|
Post by ClassicalRepublican on Jun 2, 2017 10:20:57 GMT
I think it is important to understand the difference between fundamental/natural rights, civil/legal rights and human rights.
Natural rights you are born with as a natural person. As a legal person, you have all legal rights that exist, enumerated and unremunerated. This category of rights are found through law, where adjudications are sought when rights clash.
Civility is impossible where people ignore their responsibility with regard to other people's legal rights. Civilisation itself is impossible when fundamental rights are ignored.
Human rights on the other hand, derive from ideology, originating particularly in post-bellum internationalism.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 2, 2017 13:59:24 GMT
I imagine most supporters of human rights would equate them with natural/fundamental rights.
Back when I was agnostic, I had actually arrived at the position that rights didn't exist, because I was so sick of how the concept was being abused, and I thought all rights were actually conventions continent upon a particular social context. When I became a Catholic (or a believing rather than a cultural Catholic), only then did I come to accept the concept of rights. I had not thought about any distinction between natural rights, based presumably on the natural law, and human rights-- in fact, I'd never thought about it until I read your post, ClassicalRepublican, and I'm very interested to hear more. Do you believe in natural law?
|
|