Talk:Rights

40px This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eringordon. Peer reviewers: KTJeno.

{{small|Above undated message substituted from PrimeBOT (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}

:@PrimeBOT 102.213.69.68 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Did you know nominations/Right}}

I have always seen rights as the (natural) ability to control or do something without impacting someone else's rights. E.g, someone has a right to something because they earn it or because they naturally can (e.g, bodily autonomy is a right because someone has a natural right to their own possessions like their body) I don't see how something is a right because people say it is; by that definition, rights are simply ideological and have no true existence. But by my definition, i see no reason why it isn't simply a universal fact of things. I also don't see how rights can only be among humans because that would also not make sense considering my definition; but if we were to go by the definition where it is socially agreed ideas, again; it is simply not a real thing- it is just purely ideological with no truth to it. Chariot000 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:"ability to control or do something without impacting someone else's rights" What you state seems to derive from the concept of natural rights: "Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights)." Dimadick (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)