Natural Rights

[lawnmowergoWHUMMM]

A lot of modern thought about creating better societies and all that warm fuzziness stems from the Enlightenment era, with John Locke and his idea of natural rights. Some say these rights come from God, others say they're simply naturally had.

Well, sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but I'm pretty sure that these rights are only socially manufactured and assigned. Nobody talked about the right to free speech before Locke came along and said everybody should have it. Even his famous Right to Revolt is simply a perception - his was based on legitimacy of revolt, as in a government that turned tyrrannical deserved to be overthrown. However, others have said that this right does not exist, and still others have taken it farther, saying there is no legitimate government, even non-"tyrrannical" ones.

I'd like to shift away from the perception of natural rights to a more existentialist idea, like the one presented in The Second Sex toward women - maybe we don't have these rights/privileges/material advantages now, but that's how society has set things up, and we can re-engineer society to set things up differently.

Unfortunately, the move away from natural rights also contributed to fascism/national socialism.

It seems like everyone I talk to consciously or unknowingly bases their ideas on Locke's idea of "well, we just HAVE these rights." Does anybody know when or how Marxism and other philosophies have dealt with this trend, and what arguments they used to replace natural rights with some other well-intentioned system?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Various "moral codes" and concepts of right and wrong have existed for a long time, and they have always been drawn from society itself. The freedoms we can expect are also generally derived from society itself, although of course this will vary depending on location and status.

We do not need to invoke wither god or nature to allow for rights to exist, as long as they can be demonstrated to improve the standard of living for all then their existance is justified in this respect. Of course this all depends on whether or not you are talking about freedom to, or perhaps freedom from?

We should have pretty much any right, unless there is a reason otherwise. In the case of property, discrimination, rape or murder it is clear that holding such things as rights would be detrimental to society. (Of course in the case of the first one it is simply not compatible, rather than being undesirable)

Not possessing a right means that there is some group out there who's job it is to restrict freedoms. Unless this groups is that of the population itself, and not a proclaimed representative of what is actually a minority, then restriction is not justified.

In summary, we should all be involved in determining the conflicts between rights, and we should hold them because they improve the standard of living. No more justification is really needed.

[Dean]

My idea of natural rights is based in psychology. An environment conducive to the accomplishment of man's full potential is what I think achieves these natural rights.