As you may remember from past discussions on this issue, I personally take "natural rights" to be a rational expression of self interest when people must live in community. This begins with the assumption that Man is a rational animal and that the reasoning which led to the Jeffersonian version of Natural rights is sound.
Although I use the vernacular for sake of discussion, I do not believe literally that "God" or "Nature" grants these "rights". As you said, they exist by common consent. But if one believes they are supported by a rational foundation of self interest within community (as I do), then one may present them as axiomatic.
In the discussion with RD, I sometimes used axiomatic or other similar words in order to indicate that I was not using a tunnel vision approach related to Locke, Aquinas, Rousseau, Fuller--or any other. RD (like Greg or e) apparently fails to appreciate the scope of Natural Rights theory. At least, it seems that way to me.
And being away from my books and limited by dial-up...I am not going to address that scope. I have done so on this thread many times, in any case.
My point with RD was that a belief in inalienable rights was incompatible with the clear violation of those rights. He is certainly right that society can dump those rights if she so chooses or can carve them up so that eggs, zygotes, or fetuses are considered legal persons as greg or e argues they should be.
I just barbequed some chicken breasts and Sue made potato salad and we are off for a picnic. Just gotta pick out the wine. Have a good one. |
