Hacker News Reader

Comment by stametseater | Hacker News Reader

Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist. The fact that such rights are not recognized in most countries means that for practical intents and purposes, they do not exist in those countries.

View on HN

A more useful way of thinking of "natural rights" is that "The set of rights that, if everyone were to have, would maximally smoothen interaction between individuals and groups."

I don't think there's a real argument that, somewhere in our DNA, exists a list of personal freedoms every human being ought to have. Feels like an ad absurdum more than a genuine engagement, tbh...

I seriously doubt that genetic research will ever find natural rights. These were created by philosophers, revolutionaries, soldiers, and all manner of other freedom fighter. They were not given to us by our genes, they were created by us.

If what you're saying is true, then the argument that this is inappropriate to democratic societies is also undermined: what rights the people have are entirely determined by what their democratically-elected overlords grant them. The state has determined that this is appropriate; therefore, it is appropriate.

No, in democratic societies you have the rule of law. This usually blocks incumbents from changing the rules as they wish. Yes of course natural rights don't really exist, but legal rights enforcing some of them are about as real as money.

> No, in democratic societies you have the rule of law.

Democracy and legalism are orthogonal concepts, though both tend to be (rhetorically, if not always as much practically) ideals of liberal government.

I don't follow. Are you saying that subscribing to the notion that democratic societies have certain rights protected by law is legalism?

I'm saying that “democracy” and “a society governed by laws and not just the present mood of whoever is in charge” are different (and, indeed, somewhat opposed—which is why early liberal theorists have a lot negative to say about “democracy”—things).

The particular blend where each limits the other that has come to define liberal democratic government is not the same as the broader concept of “democracy”.

I see - in that case I fully agree.

If true then natural rights are an excellent example that things can exist without scientific evidence of them. Theology it may be it's a more powerful and useful concept than the one you're proposing.

> it's a more powerful and useful concept than the one you're proposing.

What is it that you think I proposed? I support the defense of that which you consider natural rights, because if they aren't defended they will cease to exist in any meaningful way.

These rights did not exist since the big bang in some sort of metaphysical space, nor does human society gravitate towards them. These rights were formulated by people, and insofar as they're recognized presently it's because people risked death to make it so.

All rights are natural. Then restrictions are made to limit them.

> Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist.

You can say that for most moral statements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com