As a community of thoughtful 21st-century people, I suggest we reject entirely the idea of "natural rights" and treat it as an archaism.
Natural laws exist; regardless of anything you, I, or the government does, gravity continues to exist as a physical, observable force. Natural rights do not work the same way; they are inherently and in principle unobservable both directly and indirectly. The only thing that is real are the rights that we have in practice (e.g. as a function of law, economics, culture) and the rights that we ought to have, based on testable theories of how these rights lead to human flourishing.
I say this not to demean rights or to say rights or liberty are unimportant. (Similarly, if I say evolution rather than direct divine intervention created humans, that does not demean humans.)
The reason I make this claim is because "natural rights" is a complex concept that many people struggle to understand. But most of that struggle comes from it being an unsustainable idea as well as a dead end: it discourages serious consideration of how we should best organize our society. Religiously-inspired philosophers (John Locke, in this case) spent much time on ideas like this; certainly some people inspired by these ideas did some good things. But I think in our modern era we should set these ideas and other bad philosophy aside and work from better foundations.
Not only will this lead to stronger, more useful thinking generally, but it will also lead to more secular, persuasive dialogue with our legislators in the short term. They are bound in various ways by the Constitution, but they are not bound by the theory of natural or inalienable rights, which is not actually part of that document (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism).
Better foundations? You mean utilitarianism? That's a dead end too.
As a monkey-troup-descended race, we operate on some pretty common and predictable impulses. To manage those impulses we establish some premises and call them rights. Right to life, liberty etc.
Call them something else than 'natural rights' if you must, but its folly to ignore their existance.
Better foundations? You mean utilitarianism? That's a dead end too.
Currently, utilitarianism does seem to have problems, but not every framework for measuring or improving social well-being will necessarily share the problems of utilitarianism. One promising approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach.
...we operate on some pretty common and predictable impulses. To manage those impulses we establish some premises and call them rights. Right to life, liberty etc.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that rights are something separate from natural impulses; they are things that we use appropriately manage (or channel) those impulses. I basically agree. But: "manage" must mean some goal that is separate from the impulses themselves, and when we establish rights that we think will appropriately direct impulses towards some goal, those rights--whether inspired by science or theology--cannot be considered natural. They are human guesses, subject to scrutiny, discussion, and improvement--to call them natural is untrue and confusing.
Natural laws exist; regardless of anything you, I, or the government does, gravity continues to exist as a physical, observable force. Natural rights do not work the same way; they are inherently and in principle unobservable both directly and indirectly. The only thing that is real are the rights that we have in practice (e.g. as a function of law, economics, culture) and the rights that we ought to have, based on testable theories of how these rights lead to human flourishing.
I say this not to demean rights or to say rights or liberty are unimportant. (Similarly, if I say evolution rather than direct divine intervention created humans, that does not demean humans.)
The reason I make this claim is because "natural rights" is a complex concept that many people struggle to understand. But most of that struggle comes from it being an unsustainable idea as well as a dead end: it discourages serious consideration of how we should best organize our society. Religiously-inspired philosophers (John Locke, in this case) spent much time on ideas like this; certainly some people inspired by these ideas did some good things. But I think in our modern era we should set these ideas and other bad philosophy aside and work from better foundations.
Not only will this lead to stronger, more useful thinking generally, but it will also lead to more secular, persuasive dialogue with our legislators in the short term. They are bound in various ways by the Constitution, but they are not bound by the theory of natural or inalienable rights, which is not actually part of that document (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism).
edited for clarity.