tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post3000495196747530795..comments2024-02-26T19:22:15.069-06:00Comments on Lex Christianorum: Natural Law's Modern Cousin Germain: Specifying RightsAndrew M. Greenwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-43295848633102211242011-04-08T15:10:33.258-05:002011-04-08T15:10:33.258-05:00Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just tryin...Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just trying to give a synopsis of Finnis's view on the matter, and it is not like he gives a whole-hearted approval to them. He warns against their problems.<br /><br />There is, of course, a huge different between positive rights (rights recognized under law, such as what St. Paul referred to as a Roman citizen) and natural rights. If there is no law allowing you a remedy against someone who does you wrong, a natural right is of little value other than a basis for complaint for the failure of the legal system to provide you natural justice. Governments have the obligation to enforce, within the confines of prudence, the natural law, and that means to allow for remedies for its violations. Therefore, if a man assaults you (and violates your natural right to natural integrity and violates the natural law that prohibits harming an innocent man), you should have both civil and criminal remedies. If the laws do not provide for it, the law is essentially against natural justice. And I agree with you that positive rights should have a basis in natural law and natural justice. And just because something is a positive right or liberty doesn't make it so.Andrew M. Greenwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-20882708977564878192011-04-08T09:08:16.856-05:002011-04-08T09:08:16.856-05:00I don't buy this stuff on "rights" a...I don't buy this stuff on "rights" at all. Even though I'm pro-life, there is no "right to life". "Rights" came into existence with the Roman Republic where St. Paul declared "his right" to be tried by the Roman Government. He could not be flogged! His "rights" were found in Roman Law which dictated how citizens be treated. "Rights" is what a citizen claims when the Law is being abused or neglected. A citizen claims "his rights" that a particular constitution yields. And no "rights" are not transferred from one community to another! There is nothing in the Natural Law that accords to 'rights'-a demand that I have a service to. There is all sorts of "womyn's rights" but all those are not tied to any natural law/laws of nature. <br /><br />This talk of 'rights' is just ludicrious outside a particular community and its CUSTOMS, Traditions, and Law. This is all just bogus Enlightenment folly.WLindsayWheelernoreply@blogger.com