Where do rights really come from?

[BrettK]

This is rather simple question, but with a most likely pretty complex answer. We hear all the time on issues of abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc about the argument of “rights.” We have entire documents from the United Nations and other institutions declaring what rights are (Including rights such as abortion, or marriage equality, food security, clean air, etc). In all this discussion about rights, one question perplexes me. Where do rights come from in the Catholic morality? From the secular world, one could argue that rights come from the government or at least from the people who make up that government in deciding what they want these rights to be. Others such as those who come from the natural law perspective, would of course disagree as rights have to exist in the abstract and can’t simply be made up by a human or government body declaring it as one.

These discussions have gotten loud, they’re very deep, and they cover a lot of topics. But what I want to focus on is just the Catholic idea of where do rights really come from. And on top of that, how do we know what those rights are and where they stop? I would like a true discussion, as I know there are a lot of perspectives to this. But I want to specifically focus it from the Catholic point of view, if there is much clarification on rights from there in order to root this conversation and not spiral into a million philosophers. Thank you all in advance, and let’s have a happy discussion.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The Bible speaks of commandments, essentially of duties. I don’t think the concept of rights was established until the enlightenment. Look for example at Rousseau, who spoke of there being a natural order, natural laws and natural rights.

 

[Lea101]

But what I want to focus on is just the Catholic idea of where do rights really come from.

From God’s law. We know we have a right to life, because murder is a grave sin.

 

[Roguish]

what I want to focus on is just the Catholic idea of where do rights really come from

It’s a great question. I’ve wondered about this myself.

Right seems to be largely synonymous with entitlement.

I believe the idea of rights in Catholicism has been on a somewhat shaky footing ever since the caste-based organization of society (called the “feudal” system by some) was abandoned. In that organization, the priesthood derived its rights from representing God on earth. The right to rule was conferred by the priesthood on kings, and by them onto lesser lords, who together constituted the nobility, who had the exclusive right to own land. Peasantry (commoners) derived their right to work the land, and their right to protection, by paying a rent to their local lord, either in the form of part of their harvest or in the form of services.

Now, in the absence of that hierarchical organization, which rooted rights in God through the priesthood, I wouldn’t know where rights truly come from. Modern man feels entitled to much, but to say that he has rights because he feels entitled would be putting the cart before the horse. In my opinion, no sound basis for rights can possibly exist if it is not rooted in God. Who has innate rights over the Creation other than the Creator?

 

[Mythicalbio]

I don’t think rights exist and I hate the term. It makes it sound like everyone secretly hates each other and keeps a stack of trump cares to use when someone tries to act on their hate towards them. There is the moral law of God, and nothing else. It comes from God’s nature. And within the moral law of God is the moral duty for some members of society to keep other members from violating it by force of they have to.

Also along with rights-language people tend to make up new ones as they go, and it seems to lead to some false sense of individualism, like you can’t be “forced” against your “rights” to do some things you don’t want, which is absolutely false and just stupid. Individuals don’t matter half as much as people make them out to. Just as you listed in the OP, made-up rights, based on nothing more than trying to please individuals desires (marriage equality, abortion, clean air, etc. For the last one, pollution like that is immoral, but it has nothing to do with rights, but with not sullying Gods gift).

 

[IWantGod]

This is rather simple question, but with a most likely pretty complex answer. We hear all the time on issues of abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc about the argument of “rights.” We have entire documents from the United Nations and other institutions declaring what rights are (Including rights such as abortion, or marriage equality, food security, clean air, etc). In all this discussion about rights, one question perplexes me. Where do rights come from in the Catholic morality? From the secular world, one could argue that rights come from the government or at least from the people who make up that government in deciding what they want these rights to be. Others such as those who come from the natural law perspective, would of course disagree as rights have to exist in the abstract and can’t simply be made up by a human or government body declaring it as one.

These discussions have gotten loud, they’re very deep, and they cover a lot of topics. But what I want to focus on is just the Catholic idea of where do rights really come from. And on top of that, how do we know what those rights are and where they stop? I would like a true discussion, as I know there are a lot of perspectives to this. But I want to specifically focus it from the Catholic point of view, if there is much clarification on rights from there in order to root this conversation and not spiral into a million philosophers. Thank you all in advance, and let’s have a happy discussion.

True humans rights are principles that are grounded in the concept of love or the nature of God. We reason that a person, people, or nation, should be treated a certain way because it is consistent with the nature of love.

Human rights today, while they might begin as the moral conviction of an individual, are not grounded in God. Rights are usually something that a group of people have protested for, and they are accepted as a human right because it is either practical or is consistent with the governance of a particular kind of system.

 

[goout]

In the first place, the foundation of human rights is the recognition of human beings.
And even that is currently a problem for our immersed-in-stupidity culture. And thus any talk about rights is nonsensical.

 

[goout]

The Catholic idea of human rights is based on the identification of all human beings with God. Human beings are “in the image of” God. And so human beings have value. All that contributes to human existence and true flourishing is due to human beings, because of our identification with our creator. How we as human beings flesh this out (pun intended) gets messy.

The CCC spells this out nicely, as usual.

 

[IWantGod]

immersed-in-stupidity culture.

Idiocracy …

 

[Annie]

The Bible speaks of commandments, essentially of duties. I don’t think the concept of rights was established until the enlightenment. Look for example at Rousseau, who spoke of there being a natural order, natural laws and natural rights.

Yes, rights stem from duties. So someone has the duty to protect his family, he has the right to the tools by which to do that (while not having the right for others to pay for them).

Rights also stem from obligations of others. I have a right to life insofar as others have a duty to refrain from killing me. It doesn’t mean that every exhaustive means must be used to keep me alive no matter what.

 

[fhansen]

Just a thought but unless rights/laws come from nature, just as our ears and noses do without benefit of our own (name removed by moderator)ut; unless they come from God IOW, then morality is relative and rights are granted and laws are made just based on preference and convenience. Does “justice” really mean anything if we create these things, from nothing bigger than human opinion? Would there really be any room or call for moral outrage or righteousness indignation if such is the case? Or instead do humans come pre-equipped with a sense of law and rights, of justice?

Certainly Catholics can support the notion that human life is sacred in some sense such that human beings are innately and definitively worthy of dignity and respect even if we might tend to compromise our worthiness by bad actions. I think that many rights activists at least tacitly and unconsciously recognize this “worthiness” if you will, without identifying a reason or cause behind it, and without necessarily understanding the larger picture.

 

[RhodesianSon]

In functionality, from the government. We like to dress it up with talks about inherent rights and God given rights but at the end of the day the government can take anything from anyone with the right cause.

 

[Rau]

Yes, rights stem from duties. So someone has the duty to protect his family, he has the right to the tools by which to do that (while not having the right for others to pay for them).

Omg - is that an argument for gun ownership?

Rights also stem from obligations of others. I have a right to life insofar as others have a duty to refrain from killing me. It doesn’t mean that every exhaustive means must be used to keep me alive no matter what.

Agreed. Same idea applies to the prior point.

 

[Annie]

Omg - is that an argument for gun ownership?

Maybe, maybe not. It might be an argument for a lord, who has the duty to defend all those in his fiefdom, to maintain several knights.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

From God’s law. We know we have a right to life, because murder is a grave sin.

I’m not sure if that alone is the justification.

Rape is a grave sin, but a child born of rape has a right to live and has a place in the world.

So by the same pattern, murder is a grave sin, but a person who is dead is a fact that we need to accept.

So it is not the taking of life that God is taking issue with but the actual act of murder. The victim can maybe go to heaven but the murderer has a serious sin on their slate. Maybe God is actually primarily concerned about the would be murderer and his or her soul, and this is what the commandment is about.

 

[Lea101]

Rape is a grave sin, but a child born of rape has a right to live and has a place in the world

Rape is a grave sin, so we know that a person has a right to consent, for instance. I don’t think the logic above meant that a child conceived of rape has no right to live, if that’s what you’re implying?

I’m not sure if that alone is the justification.

I don’t think that’s all there is to it, but it’s a starting point.

taking of life that God is taking issue with but the actual act of murder

The ‘taking of life’ is the act of murder, though? It’s just rephrased. Murder is a grave sin, because it’s not our call to end the life of someone, a life that God decided to create. That very act is wrong because we are not in a position to take away life for no discernable reason. Hence, from this we can understand that we have a right to life, because nobody is permitted to take it as they wish.

 

[Maximian]

I don’t think the concept of rights was established until the enlightenment.

To be exact, the concept of rights is extremely old. Feudalism is all about who has what rights. But it was understood that if you had a right, it had been granted to you by a higher authority. The ultimate authority is God, as Jesus pointed out to Pilate.

What was new in the Enlightenment was the idea that people have rights endued by the simple fact of their birth and existence, and unalienable.

Of course, it’s hogwash. Even the US doesn’t believe it, as every occupant of Death Row will tell you.

 

[Inquiry]

Of course, it’s hogwash. Even the US doesn’t believe it, as every occupant of Death Row will tell you.

Death row is not an exception to the concept of rights. It is an exception to the government’s duty to protect them.

 

[goout]

Maximian:

Of course, it’s hogwash. Even the US doesn’t believe it, as every occupant of Death Row will tell you.

Death row is not an exception to the concept of rights. It is an exception to the government’s duty to protect them.

It’s not really an exception.
The foundation of human rights is the good of human life. If a person is destructive to human life, society recognizes the duty to protect others.
The Church doesn’t see the death penalty as admissible in this age because it is not necessary as a protection of other innocent human life. But in any case the foundation of any of this is the protection and flourishing of human life.

 

[Maximian]

The point is, that a criminal’s right to life is not “unalienable”, it is alienable by the state. Upon that basis the whole idea of inherent rights collapses…

Im sorry, I know that contradicting the Declaration of Independence for Americans is a bit like insulting the Queen for us, a total taboo, but there it is.