Why do rights exist?

[tonyrey]

1. Either rights are human conventions or objective facts.
2. If rights are just human conventions there is no compelling reason to accept them.
3. If rights are objective facts they must be based on the immense value of life.
4. Life is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, love, enjoyment and fulfilment.
5. To assert that nothing is valuable is to contradict oneself because to make an assertion implies that it is worth making!
6. It also implies that we have the right to express our opinions.
7. Therefore rights exist whether we recognise them or not.

Do you agree? If not why not?

 

[JohnDamian]

1. Either rights are human conventions or objective facts.

Rights are human conventions. They are accidental to morality.

1. If rights are just human conventions there is no compelling reason to accept them.

Not so; we are compelled by our interdependance with other people to at least accept basic social norms; ie; the right to free speech.

1. If rights are objective facts they must be based on the immense value of life.

Only if the life is an object essential to those rights.

1. Life is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, love, enjoyment and fulfilment.

Opportunities are accidental to the value of life; they are not essential; otherwise those who did not have love, creativity etc. would have value-less lives (which is not so)

1. To assert that nothing is valuable is to contradict oneself because to make an assertion implies that it is worth making!

Correct

1. It also implies that we have the right to express our opinions.

No, it implies that we feel we have the right to express our opinion.

1. Therefore rights exist whether we recognise them or not.

It would be unwise and incorrect to state that rights categorically do not exist; however to state that objectivelly, etc. rights do not exist an argument could be made.

 

[Moonstruck888]

1. Either rights are human conventions or objective facts.
2. If rights are just human conventions there is no compelling reason to accept them.
3. If rights are objective facts they must be based on the immense value of life.
4. Life is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, love, enjoyment and fulfilment.
5. To assert that nothing is valuable is to contradict oneself because to make an assertion implies that it is worth making!
6. It also implies that we have the right to express our opinions.
7. Therefore rights exist whether we recognise them or not.

Do you agree? If not why not?

There are a lot of “ifs” in there.

 

[Newbie1452]

1. Life is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, love, enjoyment and fulfilment.

All life or just human life?

 

[tonyrey]

All life or just human life?

All life in principle!

 

[tonyrey]

There are a lot of “ifs” in there.

Three to be precise…

 

[tonyrey]

1. Either rights are human conventions or objective facts.

Rights are human conventions. They are accidental to morality.

What is the basis of morality?

2. If rights are just human conventions there is no compelling reason to accept them.

Not so; we are compelled by our interdependence with other people to at least accept basic social norms; ie; the right to free speech.

Only in democratic societies…

3. If rights are objective facts they must be based on the immense value of life.

Only if the life is an object essential to those rights.

How do you determine if the life is an object essential to those rights?

4. Life is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, love, enjoyment and fulfilment.

Opportunities are accidental to the value of life; they are not essential; otherwise those who did not have love, creativity etc. would have value-less lives (which is not so)

If life had no opportunities at all would it be valuable?

5. To assert that nothing is valuable is to contradict oneself because to make an assertion implies that it is worth making!
6. It also implies that we have the right to express our opinions.

No, it implies that we feel we have the right to express our opinion.

Why make an assertion if one doesn’t **believe **it is worth making - even to deceive or mislead?

7. Therefore rights exist whether we recognise them or not.

It would be unwise and incorrect to state that rights categorically do not exist; however to state that objectively, etc. rights do not exist an argument could be made.

What is that argument?

 

[hatsoff]

1. Either rights are human conventions or objective facts.
2. If rights are just human conventions there is no compelling reason to accept them.
3. If rights are objective facts they must be based on the immense value of life.
4. Life is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, love, enjoyment and fulfilment.
5. To assert that nothing is valuable is to contradict oneself because to make an assertion implies that it is worth making!
6. It also implies that we have the right to express our opinions.
7. Therefore rights exist whether we recognise them or not.

Do you agree? If not why not?

Just because something is a human convention does not mean there is no compelling reason to accept it. For example, we have good reason to accept a fair government, or its laws. We have good reason to accept language, mathematics, rules of driving on public roads, rules of sports games, etc.

Rights as I understand them are human conventions. In particular, they are freedoms promised by a government or other authority to its citizens and/or other residents. If you have a different understanding of rights, feel free to present it.

 

[JohnDamian]

What is the basis of morality?

Morality is intrinsic to the human essence.

Only in democratic societies…

Free speech was only an example; most societies; even totalitarian ones distribute rights and responsibilities by social convention; the fairness of which is irrelevant.

How do you determine if the life is an object essential to those rights?

It is purely arbitrary to decide that rights end with death. One could argue that a person has a right to x or y burial, for example – Life is not essential for rights.

If life had no opportunities at all would it be valuable?

Yes

Why make an assertion if one doesn’t **believe **it is worth making - even to deceive or mislead?

To believe a statement has worth etc. implies intellection; often speech occurs without this; for example expletives upon injury.

What is that argument?

That argument is that rights can be predicated circumstantially; and in the case of the world are demonstrably predicated in this fashion – not that this is a good thing in itself.

 

[WatchingMedia]

I noted that the OP is not from the USA. The following are basic for freedom, based upon abuses against the person throughout World history prior to 1791. The same abuses exist iin many Countries today. Governments can easily become oppressive.

The US Constitution includes the following “Bill of Rights”.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an ****establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[SonCatcher]

Certain rights are intrinsic to being. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are enshrined in America’s Declaration of Independence in particular (note that happiness itself is not claimed as a right, only its pursuit is). Intrinsic rights allow us to worship God and help others freely.

Certain claimed rights are not intrinsic to being and are, therefore, social institutions. Many of these “rights” may be supportive of intrinsic rights, but that does not change their status. Take, for example, the right to vote. In the U.S., the right to vote is a social construct limited to only certain persons (generally, citizens who are of a certain age and not currently incarcerated). The purpose of this constructed right is to support the intrinsic rights. The people vote for the candidates and laws they believe will secure them adequate liberty to live their lives in peace and pursue the happiness they desire. The vote is considered so vital to securing intrinsic rights that it is withheld only individually and for serious cause.

Other perceived rights are not rights at all but merited privileges. Many consider the ability to operate a motor vehicle as a right, but one must prove oneself competent prior to being licensed. That word, license, tells us how tentative the driving privilege is. It may be revoked even prior to trial if the state believes continued driving may endanger others, even if that person has a clean driving record (as in the case of someone who has a seizure).

The intrinsic rights exist in degrees. A person holds his/hers absolutely. Animals and plants hold them to the degree they be treated humanely but are often raised explicitly for food and materials to support humanity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

SonCatcher

Certain rights are intrinsic to being. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are enshrined in America’s Declaration of Independence…

But these rights were considered by Jefferson and the Founders to come from the Creator, not from the government.

The right to life is first of these rights, because without it the others are meaningless.

Today we have reversed that principle. We now say that for the unborn life is not even a right. We can with impunity take from the unborn child all his rights. These rights can be taken by a monster who can carve up the child and throw him in a garbage bag … slaughter for hire … by a man who took the Hippocratic oath to heal, not to murder.

Go figure.

 

[stenlis]

1. If rights are just human conventions there is no compelling reason to accept them.

Are you sure you don’t see any compelling reason to accept them.
The rights that the society grants you give you

• protection from being killed
• protection from getting your stuff stolen
• opportunity to express yourself
  etc. etc. the list goes on nearly forever

Those seem very compelling to me regardless of where they come from.

 

[tonyrey]

Just because something is a human convention does not mean there is no compelling reason to accept it. For example, we have good reason to accept a fair government, or its laws. We have good reason to accept language, mathematics, rules of driving on public roads, rules of sports games, etc.

By “we” you mean those who are not criminals, terrorists, anarchists and sceptics. Unfortunately not everyone finds a compelling reason to accept the rights of others.

Rights as I understand them are human conventions. In particular, they are freedoms promised by a government or other authority to its citizens and/or other residents. If you have a different understanding of rights, feel free to present it.

“promised” is the operative word. Some governments fail to keep that promise. I believe rights are not based on promises but on the objective value of human life.

 

[tonyrey]

What is the basis of morality?

How would you express that to some one who rejects the concept of essence?

Only in democratic societies…

Free speech was only an example; most societies; even totalitarian ones distribute rights and responsibilities by social convention; the fairness of which is irrelevant.

If social conventions are not fair then the rights based on them are not true rights.

How do you determine if the life is an object essential to those rights?

It is purely arbitrary to decide that rights end with death. One could argue that a person has a right to x or y burial, for example – Life is not essential for rights.

I did not say that rights end with death. Death presupposes life.

If life had no opportunities at all would it be valuable?

The whole point of being alive is to have opportunities. The only time when there are no opportunities is when a person or an animal becomes unconscious but that does not imply that life ceases to be valuable. The fullness of life includes all its circumstances and vicissitudes.

Why an assertion if one doesn’t believe it is worth making - even to deceive or mislead?

To believe a statement has worth etc. implies intellection; often speech occurs without this; for example expletives upon injury.

I think you will agree that is not the usual meaning of an assertion. Even so it is a form of communication - if only to oneself - that is considered worth making - if only in retrospect!

What is that argument?

That argument is that rights can be predicated circumstantially; and in the case of the world are demonstrably predicated in this fashion – not that this is a good thing in itself.

I agree with you but I am interested to know why you reject it.

 

[hatsoff]

By “we” you mean those who are not criminals, terrorists, anarchists and sceptics. Unfortunately not everyone finds a compelling reason to accept the rights of others.

Oh, sure, not everyone has a reason to accept some given human convention. But many people do—people like me!

“promised” is the operative word. Some governments fail to keep that promise. I believe rights are not based on promises but on the objective value of human life.

Hmm. Okay, but I don’t know what you mean by “objective value.” I understand value as a certain kind of relationship between a subject (an intelligent agent) and an object (the thing which is valued by that agent). In this case, human life appears to be the object. But who is the subject?

 

[JohnDamian]

How would you express that to some one who rejects the concept of essence?

To reject essence is to reject any distinction between things. An essence is simply something a thing has (nessecarily) that makes it what it is. Anyone who rejects that totally is being absurd.

If social conventions are not fair then the rights based on them are not true rights.

As rights are merely based upon social convention – I disagree; if we take for example the divine right of kings – This is an unfair “right”, but at the time it was commonly accepted and used it was accepted as a true right, by social convention – even if it was not a fair right.

I did not say that rights end with death. Death presupposes life.

My example can be extended to the arbitrary ascription of rights to potential people; ie; those who have not been born. Therefore life is not essential for rights, existence (real / potential) is essential for rights.

The whole point of being alive is to have opportunities. The only time when there are no opportunities is when a person or an animal becomes unconscious but that does not imply that life ceases to be valuable. The fullness of life includes all its circumstances and vicissitudes.

That is an assumption. Life does not depend upon opportunities. Life itself, as a form of existence is prior to any opportunities etc.

I think you will agree that is not the usual meaning of an assertion. Even so it is a form of communication - if only to oneself - that is considered worth making - if only in retrospect!

Purpose in this sense is an abstract conception; to apply it to an instinctive or habitual act such as an expletive upon injury is out of context and not appropriate.

I agree with you but I am interested to know why you reject it.

I hold that a society based upon rights instead of responsibilities is an absurd and selfish society – Responsibility is a greater thing than a right; and should be valued and enforced more; furthermore – *if *Rights have a role to play, they should be subservient to Responsibility.

 

[tonyrey]

Certain rights are intrinsic to being. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are enshrined in America’s Declaration of Independence in particular (note that happiness itself is not claimed as a right, only its pursuit is). Intrinsic rights allow us to worship God and help others freely.

Certain claimed rights are not intrinsic to being and are, therefore, social institutions. Many of these “rights” may be supportive of intrinsic rights, but that does not change their status. Take, for example, the right to vote. In the U.S., the right to vote is a social construct limited to only certain persons (generally, citizens who are of a certain age and not currently incarcerated). The purpose of this constructed right is to support the intrinsic rights. The people vote for the candidates and laws they believe will secure them adequate liberty to live their lives in peace and pursue the happiness they desire. The vote is considered so vital to securing intrinsic rights that it is withheld only individually and for serious cause.

Other perceived rights are not rights at all but merited privileges. Many consider the ability to operate a motor vehicle as a right, but one must prove oneself competent prior to being licensed. That word, license, tells us how tentative the driving privilege is. It may be revoked even prior to trial if the state believes continued driving may endanger others, even if that person has a clean driving record (as in the case of someone who has a seizure).

The intrinsic rights exist in degrees. A person holds his/hers absolutely. Animals and plants hold them to the degree they be treated humanely but are often raised explicitly for food and materials to support humanity.

An excellent summary but if some one disputes the belief that certain rights are intrinsic to being how would you defend it?

 

[tonyrey]

Are you sure you don’t see any compelling reason to accept them.
The rights that the society grants you give you

• protection from being killed
• protection from getting your stuff stolen
• opportunity to express yourself
  etc. etc. the list goes on nearly forever

Those seem very compelling to me regardless of where they come from.

I do but criminals don’t!

 

[tonyrey]

How would you express that to some one who rejects the concept of essence?

Many would disagree but to pursue it takes us away from the topic.

If social conventions are not fair then the rights based on them are not true rights.

As rights are merely based upon social convention – I disagree; if we take for example the divine right of kings – This is an unfair “right”, but at the time it was commonly accepted and used it was accepted as a true right, by social convention – even if it was not a fair right.

How would you justify the assumption that rights are merely based upon social convention? Can there be such a thing as an “unfair right”?

I did not say that rights end with death. Death presupposes life.

My example can be extended to the arbitrary ascription of rights to potential people; ie; those who have not been born. Therefore life is not essential for rights, existence (real / potential) is essential for rights.

What is to prevent one saying “life ((real / potential) is essential for rights”?

The whole point of being alive is to have opportunities. The only time when there are no opportunities is when a person or an animal becomes unconscious but that does not imply that life ceases to be valuable. The fullness of life includes all its circumstances and vicissitudes.

That is an assumption. Life does not depend upon opportunities. Life itself, as a form of existence is prior to any opportunities etc.

That is true. I did not say “Life does not depend upon opportunities” but “The whole point of being alive is to have opportunities”.

I think you will agree that is not the usual meaning of an assertion. Even so it is a form of communication - if only to oneself - that is considered worth making - if only in retrospect!

Purpose in this sense is an abstract conception; to apply it to an instinctive or habitual act such as an expletive upon injury is out of context and not appropriate.

The fact remains that such acts are not typical of the usual meaning of an assertion. Do you dispute the fact that a person who makes an assertion generally believes it is worth making?

I agree with you but I am interested to know why you reject it.

I hold that a society based upon rights instead of responsibilities is an absurd and selfish society – Responsibility is a greater thing than a right; and should be valued and enforced more; furthermore – if Rights have a role to play, they should be subservient to Responsibility.

Indeed. That is why I am discussing rights not as social or legal conventions but as moral truths.