Rights of Nature?

I don't think saying they're made up is correct. I get what you're saying but I feel it's more like we're discovering that these rights actually exist. For example, understanding that a chimp is as sentient as a 4 year old human child, we come to realize that they too have rights as living beings. Then we try to decern what those rights may be, and perhaps here is where people might "make things up" a bit.Saying we can take away rights doesn't actually mean that you took it away from someone, it means you are infringing on their rights. You can't give a right or take away a right. You can only infringe on someone's rights or recognize and respect their rights.- Oni

This might be just semantics, but isn't better to say we are discovering that we shouldn't infringe on someone elses right to life?- Oni

Maybe, but I think there's something there. Even with something like slavery, it is evident that the individual's rights have been infringed on. So there must have existed the inherent right before someone infringed on it. Si?- Oni

I used to. You wouldn't call the basic principle of freedom to live unimpeded by someone or some other thing elses necessity a right for all living organisms? (if not what would you call that, or do you even recognize that that exists as a quality?)Don't we recognize this basic principle then create laws to protect them?- Oni

This is probably just me, but I'm having trouble here. Sorry for being redundant with the question but you're all super smarty pants and I'd like to get a few opinions on this. Isn't it better to say that we recognize that nature too has inherent rights to live unimpeded and so we create laws to see to it that this fundamental principle (my words) is protected?Is it arbitrary like you guys are suggesting, that we create rights then assign other things these rights?Or are these rights just a basic fundamental principle of life and as super sentient, conscious beings we are just now recognizing that?Or is it that I'm smoking too much pot? *puff *puff- Oni

It doesn't mean the rights can't be infringed on. But it does points to there being something there that you feel has been infringed on.- Oni

But to me it makes more sense to say, fight back or have your rights infringed upon.I feel we all have a right to exist and survive once we exist. It's up to the individual, and in many cases a group of individuals with a shared goal, to make sure those rights not infringed upon.Does that make sense or does it sound like some hippy nonsense?- Oni

I think it's just a matter of semantics but I feel I can better express that by saying, the lion tries to infringe of the zebra's right to live unimpeded, and the zebra defends it's right.As humans we are conscious of this and create laws to protect those rights. Whenever a new "right" emerges I believe it comes from the point of view that the individual recognizes that A) this is in fact his own right, and B) that those rights are being infringed upon. First we recognize that the right exists then we create the law to protect it or fight to get it ourselves. How was it convenient to recognize black people had the right to be treated as equal individuals?More so, wasn't the matter on civil rights that we recognized the fact that the rights of black people were being infringed on?- Oni

Maybe that's where you're feeling there is a woo. I have not said an innate right. I said rights are inherent. As in, an inherent characteristic of existing in nature. Because just saying take or be taken doesn't cover it all. We clearly recognize some quality in living things that we deem necessary to protect, and have extended that protection to other living things. We try to decern what those things may be and have as of now called those things "rights".- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

These examples are missing the point comepletely. Agreed, but I don't think I've suggested anything like that.Let me try it this way:There is an inherent danger in standing on the edge of a cliff. But there ISN'T an innate danger in a cliff.There is an inherent right to being a living thing. But there isn't an innate right in living things.Can you tell the difference in the two? I ask sincerely because it makes sense to me but I could very well be wrong.- Oni

I've recognized it. So it has happened already, but maybe not everyone has recognized this. How would that be convinient? You said rights are given when it's convinient. How would the above be convinient? I don't know what this means, and when I talk about rights being inherent it has nothing to do with government or rights by law. No, not woke up one day and decided.First, black people made it clear that their rights were being infringed on by saying that very thing. It took time for that concept to spread to, I feel, many people today. I certainly recognize that.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

That can be said for rights like property rights, or the right to drink at a water fountain - but those are not inherent rights. I'd agree those are arbitrary and can be taken away.But you couldn't for example take away the inherent right to exist unimpeded, you can only try to. In some cases you'd successfully control it, but it doesn't mean the inherent right goes away.For example, you couldn't take away the inherent danger of standing on the side of a cliff, you can only control it. Put up signs, don't let people near cliffs, destroy all cliffs. But that doesn't mean the inherent danger of standing on a cliff goes away.- Oni

But I haven't done that, Naytcha Boy. Danger isn't a property of cliffs but there is an inherent danger in standing on the edge of one.The danger is independent of the cliff and not a property of the cliff.Rights can exist in the same way danger exists when standing on the edge of a cliff. Ah, ok. In the case of property and rights to property, sure. But then again I wouldn't say rights to property are inherent. That is not at all what I meant and what you're describing is woo, Naytcha Boy.- Oni

An inherent right to exist? No. But I have not suggested that. But none of that takes away the inherent right to live unimpeded. The fact that many of us may not exist unimpeded doesn't mean the inherent right to do so goes away. That IS the inherent danger: that one might lose footing and fall, causing death or worse.So I think it's fine to say there is an inherent danger to standing on the edge of a cliff. But fine, we can also say there is an inherent danger in not being careful while standig on the edge of a cliff. My point is made the same in that it is not innate. The cliff and the height of it has everything to do with it. Newton dude; acceleration and all that stuff. Not the same fall when falling from the sidewalk of a normal city street.Woo!- Oni

By "I think there is something there" I meant something there to the idea I had. As far as it being a good enough idea to expound on. I didn't mean anything physical. But I can see how you took that out of context. *struts*A cliff by itself doesn't seem to be a danger. It's just sitting there all stupid, and being a cliff.The inherent danger is in standing on the egde of it. You could fall. *struts* *chop to the chest* *chop to the chest*I'm just saying it's inherent to living beings but not innate in living beings. There is a difference. *struts* "To be the man you gotta beat the man, Woooo!"- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.