I observe that when babies are born, they have no capability to communicate in the manner that you describe above. From that fact, would we conclude that babies do not have the natural right that you describe?
When a human infant is born, there is every expectation that over time it will complete its development and it will hone the skills necessary for it to take advantage of its innate human ability to express itself. Man is man, whether just born or at the edge of death, and intrinsic to him at each extreme and between each extreme is his nature – the basis of rights. One does not decide upon whether this person or that person has rights dependent upon his particular ability to exercise them anymore that one would claim that a dog that cannot bark is therefore not a dog. Each human is recognized as human because each human has characteristics that categorize her as being human. Just as a dog that cannot bark retains its doggy nature, so to does a man retain his nature. So, yes, the infant has rights, though her ability to exercise them may be currently restricted.
As to your mistaken concern that I am claiming that capability implies a right, I am not. As I wrote earlier, the concept of rights arose from the study of the nature of man. Continuing to use our “communicating and expressing thoughts” example, the role “ability” plays in such a study is that if man did not have an ability to express himself, any suggestion that he had a right to do so would me moot.
So it is not a right if exercising the "right" would conflict with another person's similar exercising of his right?
You are mistaken. A quick example: You have the right to express your thoughts, but you do not have the right to enter into my home to do so without my permission. Your right is restricted when it would violate one of my rights. By denying you entrance into my home, I have not infringed upon your right to express your thoughts.
And further, there seems some assumption that there are some fundamental rights which will never be in conflict. But it seems to me that claims to "rights" would have inevitable conflicts. In the case of the proposed natural right to communicate ideas, there are innumerable potential problems. For instance, when one person is speaking, the other person cannot speak. And maybe speaking second is less advantageous. So who has the right to speak first? If someone has a right to communicate his ideas, does that obligate others to listen? What if someone conspires to keep people from hearing my free expression... without actually stifling my free expression... have my rights been violated?
I think you are confusing socially agreed upon protocol with rights and conflating “advantage” with an unfounded requirement for “equity”, as well as expecting another or others to provide you assistance in the course of you exercising your right. By the way, two or more people are quite capable of speaking simultaneously – it is done all the time.:-)
As a concept, rights only seem to apply between men... which by definition would require society. Am I correct on this point?
Actually, it would only require two individuals, Ardy, in the sense that the concept is about the relationship between individuals. So I think you would be incorrect.
Also, could you clarify the following issue please. It appears from scientific evidence that humans evolved over a long period of time from more primitive creatures. You have separately indicated that rights do not apply to other creatures. So it appears that at some point in the past men were not sufficiently human to have rights... but then they developed sufficiently so that they did have rights. Could you please clarify the evolutionary point at which rights first adhered to man.
I am going to have to leave it to you or others to provide the “Missing Link”, Ardy, but, I think that musing on the theoretical point of man’s transition from mudpuppy to mud-wrestler is taking us quite a bit away from your original question which is, “Do rights exist?” You claim that if they do they are an invention of man’s mind. It seems to me, your claim is more in need of pinpointing when man became “sufficiently human” than my premise that rights are integral to man and are revealed by observation of the nature of man. So, for me, historic (modern) man will do.
Anyway, have you gotten enough yet to present a Socratic conclusion, Ardy?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos
