Why do rights exist?

[tonyrey]

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…

Then how you judge what is objectively just or unjust, good or evil, right or wrong?

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.

The commandment not to kill surely presupposes that a person has a right to life. How does having the right to life forgo responsibility or understanding?

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 necessarily 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<responsibilities).

If we only have a “right to life” insofar as our social convention extends then God does not come into the picture! According to you the fact that He created us is irrelevant…

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.

So you have one moral principle for yourself and another for others! Two negatives make a positive! If we have no “right” not to be abused we have a right to be abused - according to you. The right to happiness implies a 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.

The mere fact that social conventions can, but do not necessarily, reflect moral truths demonstrates that social conventions cannot be equated with rights.

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.

Opportunities are not posterior to life. They occur as soon as life begins. I repeat, what is the point of being born if it is not to have opportunities?

So you believe the value of reason and othe value of personal activity are only subjective opinions 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.

So his position is as reasonable as yours? If he believes nothing is valuable how can he live by his position?

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.

What is the moral basis of that distinction? One law for you and one for everyone else!

 

[tonyrey]

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.
I was simply quoting your own statement:
“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.”

 

[grannymh]

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

Do you agree? If not why not?

I agree that life has immense value. In other words – The human person is worthy of profound respect. This serves as a basis for human rights.

 

[davidv]

I agree that life has immense value. In other words – The human person is worthy of profound respect. This serves as a basis for human rights.

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. “Right”

Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one’s own.

A right orignates in the principle of justice.

It exists based on moral or legal authority.

Those based on moral authority are inalienable.

Those based on legal authority are subject to change at the whim of the legal system.

 

[grannymh]

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. “Right”

A right orignates in the principle of justice.

It exists based on moral or legal authority.

Those based on moral authority are inalienable.

Those based on legal authority are subject to change at the whim of the legal system.

All true.

Another angle-- the principle of justice applies to human persons. Why human persons?

 

[Desertsailor]

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. “Right”

A right orignates in the principle of justice.

It exists based on moral or legal authority.

Those based on moral authority are inalienable.

Those based on legal authority are subject to change at the whim of the legal system.

An excellent post. Some people look upon the ten commandments as an abridgement of their rights; for example, “Thou shalt not kill” is an abridgement of a womans right to kill her baby.

 

[Leela]

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

They are no more the product of human inquiry than scientific laws are. By the way, scientific laws in that sense are merely human conventions. What else could they be? Why say merely human conventions? We worked pretty darn hard and spilt a lot of blood over tens of thousands of years to create liberal society as it is today. Why belittle it?

Maybe we can do even better in the future. We can only hope to if you don’t enshrine rights as something eternal instead of some the best intentions we have come up with so far.

Why does it always have to be about metaphysics? Here’s an idea, why not drop the argument about where human rights come from and simply make a case that societies where people respect one another’s rights are better than ones where they do not? That is the only sort of argument we need.

Of course, such rational arguments will only ever work on the sorts of people who are convinced by rational argumentation, so we should already know not to worry about the criminal and the Nazi and the juvenile delinquent and other people who are incompetent to make moral judgments.

 

[Desertsailor]

They are no more the product of human inquiry than scientific laws are. By the way, scientific laws in that sense are merely human conventions. What else could they be? Why say merely human conventions? We worked pretty darn hard and spilt a lot of blood over tens of thousands of years to create liberal society as it is today. Why belittle it?

Maybe we can do even better in the future. We can only hope to if you don’t enshrine rights as something eternal instead of some the best intentions we have come up with so far.

**Why does it always have to be about metaphysics? Here’s an idea, why not drop the argument about where human rights come from and simply make a case that societies where people respect one another’s rights are better than ones where they do not? That is the only sort of argument we need. **

Of course, such rational arguments will only ever work on the sorts of people who are convinced by rational argumentation, so we should already know not to worry about the criminal and the Nazi and the juvenile delinquent and other people who are incompetent to make moral judgments.

Request denied. It just so happens that the society you describe comes from Judeo/Christian principles and nowhere else. The only societies that even discuss rights are based on Judeo/Christian principles.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Request denied. It just so happens that the society you describe comes from Judeo/Christian principles and nowhere else. The only societies that even discuss rights are based on Judeo/Christian principles.

Actually, there are examples of democratic societies that were not Judeo/Christian.

The earliest known democracy was established in Athens in 510 BC, before Christianity was even thought of. Even before that there would have been debates on rights. You can see very clearly by looking at how human herd instinct works that it is in our nature to parley for rights.

Unless of course by rights you mean the sermon on the moral high ground proclamaimed by the local preist/shamen who has a direct link to God. Even then, I think you’ll find religious fervour predates Juedo/Christianity.

 

[grannymh]

Actually, there are examples of democratic societies that were not Judeo/Christian.

The earliest known democracy was established in Athens in 510 BC, before Christianity was even thought of. Even before that there would have been debates on rights. You can see very clearly by looking at how human herd instinct works that it is in our nature to parley for rights.

Unless of course by rights you mean the sermon on the moral high ground proclamaimed by the local preist/shamen who has a direct link to God. Even then, I think you’ll find religious fervour predates Juedo/Christianity.

One doesn’t have to look on some kind of high ground. All one has to do is look in the mirror. The human person is unique among all other living organisms. Therefore, the human person is worthy of profound respect. Respect leads to rights such as the right to have possessions which enable one to live.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

I was simply quoting your own statement:
“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.”

I think you did more than quote my statement:

You need to establish why every need represents a right!

But self-evident truths do not need proofs. Needs are those specie specific properties which if unfulfilled causes the being to cease to exist. Since humans have have an intellect, we need knowledge in general but can’t claim we need any specific knowledge for that would be merely a want.

 

[Desertsailor]

Actually, there are examples of democratic societies that were not Judeo/Christian.

The earliest known democracy was established in Athens in 510 BC, before Christianity was even thought of. Even before that there would have been debates on rights. You can see very clearly by looking at how human herd instinct works that it is in our nature to parley for rights.

Unless of course by rights you mean the sermon on the moral high ground proclamaimed by the local preist/shamen who has a direct link to God. Even then, I think you’ll find religious fervour predates Juedo/Christianity.

Oh! Please! I suppose you think the Mayans and Aztecs were democracies too. According you your logic people are no more than animals.
The reason Governments were established in the first place was to keep the strong under control because the weak had rights.

 

[Moonstruck888]

One doesn’t have to look on some kind of high ground. All one has to do is look in the mirror. The human person is unique among all other living organisms. Therefore, the human person is worthy of profound respect. Respect leads to rights such as the right to have possessions which enable one to live.

I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but a human being fits the nested set of heirarchies like a glove. In biological parlance, and indeed anywhere outside the realms of our own egotism, there is nothing about us that is even unusual.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Oh! Please! I suppose you think the Mayans and Aztecs were democracies too.

I don’t think the USA is a democracy. At the time of writing, I don’t think there’s such a thing as a democracy. If voting could fundamentally change anything it would be illegal.

According you your logic people are no more than animals.

Correct. We are of the Kingdom Animalia, erog we are animals, to wit: apes, which are a type of hominid, which are a type of mammal, which are a type of animal, which are a type of bilatera, which are a type of eukaryote.

The reason Governments were established in the first place was to keep the strong under control because the weak had rights.

Really? It seems to do a very good job of protecting the status quo. How many homeless in Michigan now? Where are the Government and where were they when the levvy broke in New Orleans?

 

[grannymh]

I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but a human being fits the nested set of heirarchies like a glove. In biological parlance, and indeed anywhere outside the realms of our own egotism, there is nothing about us that is even unusual.

You are definitely not the same as my cousin Chilly Chimp. Proof – I just sent you a PM.

 

[Leela]

Request denied. It just so happens that the society you describe comes from Judeo/Christian principles and nowhere else. The only societies that even discuss rights are based on Judeo/Christian principles.

Societies have long had conversations about what would make a better society and why. It is no religious issue. My point is that talk about rights only comes up when we run out of reasons in those conversations about what would make society better. It is only when when we exhaust our conversational resources to say why one sort for society would be better than an other than people say “well it is just a fundamental right” as an intended conversation stopper (similar to the way the word “faith” is often used as a conversation stopper.) Talk of rights is just a slogan that says “we’ve reached the bottom of our ability to argue.” It is a refusal to continue the conversation and make our arguments transparent and open to examination. Human Rights are all well and good, they are a way of talking about what our best societies are like and a way of getting more and societies to be more like our best societies. But it would be better to be able to also make good arguments to justify our beliefs about how we ought to treat one another and to continue to try to improve upon today’s best societies instead of trying to end the conversation (and end all thought on the matter) by asserting rights as fundamental in some metaphysical way.

 

[tonyrey]

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

They are no more the product of human inquiry than scientific laws are. By the way, scientific laws in that sense are merely human conventions. What else could they be? Why say merely human conventions? We worked pretty darn hard and spilt a lot of blood over tens of thousands of years to create liberal society as it is today. Why belittle it? I am not belittling liberal society but the view that it is merely the product of human conventions and not based on the immense value of human life. I suppose you regard that as a human convention and not because persons are persons rather merely another biological species…

Maybe we can do even better in the future. We can only hope to if you don’t enshrine rights as something eternal instead of some the best intentions we have come up with so far.

I am not enshrining anything but simply recognising the fact that rights are more than intentions which are notoriously fickle and unreliable.

BTW Who are “we”? The enlightened ones? If so enlightenment presupposes discovery rather than convention…

Why does it always have to be about metaphysics?

Because, whether you like it or not, rights are related to what we are. Why do we have rights different from those of a worm?

Here’s an idea, why not drop the argument about where human rights come from and simply make a case that societies where people respect one another’s rights are better than ones where they do not? That is the only sort of argument we need.

Unfortunately the Nazis and Marxists have demonstrated that we need something more substantial than the best intentions. **How **do you determine what rights we need?

Of course, such rational arguments will only ever work on the sorts of people who are convinced by rational argumentation, so we should already know not to worry about the criminal and the Nazi and the juvenile delinquent and other people who are incompetent to make moral judgments.

In other words you believe that true moral judgments are **rational **and not based simply on emotion. Like scientific laws they describe the nature of reality, the only difference being that they refer to personal rather than physical reality. If we were merely physical objects scientific truths would be sufficient to cater for our needs…

 

[grannymh]

Because, whether you like it or not, rights are related to what we are. Why do we have rights different from those of a worm?

What we are and also who we are should be considered key. The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Desertsailor]

I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but a human being fits the nested set of heirarchies like a glove. In biological parlance, and indeed anywhere outside the realms of our own egotism, there is nothing about us that is even unusual.

How many animals can talk and think in the abstract?

 

[grannymh]

I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but a human being fits the nested set of heirarchies like a glove. In biological parlance, and indeed anywhere outside the realms of our own egotism, there is nothing about us that is even unusual.

So?

The human person is still worthy of profound respect. Being usual or unusual is personal and does not change that fact.