Generally I would apply the concept only to sentient creatures (I would say "only to people", but extraterrestrial intelligence likely exists in my opinion and true artificial intelligence probably will eventually), I'm not sure I would rule out applying the concept to animals, but if it applies at all it would do so only in a more limited way. "Human rights" is a near exact synonym, except for the fact that its clearly limited to just humans. If you want you can read "natural rights" as being "human rights", I'm not proposing, supporting, or debating "animal rights" at this time, and I'd prefer to examine the overall concept before spending too much effort determining the limits of where it applies.
For the purpose of this discussion I'd use the term "right" to apply only to natural rights, and not to "legal rights". The law (including the constitution) might recognize the natural rights (or claim to, if you don't believe their are any natural rights to be recognized), but the legal recognition (or granting) or such "rights" will be called "legal rights". If I just type "rights" I am referring to natural rights.
Do you have a right to free speech? A right that would exist even without the first amendment? If the first amendment was repealed and some future president tried to put you in jail when you insulted him and/or his political ideas, would you say your rights have been violated?
In one sense asserting a natural right is just asserting the acting contrary to that right is clearly wrong in an important way, whatever the law says. So saying you don't have natural rights would be saying its ok for the government to do whatever it wants to you as long as it complies with the law (or changes the law, so that the abuse it wants to heap on you is legal). |
