Rights and Responsibilities

[brightlights]

Do we have rights because others have responsibilities? Or do we have responsibilities because others have rights? Is it possible for rights to exist without responsibility?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do we have rights because others have responsibilities? Or do we have responsibilities because others have rights? Is it possible for rights to exist without responsibility?

In the order they were asked....

No.
No.
Yes.

I honestly see no inherent relationship between "rights" and "responsibilities". If that is what you're implying, perhaps you would do better to explain the relationship before moving on to questions about it.

 

[brightlights]

A right says: "You owe me this."

The responsibility is inherent and implied.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A right says: "You owe me this."

The responsibility is inherent and implied.

A right says, "we've agreed we have this"...when the agreement is broken, its known as violating rights. At that point, it is observed what their value is. Nothing more.

 

[Ripheus27]

Kant's Metaphysics of Morals and Rawls' A Theory of Justice touch on these points. Kant, for instance, says that the only being with rights without obligations is God (not that God has a right not to fulfill His obligations, but rather that God is so good that He automatically respects others' rights, wherefore He is not under a compulsion--obligation--to such respect).

 

[juvenissun]

Do we have rights because others have responsibilities? Or do we have responsibilities because others have rights? Is it possible for rights to exist without responsibility?

If the two domains have intersection, then yes. If not, then no.

 

[brightlights]

A right says, "we've agreed we have this"...when the agreement is broken, its known as violating rights. At that point, it is observed what their value is. Nothing more.

"We've agreed we have freedom of speech."

If this is true, the government has a responsibility to protect this right and I have a responsibility to respect your right to express yourself. I have a responsibility to let you speak.

 

[AlexBP]

Rights such as freedom of speech and others endorsed in America's founding documents generally only require the non-interference of others. In order for me to speak freely, it is only necessary that other members of the human race not interfere with me when I'm speaking. In order for me to have freedom of religion, it's only necessary that others not stop me from practicing my religion.

In the past few generations, certain political movements have come up with new "rights" such as a right to a college education or to free birth control. The only way to guarantee that everyone has such "rights" is to have a powerful government that's willing to take wealth from some people in order to pay for these things. Of course, the same political movements that introduce these new rights tend not to talk much about exactly what responsibilities are entailed. Often, when listening to them talk, it seems they think that new rights can simply come out of the ether without any costs to anyone.

 

[brightlights]

Good point Alex. I might go as far to suggest that every right has contained within it the implicit responsibility of others, even if this responsibility is passive.

Think also about the rights of children. It's not unreasonable to say that children have the right to be educated, but if this is true it's only because parents have the responsibility to educate their children.

 

[juvenissun]

"We've agreed we have freedom of speech."

If this is true, the government has a responsibility to protect this right and I have a responsibility to respect your right to express yourself. I have a responsibility to let you speak.

If you lived within the territory of your government.
Chinese government will not have that responsibility if you lived there.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do we have rights because others have responsibilities? Or do we have responsibilities because others have rights? Is it possible for rights to exist without responsibility?

Rights are a social contract that we enter into with each other with the understanding that we have basic rights to life, liberty, and property. The Western view of rights is most strongly tied to John Locke's ideas of natural rights. Eastern thought can sometimes put the state as having rights that the populace is subservient to.

The idea of natural rights is that these are rights we are born with and can not be taken away (i.e. inalienable). They are not produced by responsibilities. Rather, it is the responsibility of a government to form laws in a way that these rights are protected and not violated.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"We've agreed we have freedom of speech."

If this is true, the government has a responsibility to protect this right and I have a responsibility to respect your right to express yourself. I have a responsibility to let you speak.

Actually, no...I don't think it works that way. If any responsibility is held, its by the person claiming to have the "rights". Even then, the claimant is only responsible as much as they value said "right".

 

[brightlights]

Actually, no...I don't think it works that way. If any responsibility is held, its by the person claiming to have the "rights". Even then, the claimant is only responsible as much as they value said "right".

If your government or an individual in some way injured your ability to freely express yourself would you want justice?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If your government or an individual in some way injured your ability to freely express yourself would you want justice?

Depends. If my wife told me to lie and tell my mother in law that her dinner was delicious, I'll probably let it go. Like I said, it falls upon the person claiming to have the right and how much they value it. I don't think the responsibility is inherent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's never going to be my responsibility to ensure another person's right to be free...or right to remain silent, or right to worship, etc. It's always going to be upon the person claiming to have the "right".

 

[brightlights]

It's never going to be my responsibility to ensure another person's right to be free...or right to remain silent, or right to worship, etc. It's always going to be upon the person claiming to have the "right".

Unless, of course, you're elected into office.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Unless, of course, you're elected into office.

Well, if we're talking about someone who took an oath to uphold the constitution, that's another issue entirely. I've assumed this whole time you were referring to the common man/woman.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's never going to be my responsibility to ensure another person's right to be free...or right to remain silent, or right to worship, etc. It's always going to be upon the person claiming to have the "right".

You may want to read up on the idea of social contracts:

"In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights."
Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to be hitting on some of the same ideas and hypotheses.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You may want to read up on the idea of social contracts:

"In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights."
Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to be hitting on some of the same ideas and hypotheses.

I'm well familiar with the idea of the social contract. While it is interesting, I don't think it necessarily describes reality. For starters, there are several rights which we agree we have that may be entirely unaddressed by the government. For example, the right to privacy....its a hazy line not well defined by the law, yet if you asked people, a majority would agree it is a right. Other rights, like the right to remain silent, are expressedly the responsibility of the individual who claims to hold it.

Still another example would be the right to own property. The government has vast books of solely property law. If you wish to protect your right to own property from a thief, you have several options. You can stop them yourself. You can go to the police. You can ignore the crime if you do not value what was taken (this happens more often than you might expect). In each case, it is up to the individual who claims to hold the right to act in a way that defends it. Can you imagine a world where it were the government's responsibility? They would have to send officers door-to-door asking, "hello, do you have any crimes you want us to look in to?"

 

[brightlights]

Well, if we're talking about someone who took an oath to uphold the constitution, that's another issue entirely. I've assumed this whole time you were referring to the common man/woman.

Or if you have children.