On rights and ontology

[ccmnxc]

In a discussion I had with someone, we were discussing certain rights, with one right in particular he was arguing for. When I asked him the origin of this right (where did the right come from/ who gave the right), we agreed it wasn’t the government, but he stated that rights don’t come from anywhere since, like freedom, they are a lack of restrictions not a presence of something. Since a lack of something doesn’t come from anywhere, rights have no origin. Is this correct?

 

[jonathan_hili]

That doesn’t sound right - pardon the pun - if you look at different rights.

For example, a right to life. What is the restriction? Being killed? That’s not really a restriction.

A right to food and shelter. Again, what is the restriction?

Rights are definitely positive attributes a person has. If they were merely a lack of something, say, restriction or violence done towards one’s person, you would still have to explain why this lack is applicable to persons but not other things, e.g. animals.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I would consider ‘rights’ to be a societal concept that is agreed upon and supported by society.

In the Middle Ages (or there abouts) - there was a ‘right’ called Prima Nocta. Feudal lords were permitted to bed a new bride among his vassals the first night of her wedding. The ‘right’ was given by the monarchy, taken and enforced by the feudal lords.

Did this mean that all of the vassals willingly submitted to this right?

As a society, we agree on our individual rights. If one of them is infringed, it comes down to society to support the right or not. When the rights of one person is not supported, the rights of everyone is affected. The power of the individual to defend their rights remains. The rights of a large, strong man may prove more difficult to infringe upon than a weak, small child. The child only has a chance of securing its rights if we, as a society, provide support of them and impose consequences on those that would violate them.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I would consider ‘rights’ to be a societal concept that is agreed upon and supported by society.

In the Middle Ages (or there abouts) - there was a ‘right’ called Prima Nocta. Feudal lords were permitted to bed a new bride among his vassals the first night of her wedding. The ‘right’ was given by the monarchy, taken and enforced by the feudal lords.

Did this mean that all of the vassals willingly submitted to this right?

As a society, we agree on our individual rights. If one of them is infringed, it comes down to society to support the right or not. When the rights of one person is not supported, the rights of everyone is affected. The power of the individual to defend their rights remains. The rights of a large, strong man may prove more difficult to infringe upon than a weak, small child. The child only has a chance of securing its rights if we, as a society, provide support of them and impose consequences on those that would violate them.

Prima Nocta is a myth that first appeared in Sir Richard Burton’s “translation” of the semi-erotic “Thousand and One Nights”,the Arabian night stories of Sheherazade, which was actually concocted by him in the 19th Century. erotic novelists. I defy anyone to proove such a thing existed with documented evidence from the period, and not something from fiction.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I would consider ‘rights’ to be a societal concept that is agreed upon and supported by society.

In the Middle Ages (or there abouts) - there was a ‘right’ called Prima Nocta. Feudal lords were permitted to bed a new bride among his vassals the first night of her wedding. The ‘right’ was given by the monarchy, taken and enforced by the feudal lords.

Did this mean that all of the vassals willingly submitted to this right?

As a society, we agree on our individual rights. If one of them is infringed, it comes down to society to support the right or not. When the rights of one person is not supported, the rights of everyone is affected. The power of the individual to defend their rights remains. The rights of a large, strong man may prove more difficult to infringe upon than a weak, small child. The child only has a chance of securing its rights if we, as a society, provide support of them and impose consequences on those that would violate them.

I think you’re confusing a legal right with a natural right (such as devolved from Aquinas and Suarez).

 

[bzkoss236]

I would consider ‘rights’ to be a societal concept that is agreed upon and supported by society.

In the Middle Ages (or there abouts) - there was a ‘right’ called Prima Nocta. Feudal lords were permitted to bed a new bride among his vassals the first night of her wedding. The ‘right’ was given by the monarchy, taken and enforced by the feudal lords.

Did this mean that all of the vassals willingly submitted to this right?

As a society, we agree on our individual rights. If one of them is infringed, it comes down to society to support the right or not. When the rights of one person is not supported, the rights of everyone is affected. The power of the individual to defend their rights remains. The rights of a large, strong man may prove more difficult to infringe upon than a weak, small child. The child only has a chance of securing its rights if we, as a society, provide support of them and impose consequences on those that would violate them.

That doesn’t explain the idea of inalienable rights.

 

[surritter]

To the OP … I don’t know if in your discussion it was intended to avoid religious overtones, but we would say that each person has inherent dignity from the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God.

From that dignity, we can extrapolate some “automatic” rights, I would think.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I agree. I think it is very difficult - not to say specious - to try to found rights on persons who are not, in some respect, tied to the divine, that is, the grounding of all reality.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Prima Nocta is a myth that first appeared in Sir Richard Burton’s “translation” of the semi-erotic “Thousand and One Nights”,the Arabian night stories of Sheherazade, which was actually concocted by him in the 19th Century. erotic novelists. I defy anyone to proove such a thing existed with documented evidence from the period, and not something from fiction.

It goes back further than that. “The 16th-century chronicler Boece, for example, says that in ancient times the Scottish king Evenus III decreed that “the lord of the ground sal have the maidinhead of all virginis dwelling on the same.” Supposedly this went on for hundreds of years until Saint Margaret persuaded the lords to replace the jus primae noctis with a bridal tax.” - Cecil Adams

Whether it actually happened or not is not the point - it was just an example.

The point is, we only have rights we can defend. As a society, we all agree to abide by the rights of the individual as laid out by the government and supported by the people. One example that I’m certain of is the 1938 German Weapons Act and Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons, in which the Jews right to own firearms of was revoked in Germany, nor were they allowed to manufacture or deal guns or ammunition. The government had lists of gun owners and the serial number of each weapon purchased between 1928 - 1938. If the weapons were not given up, they were taken by force.

There are some in the USA that fear the government might try to revoke the 2nd Amendment. I am not worried about this because the public reaction is a big enough consequence to prevent it from happening.