(February 9, 2012 at 10:51 am)Rhythm Wrote: Well, if only we had any examples of anything even remotely like an "innate right" anywhere in all of human experience...then maybe it would be easier to have a discussion about them that didn't involve personal definitions for concepts otherwise well defined by other words, or misleading language (commonly used) that confuses the subject.
There is no such thing as an "innate right", the very concept of a "right" is a human invention. A good one, but still, manufactured. At least not in the sense that it's been used. Innate as in "originating in the mind"...yes. No one is born with any rights, they are often conferred at birth (or sometime thereafter depending on whatever the law is regarding minors), and they exist nowhere except the legal system and minds of those participating in said legal system. Go to a country under Sharia and tell me all about your innate rights.
Every concept in existence is a human invention. Concepts can only arise out of a person's mind. So, I don't see how that is a detraction from their "innateness".
I accept that in this world, rights came about more as privileges. little alms of entitlement given to people to make them happy, but I do not consider that to be their true nature.
I think that rights are (or atleast should be) a form of identification accorded to the nature of a human being. For example, if we consider what qualities are innate to the nature of a human being, we'd usually come up with the desire to live and the capacity to make a rational choice. (Here, I'm considering the most common qualities as innate to the nature of a species, a few aberrations not withstanding). If and when a government recognizes these aspects as characteristics of humans, it should grant recognition in form of right to life and right to freedom. And since these rights are given in recognition of the innate nature, they can conceivably be called innate rights.
