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?
yes
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
I more or less understand your expressed opinion. I do not dispute your right to have that opinion... even though IMO it strains credulity.
Allow me to first repeat, with emphasis added, what I have previously written, which was, “My view is that rights are inalienable
and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them.” Please note that I did not write that they pre-existed man. I also wrote that “rights are
integral to the human mind” which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not ‘natural’ man, but the nature of man.
Secondly, no, we do not agree that we can “abridge some portion of another person's inalienable rights”. But, I would agree, as I have previously stated, that an individual’s
ability to exercise his rights can be restricted, but the right itself remains with him precisely because it is integral to him.
As to what I mean by the “nature of man” being the source of rights, Allow me to provide an example. In studying the nature of man (or if you prefer, the essence of man) it is observed that man has the ability to have thoughts, ideas, and concepts. He also has the ability to communicate or express his thoughts, ideas, and concepts through language or by other means. It can be further observed that these abilities do not require that they be provided by another (a basis for the concept of negative rights) or that, in exercising these abilities, they would interfere with the right of other men to do the same. From this it can be concluded that such ability is integral to man (not separate from nor an addition to) and it thus follows that man would have the natural right to communicate or express his ideas.
Returning to the idea of rights being unalienable, if rights are essential to the completeness of man (integral), as I think they are, then they cannot be separated from him without altering the nature of man. He can of course be prevented from exercising those rights, but they remain a part of him – until of course, he dies or is killed (Don’t confuse the “right to life” with immortality:-)).
How does my position versus your position play out from a “real world” point of view? Your position is that groups or societies determine through agreement what will be considered a right. In doing so, such ‘rights’ are by definition arbitrary and dependent upon whom within a group holds the greater power of persuasion or coercion. Such ‘rights’ can be altered or withdrawn at will by a simple majority. Thus, whatever rights the majority agrees on, the minority must intellectually accept as right. To unabashedly go to the extreme, this would mean that within NAZI Germany (going back to your WWII source of examples) the determination and laws passed that Germans who were Jews would not have as many ‘rights’ as German non-Jews, would be valid. Those who objected would have no philosophical basis for claiming differently. The group had spoken. To maintain intellectual honesty, those who hold that rights’ are arbitrary and have a basis in and are granted only by the societal group, must acknowledge that within NAZI Germany the removal of ‘rights’ of German Jews was a valid act.
Another example would be the silliness of anyone claiming that there is a right to same-sex marriages if ‘rights’ derive from the consensus of the majority within any given society. If the ‘right’ is not already agreed upon and granted, then it becomes ludicrous to assert that a right is being denied. After all, based on your position, there are no rights beyond the agreement of a given societal group. Thus, demanding that which does not exist is ludicrous.
This is where my position on the existence of natural rights integral to man most differs with one in which ‘rights’ are a mere product of pragmatic agreement between men. The German Jew would have the same rights as the non-Jewish German – and indeed all other persons in the world. They would be unalienable and universal. She and the rest of the world could demand that her ability to exercise her natural rights be restored and condemn those denying her that ability. The natural rights position provides not only an intellectual basis, but perhaps more importantly, a moral basis for making such a demand.
Finally, I am not only suggesting that inalienable rights exist, I am also saying that without those inalienable rights, man, as we know him, would not exist.
Yours,
Issodhos
