Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: The 'Concept of "Natural Right''

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Elenor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 @ 08:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Skåne
    Gender
    Family
    Single, not looking
    Occupation
    Student
    Religion
    Law
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    The 'Concept of "Natural Right''

    How can anyone have a "natural right" to anything. I do not know if it resonable to constructed an total political philosophy on concept of rights howerver ''Robert Nozick argues his theory in his booked called Anarchy, State and Utopia where he highlighted the people's right's in an anarchy without goverment. His theory contains pretty intresting stuff.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    21 Posts

    Re: ''Concept of natural right''

    The distinction would be between 'natural' rights and 'legal' rights [first made by the Greeks [the Sophists] between nature and convention].

    Also, whether there is any opposition, parity or overlap between them.

    In a 'state of nature' [i.e., an existence without legal rights] is there still a sense of rights?

    Is it a natural right that the strongest will rule and be at the top of the food chain, for example?

    Could we have a legal framework which mirrors the kind of Darwinian sense of natural rights [might is right]?

    Or must legal rights counter-act such natural rights?
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Elenor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 @ 08:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Skåne
    Gender
    Family
    Single, not looking
    Occupation
    Student
    Religion
    Law
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: ''Concept of natural right''

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    The distinction would be between 'natural' rights and 'legal' rights [first made by the Greeks [the Sophists] between nature and convention].

    Also, whether there is any opposition, parity or overlap between them.
    What you are only able to do when others provide them for you are not "natural" rights. Or did mess something up here ? (Elenor)



    In a 'state of nature' [i.e., an existence without legal rights] is there still a sense of rights?
    The state of nature, do you mean the law of force? Natural Law and Law of froce is diffrent I think. Is it ? (Elenor)

    Is it a natural right that the strongest will rule and be at the top of the food chain, for example?
    You could see both way, human and animals

    However I'm refering to inviduals now, suppose I end up living in desert island like Robinsson Caruso, I can do anything that and I liked howerver this situation is wrong because my rights are not infinite,If i can't provide these things for myself, you will not have them. Although, natural rights are the right to those things that we can do for themselves. Anything you can do for yourself you have a right to do. (Elenor)

    I enjoyed reading your reflection


    Could we have a legal framework which mirrors the kind of Darwinian sense of natural rights [might is right]?
    I think Darwinian theory decribed ''white race rule lower race'' but if everyone is born free, how his theory is possible?

    Or must legal rights counter-act such natural rights?
    During the French Revolution women did not have rights becuse only men by birth considered born natural rights. What say you ?
    Last edited by Moody; Saturday, March 24th, 2007 at 04:45 PM. Reason: restored quote marks

  4. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, July 16th, 2012 @ 01:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    CeltoGermanic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Alabama Alabama
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Tree Wizard
    Religion
    Wotanist
    Posts
    428
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: ''Concept of natural right''

    Quote Originally Posted by Elenor View Post
    How can anyone have a "natural right" to anything.

    Rights only exist when one is dealing with another..like in societies. Is it wrong to shoot bamby..?? Only when society is composed souly of folks able to stand on thier own two feet (individuals) will might be right..untill then it will be muddied up by those impotent ones full of resentment.

    -Lyfing

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Elenor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 @ 08:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Skåne
    Gender
    Family
    Single, not looking
    Occupation
    Student
    Religion
    Law
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: ''Concept of natural right''

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyfing View Post
    Rights only exist when one is dealing with another..like in societies. Is it wrong to shoot bamby..?? Only when society is composed souly of folks able to stand on thier own two feet (individuals) will might be right..untill then it will be muddied up by those impotent ones full of resentment.

    -Lyfing

    I do not really belive there is any form of natural rights based on histroical perpetives that white women and children didn't have any natural rights,Howerver I truly believe that natural rights, are the rights which are social construct they only exits only in the mind of inviduals however I could be really wrong because natural rights is a very complex defination. Such as Platoish theory of metaphysics or even believe those rights to be bestowed by deity.( Elenor)

  6. #6
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 13th, 2010 @ 01:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Extraterrestrial
    Ancestry
    Germany/Saxons
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    AW: Re: ''Concept of natural right''

    These so called natural rights aren't natural rights existing everywhere but a political construct of becoming popular in the enlightenment stating that there should be certain rights should be apply to all humans regardless of gender, age, deeds, origin and so on and that those "natural" rights are something above the laws of a country. They are unalienable aswell. Well, of course they're just political or philosophical ideas and far from being given in wild nature but that isn't what they meant with natural.
    Ceterum censeo Iudaeam esse delendam.

  7. #7
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, July 16th, 2012 @ 01:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    CeltoGermanic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Alabama Alabama
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Tree Wizard
    Religion
    Wotanist
    Posts
    428
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: ''Concept of natural right''

    Quote Originally Posted by Elenor View Post
    Such as Platoish theory of metaphysics or even believe those rights to be bestowed by deity.( Elenor)
    Both Bush with his Constitution and bin Laden with his Koran could be classified as suffering from a case of what Joseph Campbell called “mythic inflation” “the god absorbed and lost in ego.” the opposite of “mythic identification” “ego absorbed and lost in god”. It seems the relationship between subject and object has been approached by different folks to different ( perhaps innate ) ends..

    Here is a quote comparing three..
    In the Hindu version, furthermore, the image of the androgynous ancestor is developed in terms of an essentially psychological reading of the problem of creation. The universal Self becomes divided immediately after conceiving and uttering the pronoun “I” (Sanskirt aham). This illustrates the fundamental Indian conviction that a sense of ego is the root of the world illusion. Ego generates fear and desire, and these are the passions that animate all life and even all being; for it is only after the concept “I” has been established that the fear of one’s own destruction can develop or any desire for personal enjoyment. The aim of Indian yoga, therefore, is to clear the mind of the concept “I” and therewith dissolve both fear and desire. But this amounts to an undoing of creation--or, at least, of one’s psychological participation in its effects. For it leads not only to the knowledge that the seat of anxiety and sorrow is ego, but also to a level o immediate experience, antecedent to all thought, where there is neither hope nor fear but only the rapture of a sheer--and mere--consciousness of being.

    In the Hebrew version, on the other hand, the image of the primal androgyne has been applied to a theological reading of the mystery of creation--culminating in the concept of the Jewish people as the agents of God’s will, following the failure and disobedience of the divided androgyne in the Garden. To maintain the tension between God and man, the creator is in this mythology held aloof from his creation. It is not the god who falls into a state of exile from his own true nature, but rather his creature; and the exile is not an essentially psychological one, antecedent to and inherent in the concept of the manifold of the universe, but a concrete historical episode occurring in the world already created by a transcendent but not immanent Lord God and universal disciplinarian.

    Finally, in the Greek allegory of Plato, the same basic theme has been applied poetically, to give point to a genial, metaphorical interpretation of the mystery of human love, its trials, depth, and delight. And it is worth observing that though the gods are here represented as in certain sense superior to the beings whom they divide, in a second, ironical sense it is the human beings who are in their love superior. The jealous gods divided them out of fear of their strength.

    Primitive Mythology, by Joseph Campbell..pages 109-110


    And one from Nietzsche..to finish it off..

    This should take care, once for all, of the origin of “Our Holy Lord.”--A single look at the Greek gods will convince us that a belief in gods need not result in morbid imaginations, that there are nobler ways of creating divine figments--ways which do not lead to the kind of self-crucifixion and self-punishment in which Europe, for millennia now, has excelled. The Hellenic gods reflected a race of noble and proud beings, in whom man’s animal self had divine status and hence no need to lacerate and rage against itself. For a very long time the Greeks used their gods precisely to keep bad conscience at a distance, in order to enjoy their inner freedom undisturbed; in other words, they made the opposite use of them that Christianity has made of its god. They went very far in that direction, these splendid and lionhearted children, and no less an authority that the Homeric Zeus gives them to understand, now and again, that they make things a little too easy for themselves. “How strange,” he says once (the case is that of Aegisthus, a very bad case indeed): “How strange that the mortals complain so loudly of us gods! They claim that we are responsible for all their evils. But they are the ones who create their own misery, by their folly, even in the teeth of fate.” Yet the reader notices at once that even this Olympian spectator and judge is far from holding a grudge against them or thinking ill of them therefore. “How foolish they are!” he thinks as he watches the misdeeds of the mortals: and the Greeks, even during the heyday of their prosperity and strength, allowed that foolishness, lack of discretion, slight mental aberrations were a problem. “How can such a thing happen to people like us, nobly bred, happy, virtuous, well educated?” For many centuries noble Greeks would ask themselves this question whenever one of their number had defiled himself by one of those incomprehensible crimes. “Well, he must have been deluded by a god,” they would finally say, shaking their heads. This was a typically Greek solution. It was the office of the gods to justify, up to a certain point, the ill ways of man, to serve as “sources” of evil. In those days they were not agents of punishment but, what is nobler, repositories of guilt.

    The Birth of Tragedy & The Genealogy of Morals, trans. by Francis Golffing pages 227-228
    -Lyfing

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, March 30th, 2007 @ 07:37 PM
    Subrace
    Dinarid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Family
    Single
    Politics
    Anarchist
    Posts
    36
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: ''Concept of natural right''

    I agree with a lot of what philosopher John Locke has written especially in Two Treatises of Government. Natural rights I believe are very similar to individualist rights and that laws are the product of a society, somewhat like civil rights. I'll be back with more!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Elenor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 @ 08:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Skåne
    Gender
    Family
    Single, not looking
    Occupation
    Student
    Religion
    Law
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: ''Concept of natural right''

    Guys, I believe that the universe is held together by four fundamental elements: protons, neutrons, electrons, and legally-binding contracts. And it is the social contract which holds the concept of "rights" together.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    21 Posts

    Re: ''Concept of natural right''

    Quote Originally Posted by Elenor View Post
    The state of nature, do you mean the law of force? Natural Law and Law of force is diffrent I think. Is it ?
    The 'law of force', so-called, could be seen as an example of a 'natural right'.
    It would say, "as I am the strongest, I have the right to the most food, the most mates and the most land".
    Such natural rights could be seen, I suppose, as natural laws, if you think there is a direct relation between such rights and law.

    The state of nature is that period in pre-history [which may or may not have existed] where humans had no society in the way that we use the term today, and lived exactly as do animals.
    This is described by Hobbes, amongst others. Life in the state of nature is 'solitary, nasty. brutish and short', as he put it in his Leviathan.
    Men decide to create a 'social contract' in order to end the 'war of all against all', and so create law as we know it.

    However I'm refering to inviduals now, suppose I end up living in desert island like Robinson Caruso
    Even Caruso had his Man Friday!


    I think Darwinian theory decribed ''white race rule lower race'' but if everyone is born free, how his theory is possible?
    It can't be true that "everybody is born free". I would say that none of us can escape our fate or destiny which includes inevitable death.

    During the French Revolution women did not have rights becuse only men by birth considered born natural rights. What say you ?
    Women did have rights, but they did not have the same rights as men. I agree with this position. I believe that equality is a lie, and rather put in its place proportion, as did Aristotle [see his Nicomachean Ethics].


    I truly believe that natural rights, are the rights which are social construct they only exist only in the mind of inviduals
    I disagree - the concept of natural rights by definition is not a 'social construct'; it is rather a biological one, as it runs through all of nature.
    Of course, legalistic notions like human rights are 'social constructs', as are most laws.
    However, it could be argued that some laws are based on natural rights and are therefore natural laws and not social constructs but are necessary and a priori.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do You Believe In The Concept of Sin?
    By Northern Paladin in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 13th, 2019, 10:24 AM
  2. Is the Nordish Concept Valid?
    By Siegfried in forum Nordid
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 09:22 PM
  3. The Concept of Race Soul
    By cosmocreator in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: Sunday, August 19th, 2012, 09:32 PM
  4. The Masonic Concept of Liberty: Freemasonry and the 'Enlightenment'
    By Aptrgangr in forum Strategic Intelligence
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, June 22nd, 2009, 05:08 PM
  5. The Nordish Concept
    By Loki in forum Nordid
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 04:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •