jeremycady on Nostr: Understood. What are you basing your own preferences and beliefs on then? Natural ...
Understood.
What are you basing your own preferences and beliefs on then?
Natural rights and natural norms are likely very closely related. If you can recognize an injustice then there's a foundational right that you recognize has been violated.
I don't believe it is purely subjective. Some it might be. But there is a logical approach to the existence of rights and how some rights are derived from others.
For example, the right to property is derived from the right of labor. That if you apply your energy and labor then the result is also yours.
"Though the earth, and all inferiour creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."
— John Locke
You may enjoy some of the thoughts of Bruno Leoni. Leoni spoke about social law, not to be confused with statute. Social law was those very norms you spoke of.
He generally questioned the need for statutes by a legislature. Believing that greater protection could be had if we instead had judges (not the legal form we have today but more philosphical) who weighed the various known rights and how they should interact when conflicts arise. Among the judges, if a competitive society was allowed, the best ideas would be tested and accepted, removing subjectivity and creating objectivity.
What are you basing your own preferences and beliefs on then?
Natural rights and natural norms are likely very closely related. If you can recognize an injustice then there's a foundational right that you recognize has been violated.
I don't believe it is purely subjective. Some it might be. But there is a logical approach to the existence of rights and how some rights are derived from others.
For example, the right to property is derived from the right of labor. That if you apply your energy and labor then the result is also yours.
"Though the earth, and all inferiour creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."
— John Locke
You may enjoy some of the thoughts of Bruno Leoni. Leoni spoke about social law, not to be confused with statute. Social law was those very norms you spoke of.
He generally questioned the need for statutes by a legislature. Believing that greater protection could be had if we instead had judges (not the legal form we have today but more philosphical) who weighed the various known rights and how they should interact when conflicts arise. Among the judges, if a competitive society was allowed, the best ideas would be tested and accepted, removing subjectivity and creating objectivity.