Where do rights come from?

I'd simply say you are the king of your own castle. Right is subjective so I guess I should say everybody is free to do as they please but bare responsibility for their actions regardless of their will. Though I guess right and free have different context; I have the right to freedom and happiness is different than free to be happy. Maybe, your inalienable rights are akin to natural law and what you are free to do correlates with legal rights.
 
There is a philosophical side this could take or a political one.

 

 
I think thats a prevalent subject of moral philosophy/ethics
 
Of which I am an amateur
 
Man-made, says I, but that doesn't make them any less credible

 

 
Society has a tendency to run away with things
 
I think as a natural creature, the psychologically healthy human being has an innate understanding of 'rights'
 
He/She may not agree with them, or act in accordance to them, but I think they are understood

 

 
I hate the word but yes, I believe rights are a social construct. Much like equality and gender. But again, I guess it comes down to semanitics and what is inalienable. I believe there must be civilization and nurtured society for their to be Rights, however that doesn't affect freedom. Example, I wouldn't argue hunters and gathers several hundred thousand years ago had rights but they were certainly free.

 

Definitely not government or society.

 

It's part of the social contract.

We all have the right to do whatever we want, we trade some of those rights for safety and and community.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

Philosophers define what your rights should be.
 
Government lawmakers decide what your rights will be.

 

How a society would evaluate the individual is based on an inherent privilege.
In nature, what delegates authority?
If security is not intrinsic there, then how does a society grant itself permission to subjugate?
 
With granted existence comes an entitlement to subjugation.
The value derived from subjugation is mutually beneficial, so long as the exchange remains voluntary.
Those initiating force contend value on their participant's social productivity.
What is gained when one party values the other's right to life as that of less than their own?
 
For individuals choosing to act in discordance to force, a valuable desire is the disappropriation of force.
When faced with the choice, what will satisfy the individuals most desired end?
Securing their rights or achieving freedom from force?
 
It's a tough one. Good topic yuri.
 

 

I don't understand the statement... "you have a right to your own life"

what does that mean?

basic rights come from how you, yourself, would want to be treated by me, and me, vice versa... ya dig.

 

I'll give an actual answer tomorrow, but for now...

 

Ok i will have to define 'rights' firstly. I would define rights as the natural ability of the free spirit to act. I am defining assuming free will exists. If free will doesnt exist then morality nor rights exist and your question is invalid. Having said that, you necessarily must recognize the freedoms of others. If you violate ones rights, you are saying the free spirit is not sacred to you, which undermines your own rights. You cannot violate someones rights while demanding others to recognize your own rights.

Since society and government are abstract constructs of a collection of free spirits, they cannot be said to grant you your rights. Clearly rights exist before society and government exist to grant them.

Now to answer the question "where do rights.come from?". The question itself can be confusing. Can you have life without rights? It seems to me you cannot have something in an effect without it being a part of the cause. The cause of life and therefore freedom necessarily encompasses both, unless the cause can somehow cause something entirely new, which seems impossible to our understanding. So sticking with what we can understand, the cause of life must be greater than or equal to the effect. This is what leads me to believe our life and therefore rights come from a causal source greater than ourselves, which we can call God. We can argue then the characteristics of God but that isnt important to this discussion.

 

The trick is how to deal with those who violate the free spirit of others. Paraphrasing the late Christopher Hitchens, i want things done to them that i dont want done to me. Is that the most effective way of dealing with them, idk.

 

They come from human perception. We perceived that people should be entitled to certain things or rights because they are generally good for society for those individuals to have those rights. Anyone who says rights came from god or something else is just taking a very ignorant stance. Those are the same kind of people who say that god determines morality which is an argument that inherently falls upon itself.