoosierhuddle.com/community/postid/20295/
This deserves its own thread.
Giving Kaine the benefit of the doubt, he could have been thinking about the role God plays in granting human rights. Even that is ignorant, though because the notion of natural human rights flows from the fact of human existence, no matter what we believe about the Creator of human life.
One of the founding, and bedrock, principles of the United States is a recognition of certain human unalienable (inalienable) rights. This means that such rights cannot be taken or surrendered.
Hidden beneath the flashy definition of a woman in Justice Brown-Jackson’s confirmation hearing is her much more important, and troubling, refusal to acknowledge the existence of natural, and inalienable, human rights. Senator Kaine shows us she is not alone. There are others too.
The notion that rights come from the sovereign (government) is a seductive argument because we trust governments to protect human rights. But it is important to understand that neither governments, nor government officials, have rights. Nor do governments create basic rights.* We often hear that government or officials have a right to take some action. Not true. Governments and officials only have authority; and that authority comes from the people who have all the rights.
Where human rights come from is one of many distinctions between conservatives and liberals @bradstevens and I have discussed. IMO, many liberals tend to believe governments create rights. This is because of the fundamentally differing views about the role of sovereign authority.
*Thats not to say government can’t create any rights. It can. But these are not generally seen as inalienable.
Regarding rights:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#CriRig
Regarding natural law:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/
You’ve gone from natural law to natural rights. Define your terms.
Good catch. Natural law is like the enduring moral order that Kirk mentioned. Natural rights flow from natural law and they are the specific practical application Jefferson described.
Thousands of books by thousands of pundits have discussed your questions. I can never provide an answer in a brief post. You coukd probably do that better than me anyway.