Do Natural Rights Exist?

[cashxarti]

I've been reading Jean Jacques-Rousseau, and I'm a lot more engaged than when I read Locke a while ago. Anyway, do you believe there are natural human rights and if you do what are they?

 

[cashxarti]

Absolutely brutal noreplypill

 

[HappyChud]

I've been reading Jean Jacques-Rousseau, and I'm a lot more engaged than when I read Locke a while ago. Anyway, do you believe there are natural human rights and if you do what are they?

no

 

[cashxarti]

no

Do you think it's beneficial for them to exist in society, even if they don't exist objectively.

 

[HappyChud]

Do you think it's beneficial for them to exist in society, even if they don't exist objectively.

yes and no it's not an answerable question if we had no human rights we would all be truly free but that would plunge the world into chaos

 

[AryanTrvecel]

I've been reading Jean Jacques-Rousseau, and I'm a lot more engaged than when I read Locke a while ago. Anyway, do you believe there are natural human rights and if you do what are they?

No, there is no such thing as an eternal universal moral law that says if something is right or wrong.

 

[cashxarti]

No, there is no such thing as an eternal universal moral law that says if something is right or wrong.

Even if there's no objective morality, do you think it's beneficial to society to have natural rights.

 

[GonorrhoeaGobbler]

at the start there was caos

but then people realized there was strength in numbers so the weak banded together and the strong withing this system rose to the top or maybe it was the strong enslaving the weak, anyway this created order and even tho there are no rules written into the universe they enforced certain customs

order is temporary and weak to caos

 

[AryanTrvecel]

Even if there's no objective morality, do you think it's beneficial to society to have natural rights.

No, it’s not beneficial to invent arbitrary universal laws to subjugate people.

Can’t think of any that are beneficial

 

[cashxarti]

No, it’s not beneficial to invent arbitrary universal laws to subjugate people.

Can’t think of any that are beneficial

I'd argue that it's in societies best interest to agree to the right to life at the very least, and that no individual or state should be able to take your life outside of self-defense.

 

[AryanTrvecel]

I'd argue that it's in societies best interest to agree to the right to life at the very least, and that no individual or state should be able to take your life outside of self-defense.

Best interest based on what? Based on the bourgeoisie who don’t want to be killed by proletarian revolutionaries? The same people cause thousands to die annually due to malnutrition, yet according to the liberal ethics that you are describing they bear 0% of the consequences for those individuals that died because of them.