Since natural rights are based on notions of morality, at the bottom level the question of whether natural rights are "God given" comes down to a question of where morality comes from. It is a common mistake that religious people make to assume that morality must come from God, hence the mistaken notion of "God given rights".
This is really weird. While the notion of God-given rights goes out the window when one similarly dispenses with notions of God, the political phrasing—
"to assume that morality must come from God"—is overcomplicated. A God-given right is what comes from the fact of existing, not because "morality must come from God", but because all things come from God, and the way that is is the way that God made it.
It really is that simple. And it goes away when notions of God go away. And, as I'm sure you're aware, what counts as a God-given right is about as diverse as the people who might give you a list.
†
Also, and just because: It seems worth pointing out that the Lockean rights to life, liberty, and property, or later tradeout for pursuit of happiness, is, ultimately, a political argument. The existentialist might note the absence of any explicit declaration of
self in the short form, because in the time of Lockean liberalism, other elements of history include
coverture, which says something about the heritage of self. As an American, I'm sure there's a Rousseau joke in there, somewhere, but never mind. We might wonder what part of the Lockean self persists in the twenty-first century reflection on natural law and rights. Indeed, the basic sketch of Locke on consent and recent significant discourse thereof suggests a whiff of a political cartoon punch line with recurring significance in socmed circles, but for our moment we are left to wonder what part of Locke's legacy has been treated any better in history than, say, the ministry of Christ.
†
Tape-stop. Watch the beat:
Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.
Property, the dominion of man's needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs. Time was when property claimed a divine right, when it came to man with the same refrain, even as religion, "Sacrifice! Abnegate! Submit!" The spirit of Anarchism has lifted man from his prostrate position. He now stands erect, with his face toward the light. He has learned to see the insatiable, devouring, devastating nature of property, and he is preparing to strike the monster dead.
"Property is robbery," said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. The A B C student of economics knows that the productivity of labor within the last few decades far exceeds normal demand. But what are normal demands to an abnormal institution? The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade. America is particularly boastful of her great power, her enormous national wealth. Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth, if the individuals comprising the nation are wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, a homeless, soilless army of human prey.
(Goldman↱)
From 1689 to 1911. And in the hundred nine years since Goldman planted that Anarchist flag, Americans seem to have demonstrated her point. Or, perhaps it is better to say seems to be that Locke described an abstract potential, and Goldman observed a result.
†
Natural rights derived from morality are, barring the emergence and resolution of objective morality, political arguments. The idea of natural rights is far more existential, even before there were existentialists. That's the thing about self; it's all over the place in Locke's considerations, but demonstrably an afterthought in the example of
life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
†
Aside, I have a joke about the overlap between those who suggest I have no sense of humor and those who don't laugh at my jokes. Never mind. The thing is, the
topic post↑ is sort of a Poe case. The idea that someone in the world might ask that question isn't utterly unbelievable, but that particular person?
In the cartoon, Nami risked her left hand for a friend. But that's anime. In our corner, I injured mine attempting two gestures at once, though it spared me a concussion.
It's just a lot of effort for a joke with so little return. Moreover, we're apparently down to
invoking Jan↑, for lack of anything better to say.
____________________
Notes:
Goldman, Emma. "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For." New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1911. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu. 31 July 2020. http://bit.ly/1F1enVU
