Does Anyone Have Rights?

Remove all ads!

At the behest of Aikanaro that we diversify our discussions.

Well, I'm serious.

Do we actually have rights? What are they but a concept we have invented, and more often, an excuse?

What gives us the right to do anything? What gives us the entitlement to anything? What is there that says people deserve, nay, must, be treated in any way, or given any particular thing?

There isn't. We do it ourselves.

In the end, is it not our own moral compass that dictates this? Do we not afford others rights becasue we think it is right to do so, whether we ourselves are right or not? Do we not demand our own rights simply because that is what we desire?

There is nothing that people truly need, all is choice, all is enactment of our own will, guided by whatever it is that we each decide it is that guides us.

Or do you think I am wrong here? Please, explain; For whatever reasons you see fit. But keep in mind that they too are open for debate, as are all things.

I was going to make this a poll of sorts, but I decided against it for I believe such a poll hampers discussion. To be frank, I do not care what it is you think so much as why you think it.

[I hope this goes well, lest I have to bring forth a topic of further controversy to keep us occupied]

Edit: Behest, not bequest.

 

Right is a human concept, and does not really have any use unless the person invoking the mysterious power of right has the strength to it up, or the person on their side does.
EG: You get arrested and the police guy waffles on about your right to be silent. One would probably feel intimidated by that, and thus would shut up. But if some drunk off the street tried to do the same, even if he is a drunk police officer, you could probably feel safe at laughing him in the face. He doesn't have the power to back up his right to give you the right the silent.

So basically, might makes right. Right doesn't exist.

And yes, that statement does contradict itself. I'm sure you get what I mean.

 

Certain rights are inate.

Some "rights" are earned.

The difficulty lies in distinguishing them from each other.

 

"Rights" themselves are a cultural product like cars and iron-melting. They were developed. And as cars and other cultural technics, the "abolishment" of them is unthinkable. And they're nature is complicated, they're a product of many over a huge amount of time. You couldn't build a car alone on an island, nor could develop a "rights" on your own.

 

So are rights due to obligation or respect? Or is it simething deeper? Compassion? Empathy?

Nevertheless it is true that whoever is stronger dictates these rights, for it is our own strength of will upon who we decide to listen to, or who to fear. Or who should fear us.

But this is not the limit. The situation stands that we award rights to everyone, or at least, to more than just one. Do we do this solely so that we may hold such rights ourselves? Or is it that we do it because we feel we must for the sake of another?

When we award rights, can we be doing more harm than good? Are we supplying a crutch for others -or ourselves- to lean upon, and take away from what it is that composes us? Perhaps some think that it does not matter to depend so. Please, say as much.

Or are our crusades for the rights of others damning them? When we take away the torment one has sought, do we strike them another round upon the wheel? Or should we ignore those things we cannot know, and only do what it is we would wish one would do for us?

If there is no wheel, then why should rights matter at all? If all there is is our own comfort, why do we even care?

Edit: I do without a car. I look forward to their demise scant less than anything else. In any case, we do not need such things for us to live prosperous lives, in fact, I believe a car detracts from this, and similar to what may be of rights, to me they are a dependance, and a harmful one in my estimation at that.

Can the same be said of rights? Are they a human invention as I proposed, or are they a reflection of our nature? An expression of ourselves? In this case, as all things may be considered as expressions of our minds, why do we place such importance upon them?

[ January 09, 2004, 16:15: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

IMO, there are two basic rights, and these often conflict with each other:

1. The right to do what we want to do.
2. The right not to be affected by what other people do if we don't want to be affected.

The role of society is to decide under what circumstances #1 wins, and under what circumstances #2 wins.

 

But what creates those rights? Why are they important?

I've said too much, I don't want to strangle this thread and I think I might have been; so I'm going to leave it alone for others to continue, for the time-being at least.

 

Right is a concept and therefore it's not part of tangible universe. In a broad sense, it may be considered part of nature, as nature is not only things but also how things work, a system. It has no place in inanimate systems, but does not necessarily need humans to function. To a basic extent, rights (and thereby even also laws) function within animal herds an packs. One could say those are customs and habits, not rights and laws, but that's exactly how rights and laws between humans originated.

In order to survive, it's necessary to prevail. In order to prevail, force is needed. A method of getting more force is joining with another against the rest. A method of prevailing over another group is to have a larger group. Or a more coordinated one, if we're at it. In order for a large group to function at all and for any group to be coordinated well, a set of rules is needed. They basically start from such obvious ones as "we don't attack one another", "we fight together", "who doesn't fight, doesn't eat" and so on. Then come more complex ones, such as "each impregnates his own female only", at least in a given season. Later, as some units inevitably die, the group adopts a duty towards the dead units' offspring, even if only to provide for more hunters in the future. Weak offspring is eliminated and so are weak adults. Either that, or exact opposite - taken care of, so that each unit knows it won't be left alone should something bad happen, like the loss of a limb. As a result, everyone fights with a new zeal and is not afraid of sacrifice. As the structure develops, law becomes a concept in its own right. It goes beyond the initial guidelines for loot division and becomes the modus operandi of the group. It also becomes more complex and separates from basic dichotomies of good and evil, right and wrong. The individuals who know the rules become more and more fat and begin to exploit the other ones. That's how society starts

As you can easily see, it's impossible to avoid the formation of rights and laws with two or more individuals.

 

Interesting topic. The mountain lion had a "right" to attack either for food or fear. The hiker and biker had a "right" to try and get away. What society does is try to balance those rights (as stated in prior post). As humanity became larger and more sophisticated we developed a moral conscience that extended to other groups. 150 years ago slavery was accepted as a "right" now most people condemn it. Our concept of right changes as we mature, both individyually and as a people.

 

I like Splunge's summation. That capture my broader view of the topic nicely.

dmc, I think you're going a bit astray. If a human being has rights - endowed either by society or simpky by being human - you can't necessarily expect non-humans or members of other societies to know that. The mountain lions weren't disrespecting anyone's rights, they were just trying to survive and didn't know that there were any sort of "rights" that trump that instinct. And as far as convicted criminals go, I think it's only right that people who refuse to play by the established rules of society should be forced to lose the benefits (rights) awarded by that society.

But really, I do think that human beings have those basic three rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When you apply what Splunge said about doing your own thing and not being adversely impacted by someone else doing his/her own thing, that's when it gets sticky.

 

There is no such thing as rights, as have been stated before you get what you are able to take. For the betternment of all humanity has formed into groups and created rules to protect everyone from everyone. It is simple practicality. It is not some inherent thing which makes us think killing is wrong, it is the society we live in which makes us think that is wrong, as we dont want anyone killing us we have agreed not to kill them. All a modern society pretty much strives to do is to balance the two criteria Splunge set up.

If we are talking within a society and what should be rights withing what we consider a good society a whole new playing field opens up, one that is subject for interpretation and different viewpoints. I for instance thinks that any decent society should give the right of an education and healthcare to all its citizens and strive to lessen suffering as much as possible. But that is the rights I want in a good society, it isnt any inherent human rights.

 

Wow! I've had three people agree with me! And to think I was afraid I might have been over-simplifying things.

Anyway, I think we need to differentiate between "rights" and "values". If we agree that we have just the two rights I stated earlier, then society's job of balancing those rights should be (*) based on the values of the people within that society. Now, what gives rise to those values, and why different societies have different sets of values, is another matter entirely.

* I say 'should be' because, in many cases, the 'balancing act' has little to do with what people want; instead, the rulers often decide on their own.

 

Good thing Jefferson and Adams were not aware that there are no such things as rights. Otherwise, America would still be under English rule today. The driving force behind the Declaration of Independence is that certain rights can be neither given nor taken away by anyone else. They are "unalienable" rights.

To follow your logic, Joacqin, to its conclusion would mean that morality is based on the "might is right" principle, since our state of humaness demands that our rights are either God given or endowed by the nature of our being human (whichever you care to believe).

If I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that rights are given by the virtue of the power of a society to defend those rights until a more powerful society can usurp them. But the danger is that a society itself can decree those rights as invalid itself, since it is the arbitrator of which rights humans are entitled to have. I tend to think that rights and humaness are inseparable and that the progress of humanity is towards the realization or fulfillment of both (which are inseparable anyway) regardless of what "society" thinks about it.

But I may be misunderstaning what you mean by "there are no such things as rights."

[ January 11, 2004, 04:47: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I'd say (as mentioned already) that rights are a human "invention". Standing alone without anything in comparison, rights aren't really anything at all.

For something to have rights, it has to be given them by humans and then the rights only exist in a human perspective (unless whoever given the rights accept them, then they both parties would find the rights right). For instance with the mountain lion example.

Since they don't play by the same rules, no rights have been broken, and as such both would have the right to.. defend themselves, hunt, whatever.

 

The analogy most cited here in defense of the "no rights" argument is mostly based on the behavior of animals. It has been often said that there is a difference between humans and animals and that the ability to both reason and have a code of true morality is the difference.

My own personal belief is that morality and rights are very strongly related. The recognition that all humans have equality, the right to pursue happiness and liberty, and the love of freedom transcends both national and societal boundries and are moral attributes. They are in fact, universal because they are endowed by our Creator, as is asserted in the Declaration and other significant documents. If you are not inclined to believe that they are, then - if you will at least indugle my imagination - think of them as trancending what either nature or society would make of us, and believe that we can be better and masters of our own destinies.

 

Chandos what you talk about is the point of society and human cooperation. The only reason we can even relax long enough to form the thought to think about life, libery and pursuit of happyness is that we as a group have been so efficient there are time over after we have fixed our survival. The thought about such rights is a very recent phenomenon in human history.

I stick by with what I said earlier, humanity creates its own rights, they do not exist on their own and we have to fight for the rights we think are most important. If there would be a universal human moral code wouldnt it be more visible Chandos? We may have the capability to create a moral code for ourselves but the appearance of that code depends on the society we live in. For example it is ok for women to bathe topless on all Swedish beaches, this is considered extremely immoral in large parts of the world. Why is that so?

To look at it basically all the basic human rights are pretty much just an agreement of "you dont step on my toes and I dont step on your toes". Practicality and selfishness.

 

Well of course, morality breeds rights to ensure that morality can be upheld in a society.

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Obviously a lot of Americans in the house. Up here in the Frozen Tundra of Canada, we're more about life, liberty, and Good Government. We figure as long as we're taken care of, the happiness thing will sort itself out.

Rights are simply a crutch in so many cases that it damages their validity as a concept. I'm reminded of the adage: You get what you deserve; nobody simply has the inherent "right" to say, or do, or be anything. You earn it. I don't have the right to live. I'm alive because I have a job, and through that job I contribute to society, and earn a wage that I use to sustain my life. Since I live in an industrialized nation, if I wanted to sit home and collect unemployment, I could still eke out a life, but a person living in a poor nation such as Haiti could not live unless they made some sort of contribution to society. I have the right to vote, but I vote only if I can make an informed decision based on objective review of the various platforms of the candidates. If I find myself wanting to vote for the Progressive Conservative party because I think they have the neatest name, then I stay home, waive my right to vote, because in this instance I don't deserve it.

A while back here in Canada there was this guy who was arrested for possessing child pornography. He defended himself by stating that because he wasn't personally producing it, and was not distributing it, he had the right to possess it. As I understand it (and my information could be outdated, admittedly) he actually won the case based on that argument. This made me realize that The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a joke. For this person to undermine the values of the society, and nullify any contributions he might make, and then hide behind the "rights" that are based on those values was an eye-opening experience for me. For Canada to codify a set of Rights in a Charter was a huge mistake, as now people use them as a crutch.

The point I'm trying to make is that the concept of basic human rights goes hand in hand with the concept of basic human responsibilities. If I fulfil my responsiblities to society, I am entitled to enjoy the rights and priviliges offered to members of that society. I feel that Splunge's statement is only half of the equation; I have the right to do whatever I want, so long as it does not adversely affect others, but I have the responsiblity to repay the society that affords me this right.