So, in looking to develop a theory of natural rights as they might apply to humans, it seems we would want rights that apply to all humans. And it seems that in order for them to apply to all humans they would be universal, as mainly another way of saying they apply to all. And if it is a natural right, it seems it would apply as a natural law, like gravity, or the second law of thermodynamics. These rights would “just be,” whether recognized by anyone or not, just as natural laws were around and doing their things long before there were even humans to notice or discover them. Those laws of rights might not have applied to humans before humans were around, but once we were around, they applied to all of us, universally. And suggesting they apply universally would also, as another way of saying that, as kind of a “cross check,” they would be inalienable. If they were alienable, they probably wouldn’t be universal, and if they were not universal, then they wouldn’t be “human rights,” but rights of some subset of humans. And this might set up a situation of “against-ness” or opposition rights, rights being against other people. And, we might well discover that kind of right. It may be that human rights really do exist, and they really are against other people. That would be problematic, as it reflects much of our current conceptions of rights, and those are problematic. But that may be the way it is.
But, when thinking of universal and inalienable to the human experience, I can think of only two things. Life, and death. Any human who has ever lived has had those 2 things (minus a couple of biblical mystery claims, see post #1 on miracles). Any human now living has one of those things, and we can reasonably presume will have the other one. And, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that this will likely continue into the indefinite future, for as long as people are living, that lives will end in death. We won’t be physically eternal, because sooner or later even the environment that supports us will cease to exist.
So far as I can tell, then, life and death are the 2 natural human rights. Universal, and inalienable. Once two gametes join to form a zygote with its own DNA, that is animal life. Nature has granted that right. The only remaining natural right is death. We may think of other things that are universal and inalienable to the human experience, and if we do, we can consider them as natural rights. But otherwise, these are the 2 natural rights, life and death.
Now in terms of generality, this is elegant because while these rights do apply to all humans, they are not “human rights” so much as they are life rights. All life forms, plant and animal have these same natural rights. So, we have inordinate generality. If a human is alive, it has not missed out on the “right to life.” And if a human will die, it won’t miss out on the “right to death,” just like all other living organisms. I just can’t think of anything else universal and inalienable, even within the human range.
If anyone ever died from a lack of any physiological fulfillment, say, air, water, shelter from the elements, or even a lack of love (abortion/infanticide/murder in general, neglect, war, and so forth), then they did not have “rights to” any of those things. Nature pays what nature owes. If anyone has died from war, pestilence, famine, natural disaster, or disease, people do have any natural right to protection from those things. If nature owed those protections as rights, people would not have died from lack of protection from them. If anyone has ever died from disease or accident or willful hateful violence, then they had no right to be protected from any of these things. Again, nature pays what nature owes. If nature had owed any of those protections, people wouldn’t have died from lack of the protections.
Once life is granted (in animal life, the zygote) nature has granted life. Now, that may be nature backed-up by and dependent on a God, or maybe not. Of course, I’m of the “yes God” opinion but one needn’t be for what I’m saying to hold. If there is only nature and no god, what I am saying still holds. And once nature (or Nature’s God) has granted life, death will follow.
Note that these 2 rights are not “against” other people. They just are. Nobody can stop them. Well, short of ending humanity, it doesn’t seem like anyone will stop them. If any life forms continue on after humanity, then the rights, as natural rights for living organisms, will continue on so long as there is any life waiting to die. Once all life has died, that will be the end of natural rights. Either God grants those rights by way of nature, or nature itself grants them without any god. I’m a big believer in the God Theory, but in this case for this purpose, one needn’t be. You get the same answer either way.
That’s natural rights in a nutshell. I think it is consistent, and relatively simple. Maybe not “elegant” because I’m not an eloquent writer, but someone can polish it up and make it elegant for those who really need that.
Working toward a biblical philosophy, I think the chief concern of the bible, as relates to life in spacetime for humans, is “What goes on between those 2 rights?” or “What about this thing we call life, the span between the 2 rights?” I think this is what the bible chiefly concerns itself with. And, the New Testament more explicitly relates the human lifespan to an optional awareness continuing beyond life. The New Testament offers that optional, 3rd right that we saw here in Post 10, the claimed right for practicing Christian believers to continue in awareness after physical death. But again, that optional right is not against any other person or people, and nobody has to recognize it if they don’t want to. It doesn’t have to be included in a theory of natural rights. It doesn’t even need to “fit” a theory of natural rights. It’s a “religious option beyond (our best current understanding of) nature.” I don’t think the optional Christian right contradicts the natural rights. It’s an optional category add, with the optional category being “beyond the part of nature that we currently perceive and conceive of within spacetime,” if someone chooses to believe that. If there is a God, whether they choose to believe that, or the optional right, is between them and God. If there is no god, then that belief would be between the mistaken believer and nature itself without a god. But in neither case does it become a harm or a foul against anyone other than the mistaken believer.
This thinking on natural rights is a key part of the biblical philosophy I will try to develop here for the balance of the website. My culture and society are so wrapped around the axles of myriad rights from who knows where, that I think it is important to establish a theory of rights that can be recognized based on evidence. When we take that approach, it actually turns out to be pretty simple This need for a consistent theory of natural rights is beneficial because, as alluded to earlier, the biblical perspective on the span between life and death rights is vastly about responsibility, not rights. So, now let’s turn to begin considering what the bible has to offer about responsibility within that lifespan in between the 2 natural rights.