I contend that all "rights" are an invention of the human mind.”
Well, I guess we could take your statement to its logical conclusion and “contend” that without the human mind there is nothing of humankind at all. Kind of obvious. Or, if we inject a bit of quantum theory into the mix, I guess we would have to accept that without the “human mind”, there would be no observer upon whom probability waves could collapse, thus remaining forever infinite, unbroken, and paradoxically, non-existent (i.e., nothingness as we would perceive the meaning of the word). Or, perhaps we could contend that “rights” are in the implicate order and need only move to the explicate?
In short, without the human mind, we would not be having this discussion. So, for the sake of discussion, rather than enfold permanently back into the implicate order, let us agree that Man is the source of all human thought and the source of all that is produced from that thought. Let us also agree that when I write “Man”, “human kind”, or “human mind”, I am referring to individuals who make up those groups.
If agreed, then I would not use the word “invention”, given its negative connotations, so might I suggest instead “…the product of the human mind” or better still, “…integral to the human mind?” This would mean that your “contention” would be that all “rights” are
produced by the human mind, whereas my “contention” would be that rights are
integral to the human mind. Your view is that ‘rights’
are arbitrary and rest solely on agreement among individuals who make up various groups or societies. My view is that rights
are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them. Would this be a valid starting point for contention?
And finally, such rights cannot be considered "inalienable" since there are always situations where a society considers an individual has lost his rights (IE a criminal). And if rights can be removed in some circumstances, they are not inalienable.
Actually, rights remain with one until one dies. Ones ability to exercise one’s rights may be restricted either through due process, as in your criminal example, or through unprovoked aggression by another, but your rights, integral to you by virtue of the nature of Man, are inalienable.
Yours,
Issodhos
