J
JimG
Guest
Duty vs Rights
Two versions of morality. One leads to justice; one leads to chaos.
Two versions of morality. One leads to justice; one leads to chaos.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
Freddy
Guest
Why either/or?
You have a duty to practice the teachings of your church and you have a right to do that free from interference.
You have a duty to practice the teachings of your church and you have a right to do that free from interference.
J
JimG
Guest
A few excerpts:
“In the 20th and 21st centuries the U.S. Supreme Court discovered certain hitherto unsuspected rights in the Constitution, e.g., a right to abortion (1973), a right to homosexual behavior (2003), a right to same-sex marriage (2015), and a right to transgender identity (2020). It is not unlikely that a future Supreme Court will discover that the Constitution contains a right to euthanasia.”
“Americans (in fact, an immense number of Americans) are in the habit of transforming anything we consider desirable into a fundamental human right. And so, it is argued, we have a right to free contraception and free abortion and free medical care and free college education and free internet and free cable TV and a free cellphone. And if our ancestors were American slaves, we have a right to reparations.”
“And since we believe that we have a human right to X, Y, and Z, we’ll become outraged at what will seem to us to be the great injustice of not providing us and our fellow Americans with what we are entitled to. And we’ll do what victims of injustice (whether real or imagined) often do: we’ll smash windows, loot stores, burn down buildings, and shoot our imagined oppressors. At least we’ll do that until our “oppressors” begin shooting back.”
“In sum, a morality of rights, when carried to its logical conclusion, will lead to something like civil war.”
“In the 20th and 21st centuries the U.S. Supreme Court discovered certain hitherto unsuspected rights in the Constitution, e.g., a right to abortion (1973), a right to homosexual behavior (2003), a right to same-sex marriage (2015), and a right to transgender identity (2020). It is not unlikely that a future Supreme Court will discover that the Constitution contains a right to euthanasia.”
“Americans (in fact, an immense number of Americans) are in the habit of transforming anything we consider desirable into a fundamental human right. And so, it is argued, we have a right to free contraception and free abortion and free medical care and free college education and free internet and free cable TV and a free cellphone. And if our ancestors were American slaves, we have a right to reparations.”
“And since we believe that we have a human right to X, Y, and Z, we’ll become outraged at what will seem to us to be the great injustice of not providing us and our fellow Americans with what we are entitled to. And we’ll do what victims of injustice (whether real or imagined) often do: we’ll smash windows, loot stores, burn down buildings, and shoot our imagined oppressors. At least we’ll do that until our “oppressors” begin shooting back.”
“In sum, a morality of rights, when carried to its logical conclusion, will lead to something like civil war.”
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
It is somewhat obvious that David Carlin has never taken a course in Catholic Social Teaching. From the very beginning of CST found in Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the social approach of the Church is rooted in Natural Law. This Natural Law presents man with rights based in the very act of their creation. It is only from these rights that the Church recognizes that social duties manifest themselves.
J
JimG
Guest
But Pope Leo XIII never recognized the right to contraception, abortion, same sex marriage, and transgenderism.
V
Vico
Guest
And in a few places (New Jersey and Rhode Island) incest is legal between consenting adults. Assisted suicide is legal in seven US states and D.C.A few excerpts:
“In the 20th and 21st centuries the U.S. Supreme Court discovered certain hitherto unsuspected rights in the Constitution, e.g., a right to abortion (1973), a right to homosexual behavior (2003), a right to same-sex marriage (2015), and a right to transgender identity (2020). It is not unlikely that a future Supreme Court will discover that the Constitution contains a right to euthanasia.”
…
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
No, he didn’t. Those are not true rights. This doesn’t, however, discount the fact that true rights inherent in creation precede and impose man’s natural social duties. Following St. Pope John XXIII’s description of the interplay between rights and duties in Pacem in Terris, we can go so far as to say that the so-called ‘right to contraception, abortion, same sex marriage, and transgenderism’ actively oppose mankind’s true natural rights.
My objection to the article was not necessarily in the observation of the ills of the modern American approach to what is a right and what is not but rather Dr. Carlin’s overarching approach to which comes first: rights or duties. If duties are all that are inherent in man’s creation and rights are imposed by society to protect those duties, then natural law is reduced from an existential reality inherent in creation to a legalistic command. This latter status is much to close to the nominalism of William of Ockham which the Church spent five hundred years fighting against.
Reading further, I also must object to Dr. Carlin’s approach to entitlement with regards to rights. Rights do not entitle anything to anyone other than the opportunity to individually pursue the duties flowing from those rights. No one can demand that others fulfill their natural duties. The Church teaches that protecting the rights of others means ordering society so that their rights are recognized and impediments are removed so that they can freely fulfill their own duties.
For example, everyone has the right to a basic education. Each individual has a duty to order society so that everyone, even the poor who aren’t able to pay for an education, is able to be educated. Each individual has the duty to partake of that basic education (for themselves or their child). The social duty to provide this education does not extend to demands such as where an individual wishes to study, what time period that education takes, what specifically they wish to study, etc.
Overall, Dr. Carlin makes many assumptions about rights, duties and entitlements which contradict the definitions and metaphysical reality inherent in the Church’s teaching and natural law.
My objection to the article was not necessarily in the observation of the ills of the modern American approach to what is a right and what is not but rather Dr. Carlin’s overarching approach to which comes first: rights or duties. If duties are all that are inherent in man’s creation and rights are imposed by society to protect those duties, then natural law is reduced from an existential reality inherent in creation to a legalistic command. This latter status is much to close to the nominalism of William of Ockham which the Church spent five hundred years fighting against.
Reading further, I also must object to Dr. Carlin’s approach to entitlement with regards to rights. Rights do not entitle anything to anyone other than the opportunity to individually pursue the duties flowing from those rights. No one can demand that others fulfill their natural duties. The Church teaches that protecting the rights of others means ordering society so that their rights are recognized and impediments are removed so that they can freely fulfill their own duties.
For example, everyone has the right to a basic education. Each individual has a duty to order society so that everyone, even the poor who aren’t able to pay for an education, is able to be educated. Each individual has the duty to partake of that basic education (for themselves or their child). The social duty to provide this education does not extend to demands such as where an individual wishes to study, what time period that education takes, what specifically they wish to study, etc.
Overall, Dr. Carlin makes many assumptions about rights, duties and entitlements which contradict the definitions and metaphysical reality inherent in the Church’s teaching and natural law.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Looking at your example of education, it seems you have missed a link or at least switched up the order which is the individual’s duty which underlies his right other than the duty to exercise it precedes society’s duties related to it.
To use your example, a person has a right to an education as an education is needed first for him to properly fulfill his duties to know and love God and to fulfill his duties to the common good of the community in which he lives (including to himself). Because this right is important to his duties toward God and the community, the community must provide him with the opportunity for it.
This duty of the individual related to his own right, seems to come first, then the duty of society flows from that. This why in Pacem in Terris, St. John XXIII first speaks of those rights and duties “all applying to one and the same person” (cf. PiT 28-29) before noting how “[o]nce this is admitted, it follows that in human society one man’s natural right gives rise to a corresponding duty in other men” (PiT 30).
In fact, society providing an individual with the means to fulfill his proper functions is the essence of social justice.
Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris
To use your example, a person has a right to an education as an education is needed first for him to properly fulfill his duties to know and love God and to fulfill his duties to the common good of the community in which he lives (including to himself). Because this right is important to his duties toward God and the community, the community must provide him with the opportunity for it.
This duty of the individual related to his own right, seems to come first, then the duty of society flows from that. This why in Pacem in Terris, St. John XXIII first speaks of those rights and duties “all applying to one and the same person” (cf. PiT 28-29) before noting how “[o]nce this is admitted, it follows that in human society one man’s natural right gives rise to a corresponding duty in other men” (PiT 30).
In fact, society providing an individual with the means to fulfill his proper functions is the essence of social justice.
Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris
The problem with the Liberal conception of rights, is that they are not ordered toward God and the common good or even a common good, but rather the “good” they are ordered to is individualism, where each person chooses to do as he pleases (too often meaning the accumulation of wealth and pleasure as ends in themselves) within a kind of minimalist or positivistic “pubic order.”Now it is of the very essence of social justice to demand for each individual all that is necessary for the common good. But just as in the living organism it is impossible to provide for the good of the whole unless each single part and each individual member is given what it needs for the exercise of its proper functions, so it is impossible to care for the social organism and the good of society as a unit unless each single part and each individual member - that is to say, each individual man in the dignity of his human personality - is supplied with all that is necessary for the exercise of his social functions.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
The Woke, of course, do not read papal encyclicals. They only demand submission.
S
SantaFe
Guest
it appears there are always 3 sides to every story: Yours. Mine. The Truth.
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
You are correct. I did skip a step. I am sorry for the confusion. I was not necessarily using the example of education in the context of the broader genesis of rights and duties but rather to combat Dr. Carlin’s assumption that demands of entitlement derive from rights. I was pointing out that society’s duty to “provid[e] an individual with the means to fulfill his proper functions” does not extend to an individual entitlement for society to fulfill the individual’s duty for them. They are to be given the means to fulfill their duties. It is up to them to effectively utilize those means.
This is what leads me to agree with the ultimate jist of the article, even if I believe much of the reasoning is disjointed with the terminology and reasoning of the Church (at best) or rationally flawed (at worst). An emphasis on the individual’s fulfillment of their duties must be fostered in American culture today. This, however, must also be accompanied with a national rational introspection into what the true rights of the human being are. It is like @Freddy mentioned above. Both must be emphasized and respected equally. To skew morality too far one way or another makes one fall into either a Kantian approach to the moral imperative or a sense of entitlement.
This is what leads me to agree with the ultimate jist of the article, even if I believe much of the reasoning is disjointed with the terminology and reasoning of the Church (at best) or rationally flawed (at worst). An emphasis on the individual’s fulfillment of their duties must be fostered in American culture today. This, however, must also be accompanied with a national rational introspection into what the true rights of the human being are. It is like @Freddy mentioned above. Both must be emphasized and respected equally. To skew morality too far one way or another makes one fall into either a Kantian approach to the moral imperative or a sense of entitlement.
Last edited:
Importantly he neglected the entitlement attitude of economic and financial greed that happily exploits the poor in so many ways. That seems to be a protected sin these days.A few excerpts:
“Americans (in fact, an immense number of Americans) are in the habit of transforming anything we consider desirable into a fundamental human right. And so, it is argued, we have a right to free contraception and free abortion and free medical care and free college education and free internet and free cable TV and a free cellphone. And if our ancestors were American slaves, we have a right to reparations.”
O
o_mlly
Guest
Fundamental to understanding both human rights and duties is understanding human needs. No one has a right to what they want; everyone has a right to what they need. The concordance to rights vs duties can be found by first determining human needs.
Our natural desires, needs, are desires with which we are innately endowed, are inherent in human nature. And as all truly specific properties are, they are present in all human beings, just as our physical properties, e.g., facial characteristics, human skeletal structure, or human blood types are.
Our acquired desires, wants, are particular and vary with each one of us.
We cannot ever say that we ought or ought not to need something. The words “ought” and “ought not” apply only to wants, never to needs.
We may or may not in fact want what we need. Almost all of us want things that we do not need and fail to want things that we do need.
Our natural desires, needs, are desires with which we are innately endowed, are inherent in human nature. And as all truly specific properties are, they are present in all human beings, just as our physical properties, e.g., facial characteristics, human skeletal structure, or human blood types are.
Our acquired desires, wants, are particular and vary with each one of us.
We cannot ever say that we ought or ought not to need something. The words “ought” and “ought not” apply only to wants, never to needs.
We may or may not in fact want what we need. Almost all of us want things that we do not need and fail to want things that we do need.
O
o_mlly
Guest
However, Rerum Novarum is, in the church’s timescale, a relatively new document (1891). To understand the development of church doctrine on human rights, one has to go back to the 16th century. Rooted in Greek philosophy, Roman law and medieval philosophy, Natural law sees the individual with multiple duties. The emphasis is on what you owe others, not what you expect from others. The natural rights language arises in the 16 through 18th centuries developed by social contract theorists.It is somewhat obvious that David Carlin has never taken a course in Catholic Social Teaching. From the very beginning of CST found in Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum , the social approach of the Church is rooted in Natural Law. This Natural Law presents man with rights based in the very act of their creation. It is only from these rights that the Church recognizes that social duties manifest themselves.
In the natural rights view, the individual is seen as an autonomous person, possessed of rights which protect that autonomy. The idea of society is one of a contractual nature. One has those duties that he contract to have.
The natural law view starts with the concept that the person is radically social by nature, not by choice, and we come into this world with multiple ties and obligations. The concept is more organic than contractual. Society is a fabric of responsibilities.
Faced with the human rights revolution, the church had enormous difficulty coming to terms with religious freedom. (And that discussion would be another thread.)
E
Elf01
Guest
However, my understanding is the Churches view is that the common good cannot be at the expense of individual rights. In other words, it seems to prioritize the individual over the collective.The natural law view starts with the concept that the person is radically social by nature, not by choice, and we come into this world with multiple ties and obligations. The concept is more organic than contractual. Society is a fabric of responsibilities.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I believe the priority depends on the particular human right in question. On the right to life, the innocent individual’s right over the collective is absolute. On the right to private property, the individual’s right over the collective is conditional.However, my understanding is the Churches view is that the common good cannot be at the expense of individual rights. In other words, it seems to prioritize the individual over the collective.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.