Why do rights exist?

[tonyrey]

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

 

[Leela]

I do but criminals don’t!

That is why we need a criminal justice system to coerce such people to behave as though we have do rights. Just as I am incompetent to make judgments about the results of a particle physics experiment, some people are likewise incompetent to make moral judgements. If there is anything to know about morality, then certainly some people are more knowledgeable about it than others. There may even be such a person as a moral genius like Gandhi, Jesus, or the Buddha who could perhaps make moral judgments and inspire others to expand their circle of moral concern with their moral teaching the way Mozart could play the fiddle.

 

[JohnDamian]

I’ll leave the essence part…;

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 can name; off the top of my head about four “rights” that are unfair; The right to own slaves, the Divine right of kings, The right to an abortion, The right to kill another human being (war, execution).

These rights are defined by social relitivism and social convention; not some ingrained moral truth. That does not mean to say that all rights are opposed to morality; just that morality is not a nessecary element in “rights”.

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

It would be better to predicate existence as essential to these social convention rights… As we can see; many people believe animals have rights; it is no stretch of the imagination to conceive that perhaps anything existing may be given a “right” by social convention in the future - I am particularily thinking of nature, or the environment here. This is another reason why “rights” are not nessecarily sensible.

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

It is quite a leaping statement to say the whole point of being alive is anything – we can know that lives values do not depend upon the possibility of that life having an opportunity in the future - see (presumed) irrecoverable coma patients. The value of life is not in pursuing temporal things or feelings.

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?

In general people who make a statment make it for a reason. We could say that we feel it is because they think it is worth making; but to say that they do it for a reason is more accurate; and includes expletives etc.

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

Right’s have no values as moral truths; they are essentially selfish and are contrary to selfless morality – morality is predicated upon selfless behaviours; not upon reciet of such.

 

[stenlis]

I do but criminals don’t!

That’s beside the point. There is a compelling reason to accept the rights even though some people don’t just like there is a compelling reason to eat healthy even though some people don’t.

The second point of your OP is wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

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?

That’s seems a long way to get to the correct conclusion.

Humans have needs.
Every need represents a right.
(And, to go a step further …)
Every need or right implies the existence of a corresponding duty.

 

[SonCatcher]

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

Perhaps the best route is to define what an intrinsic right is. One could posit a society where all persons are required to die on their 35th birthdays (as was the background for Logan’s Run). That is a societal construct, to be sure, but is it a correct construct? I would wager that the vast majority would argue it is incorrect regardless of social norms portrayed.

WHY?
Any number of arguments could follow: At 35, people tend to be just reaching their productive primes. (counter: in today’s society, technological advance is so rapid, people over 35 tend to be hopelessly behind)
They likely have children to raise. (counter: such a society would surely establish permanent care facilities and boarding schools)
They have friends. (counter: the same is expected of friends. It is a “fact of life.”)

These reasons, though perfectly valid for a social right, must be shot down as they are not sufficient ground for an intrinsic right. We are looking for them to finally come to:

“They can’t just be expected to die. They are human beings!” (or something along those lines.)
We respond, “Does being alive matter in and of itself?”
“YES”
“Then let’s call that an intrinsic right and be satisfied that there is such a thing.”

…naturally, this line of questioning runs the risk the respondent could eventually hem, haw and claim that even a right to life is merely a social construct. They have betrayed their own disordered formation. They cannot be convinced so waste no more time on them.

From there, it could be productive to determine what other rights are intrinsic. They must all be tested in the same way.

Also, one can move on from defining life as being an intrinsic right to defining what life is.

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps the best route is to define what an intrinsic right is. One could posit a society where all persons are required to die on their 35th birthdays (as was the background for Logan’s Run). That is a societal construct, to be sure, but is it a correct construct? I would wager that the vast majority would argue it is incorrect regardless of social norms portrayed.

WHY?
Any number of arguments could follow: At 35, people tend to be just reaching their productive primes. (counter: in today’s society, technological advance is so rapid, people over 35 tend to be hopelessly behind)
They likely have children to raise. (counter: such a society would surely establish permanent care facilities and boarding schools)
They have friends. (counter: the same is expected of friends. It is a “fact of life.”)

These reasons, though perfectly valid for a social right, must be shot down as they are not sufficient ground for an intrinsic right. We are looking for them to finally come to:

“They can’t just be expected to die. They are human beings!” (or something along those lines.)
We respond, “Does being alive matter in and of itself?”
“YES”
“Then let’s call that an intrinsic right and be satisfied that there is such a thing.”

…naturally, this line of questioning runs the risk the respondent could eventually hem, haw and claim that even a right to life is merely a social construct. They have
betrayed their own disordered formation. They cannot be convinced so waste no more time on them.

From there, it could be productive to determine what other rights are intrinsic. They must all be tested in the same way.

Also, one can move on from defining life as being an intrinsic right to defining what life is.

A very neat reductio ad absurdum! I don’t think we need bother with what life is…

 

[tonyrey]

That’s seems a long way to get to the correct conclusion.

Humans have needs.
Every need represents a right.
(And, to go a step further …)
Every need or right implies the existence of a corresponding duty.

You need to establish why every need represents a right!

 

[tonyrey]

That is why we need a criminal justice system to coerce such people to behave as though we have do rights. Just as I am incompetent to make judgments about the results of a particle physics experiment, some people are likewise incompetent to make moral judgements. If there is anything to know about morality, then certainly some people are more knowledgeable about it than others. There may even be such a person as a moral genius like Gandhi, Jesus, or the Buddha who could perhaps make moral judgments and inspire others to expand their circle of moral concern with their moral teaching the way Mozart could play the fiddle.

Criminals could (and do) argue that morality is a load of nonsense. The main thing is to avoid being caught!

 

[tonyrey]

That’s beside the point. There is a compelling reason to accept the rights even though some people don’t just like there is a compelling reason to eat healthy even though some people don’t.

The second point of your OP is wrong.

What is the compelling reason to accept rights?

 

[tonyrey]

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

To distinguish between fair and unfair rights implies that there is an objective criterion other than social convention!

These rights are defined by social relativism and social convention; not some ingrained moral truth. That does not mean to say that all rights are opposed to morality; just that morality is not a necessary element in “rights”.

Do you believe morality is not a necessary element in the right to life?

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

It would be better to predicate existence as essential to these social convention rights… As we can see; many people believe animals have rights; it is no stretch of the imagination to conceive that perhaps anything existing may be given a “right” by social convention in the future - I am particularily thinking of nature, or the environment here. This is another reason why “rights” are not necessarily sensible.

I believe everything has a right to exist - regardless of social convention - because everything is created by God. But the right to exist is not absolute because it may have to give way to another right. A person’s right to exist comes before that of a mosquito…

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

It is quite a leaping statement to say the whole point of being alive is anything – we can know that lives values do not depend upon the possibility of that life having an opportunity in the future - see (presumed) irrecoverable coma patients.

I have not said “the whole point of being alive is **anything **”. The whole point of being born is to have opportunities. The fact that opportunities come to an end in this world does not alter that fact. If you believe there is an afterlife opportunities never come to an end!

The value of life is not in pursuing temporal things or feelings.

I have not stated that the value of life is in pursuing temporal things or feelings. In fact I believe the value of life consists in pursuing both temporal and eternal goals.

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?

In general people who make a statement make it for a reason. We could say that we feel it is because they think it is worth making; but to say that they do it for a reason is more accurate; and includes expletives etc.

So you agree that to assert that nothing is valuable is to contradict oneself. To do it for a reason implies that both the reason and the action are valuable.

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

Rights have no values as moral truths; they are essentially selfish and are contrary to selfless morality – morality is predicated upon selfless behaviours; not upon receipt of such.

“Love your neighbour as yourself”…

 

[JohnDamian]

To distinguish between fair and unfair rights implies that there is an objective criterion other than social convention!

Yes; “fairness” is also a social convention; and a subjective judgement; it was you that asked if there could be an “unfair” right.

Do you believe morality is not a necessary element in the right to life?

I think to look at it from a perspecitve of right’s is absurd; we should look at it from the perspective of our human responsibilities to protect and love one another as ourselves.

I believe everything has a right to exist - regardless of social convention - because everything is created by God. But the right to exist is not absolute because it may have to give way to another right. A person’s right to exist comes before that of a mosquito…

The right’s of existence and life are somewhat different; we exist forever after death; wheras on earth we only live a finite time. To say we have some “objective” right to this life is absurd. What we do have, however is a responsibility to protect and love other human lives. However, our existence is not contingent upon our life on earth - we live after that.

I do agree however, that maintaining a social convention to protect human life is valuable; I just see no reason for this right to be held as an objective moral truth.

I have not said "the whole point of being alive is anything ". The whole point of being born is to have opportunities. The fact that opportunities come to an end in this world does not alter that fact. If you believe there is an afterlife opportunities never come to an end!

I really see no objective reason to believe this.

So you agree that to assert that nothing is valuable is to contradict oneself. To do it for a reason implies that both the reason and the action are valuable.

I would use the word “desirable” instead of valuable; as it essentially implies that the value of such actions is merely subjective.

“Love your neighbour as yourself”

This is a responsibility, not a right - even the love and respect of oneself is a responsibility.

 

[rwillenborg]

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.

Guns do the same thing, and often better. ANd, just as an added bonus, you STILL don’t have to bother to care about other people’s rights.
Yeah, I’m not impressed with what ‘rights’ can do. And here, where I live, there is, in most cases, a very good chance of getting away with violating someone’s ‘rights’ as you call them. And so people do. And even those few who get caught aren’t really bothered by it.

 

[Leela]

Criminals could (and do) argue that morality is a load of nonsense. The main thing is to avoid being caught!

Why is this issue a problem for you? Do you think there ought to be something else to compel criminals to behave?

 

[Moonstruck888]

“Love your neighbour as yourself”…

Given how much self esteem the average person has, I’d say that gives the neighbour a very raw deal.

 

[tonyrey]

To distinguish between fair and unfair rights implies that there is an objective criterion other than social convention!

If fairness is only a social convention then fairness must differ from one society to another - which implies that we are not entitled to regard one society as morally superior to another. Moral progress becomes an illusion…

Do you believe morality is not a necessary element in the right to life?

I think to look at it from a perspective of rights is absurd; we should look at it from the perspective of our human responsibilities to protect and love one another as ourselves.

That seems an arbitrary distinction. If we fail to respect a person’s rights we are morally culpable.

I believe everything has a right to exist - regardless of social convention - because everything is created by God. But the right to exist is not absolute because it may have to give way to another right. A person’s right to exist comes before that of a mosquito…

The rights of existence and life are somewhat different; we exist forever after death; whereas on earth we only live a finite time. To say we have some “objective” right to this life is absurd.

Why? If we don’t have an objective right to life it is not wrong for some one to kill us…
BTW Do you believe the right to exist is not a social convention?

What we do have, however is a responsibility to protect and love other human lives.

Why discriminate against ourselves? That infringes the principle of equality. If we have no responsibility to protect and love our own life it is not morally wrong to neglect ourselves and allow ourselves to die.

However, our existence is not contingent upon our life on earth - we live after that.

So what?

I do agree however, that maintaining a social convention to protect human life is valuable; I just see no reason for this right to be held as an objective moral truth.

If a social convention to protect human life is valuable it is an objective moral truth that the social convention is valuable…

The whole point of being born is to have opportunities. The fact that opportunities come to an end in this world does not alter that fact. If you believe there is an afterlife opportunities never come to an end!

I really see no objective reason to believe this.

Why not? What is the point of being born if it is not to have opportunities?

So you agree that to assert that nothing is valuable is to contradict oneself. To do it for a reason implies that both the reason and the action are valuable.

I would use the word “desirable” instead of valuable; as it essentially implies that the value of such actions is merely subjective.

So you believe the value of reason and of personal activity is only a subjective opinion? If so the nihilist’s opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s…

“Love your neighbour as yourself”

This is a responsibility, not a right - even the love and respect of oneself is a responsibility.

The responsibility to respect a person’s life implies that the person has a right to life - and that includes one’s own life…

 

[tonyrey]

Why is this issue a problem for you? Do you think there ought to be something else to compel criminals to behave?

Obviously. I am making the point that there is no compelling reason to respect human rights if one can escape detection.

 

[tonyrey]

Why is this issue a problem for you? Do you think there ought to be something else to compel criminals to behave?

… unless one believes that rights are not merely human conventions!

 

[JohnDamian]

If fairness is only a social convention then fairness must differ from one society to another - which implies that we are not entitled to regard one society as morally superior to another. Moral progress becomes an illusion…

Fairness is not the same as morality; we can judge from our own subjective social convention that something is or is not “fair” to us; yet - this differs from objective morality.

That seems an arbitrary distinction. If we fail to respect a person’s rights we are morally culpable.

A responsibility implies an understanding, a right forgoes this - this is why we have the ten commandments, not the ten rights.

Why? If we don’t have an objective right to life it is not wrong for some one to kill us…
BTW Do you believe the right to exist is not a social convention?

As the Catechism will state to you; if you are murdered, it is not nessecarily a mortal sin on behalf of the murderer. We only have a “right to life” insofar as our social convention extends; however, we DO have a responsibility NOT to take life; irrespective of social convention. see above (rights<responsibilitys).

Why discriminate against ourselves? That infringes the principle of equality. If we have no responsibility to protect and love our own life it is not morally wrong to neglect ourselves and allow ourselves to die.

We have a moral responsibility to not abuse our own bodies - but we have no “right” not to be abused.

If a social convention to protect human life is valuable it is an objective moral truth that the social convention is valuable…

A social convention can reflect a moral truth; but it does not define it.

Why not? What is the point of being born if it is not to have opportunities?

Opportunities are posterior to existence. Existence is more important and valuable than opportunities; this is why we strive to protect people who are in comas etc. who have no opportunities; irrespective.

So you believe the value of reason and of personal activity is only a subjective opinion? If so the nihilist’s opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s…

To me, no - but to the nihilist; I would presume he finds his position valid enough to live by it.

The responsibility to respect a person’s life implies that the person has a right to life - and that includes one’s own life…

There is a distinction of perspective.

 

[o_mlly]

You need to establish why every need represents a right!

No, that would merely be a “want.” A need is a necessity required for an ordered existence. An ordered existence is that existence intended by the being’s Creator.