Rights and other ideas

[Economist]

@Wesrock presented a question:

@Economist

Perhaps you can advise me on how rights are conferred to people. Do people have them intrinsically? Is it a social contract? Are you an ethical relativist or nihilist, and, if not, can you give me an idea of where you believe rights come from?

Yes, @Wesrock, this is a very interesting and important topic. I am not restricting the topic to the USA, and its system. I prefer a general discussion. Maybe this should have been placed into the philosophy forum.

A “right” is something that allows you to perform and act (or not to perform it) without a fear from repercussion. On a desert island, where you are alone there is no one who could punish you for doing whatever you want. So, in other words, you have the freedom to do (or try to do) anything. Your “rights” are absolute.

Of course, if you attempt to do something, the result might not be what you hope for. But you have the right to try it.

If you are not alone, if there is at least one other human on that island, you live in a very small community. And in a community, both of you are constrained. Who decides what are your “rights” in that case? You and the other person can discuss the matter, and can come to a mutually acceptable agreement about your respective “rights”. However, one of you, who is stronger, can decide what the personal rights are. The concept of “might makes right” is not particularly palatable to the weaker person, but what can he do about it? The stronger one can impose his will upon the weaker one.

In a real life situation, where we all live in large communities - called nation-states - the rights of everyone are decided by the strongest bully around the block, the government. So there are no natural “rights”, no matter what the Declaration of Independence said so very poetically. But it is even more complicated. There is a hierarchy of “bullies”, and if the stronger one does not allow the weaker one to exercise its power, then it becomes problematic. Just consider the federal and the states “rights”, and the local municipalities, and townships, all the way down to kibbutzes and other mini-communities. All of them allow or forbid certain activities, sometimes in a contradictory fashion. Some Indian tribes used to have the “right” to practice their religious customs - like consuming mind-altering mushrooms, but the federal government stepped in and declared these practices against the law - First Amendment notwithstanding. The government itself can violate the whole Constitution if it so desires.

The next problem is the enforcement of these “rights”. If a right is not enforced, it is merely a “pie in the sky”. Of course some people might say that they have a certain “right”, which is violated. If a right is violated, it is not a right.

 

[Economist]

Continued from above.

So, to answer your question succinctly - there are no such things as “rights” (“natural” or “inalienable”) apart from the communities where we live. Rights are human constructs, granted or withdrawn at the fancy of the strongest bullies, the nation states. And, of course “nature” does not grant you any rights. You can try to do whatever you wish, but nature will not respect your “rights” to succeed. And of course nor do humans. Someone, who is stronger, can violate any rights of yours. If he is caught, the enforcement agency - if there is one - can punish the violator (or not… depending on the circumstances). But that punishment does not help you. The one and only way to protect your rights would be prevention. Too bad it does not happen.

You also asked about my ethical system. That is another complicated subject, which can be discussed separately. One important observation is that there are may different meta-ethical systems. A few of them are: “deontological”, “divine command based”, “utilitarian/consequentialist”, “virtue based”, “natural law based” and many others. The same act is evaluated differently based upon the meta-ethical system you accept.

I hope this covers your question. I was away on a vacation, and when I came back I saw a short suspension of my account… I have no idea why.

 

[EZweber]

So you say that if you and I are on a desert island, and I have a knife, there is no reason I shouldn’t kill you.

 

[Wozza]

So you say that if you and I are on a desert island, and I have a knife, there is no reason I shouldn’t kill you.

The freedom to do something, whether there is a reason to do it, whether doing it is the sensible thing to do or whether it is morally correct are all different aspects of the act.

If you kill the other guy on the island, each aspect needs to be addressed individually.

So to answer your question, there are reasons why you shouldn’t (he’s going to help you survive) and reasons why you should (he has sworn to kill you).

 

[porthos11]

So you say that if you and I are on a desert island, and I have a knife, there is no reason I shouldn’t kill you.

And eat. Don’t forget eat.

 

[EZweber]

The freedom to do something, whether there is a reason to do it, whether doing it is the sensible thing to do or whether it is morally correct are all different aspects of the act.

If you kill the other guy on the island, each aspect needs to be addressed individually.

So to answer your question, there are reasons why you shouldn’t (he’s going to help you survive) and reasons why you should (he has sworn to kill you).

From what I understood, the other he has no right to life in that situation. Why wouldn’t I kill him if he has no right to life?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The freedom to do something, whether there is a reason to do it, whether doing it is the sensible thing to do or whether it is morally correct are all different aspects of the act.

If you kill the other guy on the island, each aspect needs to be addressed individually.

So to answer your question, there are reasons why you shouldn’t (he’s going to help you survive) and reasons why you should (he has sworn to kill you).

From what I understood, the other he has no right to life in that situation. Why wouldn’t I kill him if he has no right to life?

Why doesn’t he have a right to life?

 

[Economist]

From what I understood, the other he has no right to life in that situation. Why wouldn’t I kill him if he has no right to life?

Because it is not in your best interest. Cooperation (not just in that specific case, but in general) is preferable to confrontation. Friendship is better than hostility.

Why doesn’t he have a right to life?

Because there is no “right” if the stronger one can run roughshod over the weaker one. Every government can grant or withdraw any “rights” it might have granted before. Just consider a real or fabricated “emergency” when all or some of the previously granted “rights” are suspended.

I am not arguing if this arrangement is desirable or not. I simply present the facts, without talking about my preferences.

I hope @Wesrock will chime in, after all it was his request that I should present my views about “rights”

 

[Mary888]

What about the Athena Cartha? The human rights, a cartha that all nations part of UN signed? Since they freely signed isn’t this what defines the rights today, for those who signed, and not the biggest bully state anymore?

 

[EZweber]

Because it is not in your best interest. Cooperation (not just in that specific case, but in general) is preferable to confrontation. Friendship is better than hostility.

What if it is in my best interest? There are cases in which that is true. If someone threatens to kill me unless I kill you, and there is no prospect of anyone else finding out?

 

[Economist]

What about the Athena Cartha? The human rights, a cartha that all nations part of UN signed? Since they freely signed isn’t this what defines the rights today, for those who signed, and not the biggest bully state anymore?

Sorry, I have no idea what are you talking about. Google does not bring up anything about this “Athena Cartha”, whatever it might be. Not even its suggested substitutes have anything to do with “rights”.

Maybe you meant the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)? That is just another well-meaning but useless document. It has no power enforce those “rights”, either proactively or retroactively. Anyone can declare a set of “rights”, but since they have no power to enforce them, they firmly belong to the “Pie in the Sky” category.

Remember, there is a huge hierarchy of “bullies”. The individual’s rights are determined by the strongest “bully” who can enforce its declared “rights”. And if that “bully” changes its mind, then the previous “rights” are null and void, and new set of “rights” take their place. The real or fake “state of emergency” is the best example.

I am not happy about this state of affairs, but reality does not care about my likes and dislikes.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

This is where the concept of sin is critical. I agree that rights are inherently contradictory, whereas sin is not. Ultimately, as long as we hold up humanity as the arbiter for the freedom to act or abstinence (i.e. rights), we find the concept has no practical value. But once oriented to Christ, here we see the true definition of unalienable. Sin is that which one must not do, and that the authority of judgement from God upon someone who does sin is absolute.

Once the concept of divine judgement is removed, all notions of rights are useless.

 

[EZweber]

It has no power enforce those “rights”, either proactively or retroactively.

How do you say “proactively” or “retroactively” if there are no rights?

 

[goout]

At their foundation, rights are conferred by our creator.
Human rights are objective. In other words human rights are rights regardless of recognition by the general culture, or society, or legal codification. We can discuss whether someone has a right to take another’s food when starving etc…But a person has a right to sustain one’s self, based on the good of human existence.

The fact that a particular society subjectifies human beings does not detract from the intrinsic dignity and value of the human being, or the rights that are associated with that God given dignity.

 

[goout]

In the context of the right to religious freedom:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...t-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
3. Further light is shed on the subject if one considers that the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal, objective and universal-whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love.
…

 

[Mary888]

That is just another well-meaning but useless document

It has been signed by states members of UN. In your OP you argue that a state as representative of a society or nation has authority in defining rights over those under its command. So how are the Human Rights not binding and powerful?

 

[Economist]

It has been signed by states members of UN. In your OP you argue that a state as representative of a society or nation has authority in defining rights over those under its command. So how are the Human Rights not binding and powerful?

Defining or declaring rights is meaningless if the power that declares them does not (and / or cannot) enforce them. An unenforced or non-respected “right” is indistinguishable from no rights at all.

When a police officer advises an accused person about his Miranda Rights: “You have the right to remain silent…” that means that the accused will NOT be coerced (or tortured) to give testimony. As long as the policeman keeps his word, the rights of the accused are not violated. If the policeman starts to beat up the accused, then the Miranda Rights are violated, or invalidated. The difference is mere semantics. The accused only has the right to remain silent IF the policeman respects what he just said.

Of course that is not an inalienable right, notwithstanding what the Declaration says. Nice, but meaningless concept.