What do you mean by "rights"?

[cantata]

I understand what is meant by "rights" in a legal sense - they are certain entitlements which are bestowed upon a group of people or upon all people by a government or other organisation. I understand that in the United Kingdom, every child has a right to an education, meaning that education is freely provided for every child, and it is against the law for children to receive an education between the ages of five and sixteen.

But I frequently hear people talking about inherent, inalienable, natural rights, and this is the point where I get confused. What kind of thing are these natural rights? What does having one of them mean in theory and in practice? Where do they come from, and can they be lost?

I find the concept especially confusing when someone attempts to argue from the supposed rights of someone or something that can't know it has rights - like a non-human animal, a brain-dead person, or a foetus. I can't imagine how the relationship between those beings and their rights is supposed to function. So I'd be very grateful if anyone who understands what these rights are might be able to explain them to me, since they seem to be such a popular thing to talk about in debate.

 

[Eudaimonist]

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/061126-6.htm

Rights, in my view, are social requirements for human flourishing. They properly define a set of moral territories that allow for the rational self-direction of individuals, which is an essential requirement of individual flourishing. What makes such rights "natural" is that they are rooted in a consideration of what human beings need by their nature as human beings.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[cantata]

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/061126-6.htm

Rights, in my view, are social requirements for human flourishing. They properly define a set of moral territories that allow for the rational self-direction of individuals, which is an essential requirement of individual flourishing. What makes such rights "natural" is that they are rooted in a consideration of what human beings need by their nature as human beings.

Thank you, this is helpful.

What you seem to be doing here is defining "rights" as a descriptive term. Rights are that-which-is-required-for-human-flourishing, and we can, at least theoretically, do some experiments and find out precisely what is, in fact, necessary for human flourishing, and hand out some legal rights with that in mind, if indeed our end is human flourishing.

There is something prescriptive, though, about the word "right". As you correctly state, a right defines a set of moral territories. Rights are not simply descriptions of what is needed for someone to live a healthy, happy life. People also seem to believe that the rights of one person impose certain responsibilities upon other people, and that there is some not-to-be-violated quality about these rights.

I can quite cheerfully write down a list of things that I think are necessary for human flourishing, and I can present arguments as to why I think those things are necessary. But the bit I'm confused about is the bit where someone says "But that violates such-and-such's rights!" and suddenly all other arguments are trumped. Apparently, it is not permitted to argue about the content of these rights. I want to know what gives them this special moral status.

 

[stan1980]

But I frequently hear people talking about inherent, inalienable, natural rights, and this is the point where I get confused. What kind of thing are these natural rights? What does having one of them mean in theory and in practice? Where do they come from, and can they be lost?

I think you know what they mean... yes, it means they are talking out of their backside. Hope that helps

 

[Eudaimonist]

What you seem to be doing here is defining "rights" as a descriptive term.

Ah, you've caught me. I was trying to be super-brief, and I neglected to state my view that rights are not only that-which-is-required-for-human-flourishing, but are meta-normative principles as well.

I say meta-normative to mean that I don't see rights as moral advice that individuals use in order to flourish. Rights don't tell you how to improve your life.

Rather, they are advice to law-makers on what sort of laws to pass or refrain from passing, so as to achieve the goal of creating and preserving the social conditions in which people may flourish. As such, rights are perfect candidates for inclusion in a constitution of the government.

People also seem to believe that the rights of one person impose certain responsibilities upon other people, and that there is some not-to-be-violated quality about these rights.

Are you familiar with the idea of social contract theory? Let me explain my view this way.

I think that all people have a moral interest in their own flourishing, i.e. it is morally good to pursue one's own flourishing. They also, as naturally social beings, have an interest in living together in a society in which there are other individuals undertaking the project of their own flourishing. There are much richer values to achieve in a society in which creative potentials are unlocked and flourishing is plentiful. To make a long argument short, I see human individuals as having a personal interest in upholding the institutions needed for a free society -- one in which everyone has the freedom to floursh -- and this interest translates into a moral obligation to respect the rights of others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Isambard]

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

• Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 119
• Expanding on his statement that "a human being has no natural rights of any nature."

 

[cantata]

Ah, you've caught me. I was trying to be super-brief, and I neglected to state my view that rights are not only that-which-is-required-for-human-flourishing, but are meta-normative principles as well.

I say meta-normative to mean that I don't see rights as moral advice that individuals use in order to flourish. Rights don't tell you how to improve your life.

Rather, they are advice to law-makers on what sort of laws to pass or refrain from passing, so as to achieve the goal of creating and preserving the social conditions in which people may flourish. As such, rights are perfect candidates for inclusion in a constitution of the government.

Yes, I can see how they are legally useful if everyone in a society, or virtually everyone, is labouring under the assumption that human life, liberty, and happiness are among the most important goals worth pursuing. To frame them as something special and normative is an effective means of tying them to people's emotional responses, and hence to making them appear binding to the members of the society in question.

Are you familiar with the idea of social contract theory? Let me explain my view this way.

I think that all people have a moral interest in their own flourishing, i.e. it is morally good to pursue one's own flourishing. They also, as naturally social beings, have an interest in living together in a society in which there are other individuals undertaking the project of their own flourishing. There are much richer values to achieve in a society in which creative potentials are unlocked and flourishing is plentiful. To make a long argument short, I see human individuals as having a personal interest in upholding the institutions needed for a free society -- one in which everyone has the freedom to floursh -- and this interest translates into a moral obligation to respect the rights of others.

I understand this part as well - I can see that it is useful for everyone to live in a healthily functioning society, and that therefore it is also useful for everyone for the good of society to be promoted. But I don't understand where the normative part comes from. I think this may just be a fundamental difference in our philosophies of life

You say that people have a moral interest in their own flourishing. I just think they have an interest. I can see how a group of people might agree that they each have a similar goal, to pursue their own flourishing, and they may well also recognise that it is expedient for each of them to cooperate with the rest of the group in order to create the optimum environment for the furthering of each individual's flourishing.

But what I don't understand is where this becomes normative. I would imagine that there is some percentage of a population which can violate others' requirements for flourishing in order to further their own, without destroying the entire structure which allows them to gain this advantage in the first place. It's clear that you don't need every single member of a group to cooperate with the norms of that group in order for the group to remain cohesive and supportive of flourishing overall.

Please don't get me wrong - I think it is admirable for people to have the feeling that they would like to cooperate in order to further human flourishing within their group. I simply can't seem to find where the moral obligation to do so comes from, from the argument that you've presented here. If your argument is from personal expediency, I think you must agree that it is quite possible for some people to expediently violate the "rights" of others.

 

[LittleNipper]

I understand what is meant by "rights" in a legal sense - they are certain entitlements which are bestowed upon a group of people or upon all people by a government or other organisation. I understand that in the United Kingdom, every child has a right to an education, meaning that education is freely provided for every child, and it is against the law for children to receive an education between the ages of five and sixteen.

But I frequently hear people talking about inherent, inalienable, natural rights, and this is the point where I get confused. What kind of thing are these natural rights? What does having one of them mean in theory and in practice? Where do they come from, and can they be lost?

I find the concept especially confusing when someone attempts to argue from the supposed rights of someone or something that can't know it has rights - like a non-human animal, a brain-dead person, or a foetus. I can't imagine how the relationship between those beings and their rights is supposed to function. So I'd be very grateful if anyone who understands what these rights are might be able to explain them to me, since they seem to be such a popular thing to talk about in debate.

Everyone has the right to seek and strive do what they understand is best for everyone. Amimals have no rights, but their care is benificial to the enjoyment, health and welfare of human society in general. These rights are CREATOR endowed. Those that do no believe in a CREATOR will either be confused or misplace rights as being what is best for one's self, or what is best for "nature" or the whim of government. If one sees rights as bestowed by a much HIGHER POWER, one certainly can appreciate that control/manipulation is not something to grab or claim.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Everyone has the right to seek and strive do what they understand is best for everyone. Amimals have no rights, but their care is benificial to the enjoyment, health and welfare of human society in general. These rights are CREATOR endowed. Those that do no believe in a CREATOR will either be confused or misplace rights as being what is best for one's self, or what is best for "nature" or the whim of government. If one sees rights as bestowed by a much HIGHER POWER, one certainly can appreciate that control/manipulation is not something to grab or claim.

It's good, then, that everyone who believes in a creator also believes in the same creator-given rights.

Oh, wait.

 

[cantata]

Everyone has the right to seek and strive do what they understand is best for everyone. Amimals have no rights, but their care is benificial to the enjoyment, health and welfare of human society in general. These rights are CREATOR endowed. Those that do no believe in a CREATOR will either be confused or misplace rights as being what is best for one's self, or what is best for "nature" or the whim of government. If one sees rights as bestowed by a much HIGHER POWER, one certainly can appreciate that control/manipulation is not something to grab or claim.

Is there a biblical basis for the existence of rights? I can see lots of prohibitions, but no description of rights per se.

In what sense are rights bestowed, and what difference does it make to oneself to have had rights bestowed on one by a creator?

 

[Maren]

I think a problem here is that there are varying definition of the word "right". Eudaimonist spoke of one definition, Isambard another. In terms of the US legal definition, the idea was that governments are obligated to give its citizens certain rights that cannot (ethically) be denied. It was this philosophy that the Americans used to justify their rebellion, because they determined England was denying them these rights. And of course, other philosophers have, since the time of Locke and the American revolution, expanded on this idea of rights; such as animals having a right to expect good treatment from humans.

And just to confuse things further, some laws passed by governments give "rights", which does not refer to things the government cannot deny but rather additional things the law allows. One example is that procuring a driver's license gives you the "right" to drive, even though philosophy does not say that is an unalienable right.

 

[jayem]

If your argument is from personal expediency, I think you must agree that it is quite possible for some people to expediently violate the "rights" of others.

True, in the short term. I believe in the old adage about the chickens coming home to roost. People who regularly violate the rights of others, or take advantage of others will likely find themselves in difficult straits eventually. I can't say it's 100% certainty, but repeated misdeeds usually catch up with the doer...in some form or another. This doesn't create an obligation for cooperative behavior, but I'd say it's an incentive.

 

[cantata]

True, in the short term. I believe in the old adage about the chickens coming home to roost. People who regularly violate the rights of others, or take advantage of others will likely find themselves in difficult straits eventually. I can't say it's 100% certainty, but repeated misdeeds usually catch up with the doer...in some form or another. This doesn't create an obligation for cooperative behavior, but I'd say it's an incentive.

Accepted, but again this is expediency, not ethics. And "rights" certainly seems to have a normative slant.

 

[LittleNipper]

It's good, then, that everyone who believes in a creator also believes in the same creator-given rights.

Oh, wait.

Oh wait, the rights YOU hand out are not eternal ----- go figure.

 

[LittleNipper]

Is there a biblical basis for the existence of rights? I can see lots of prohibitions, but no description of rights per se.

In what sense are rights bestowed, and what difference does it make to oneself to have had rights bestowed on one by a creator?

Rights bestowed by GOD are permanent. Those bestowed by a government are only as permanent as that body feels it is to their advantage. The Bible does speak in terms of Liberty. It seems to me that even a cracked bell in Philadelphia reminds us of that reality.

 

[Polycarp1]

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

• Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 119
• Expanding on his statement that "a human being has no natural rights of any nature."

Thanks so much for quoting Col. Dubois' wise words. I suppose we should also give credit to Lt. Juan Rico and Adm. Anson MacDonald for their part in transmitting them to us.

There is an essential connection between the American and French revolutionaries' concept of natural rights and the concepts Col. Dubois espouses here. That is, there is a moral obligation on any human government to use its powers to protect rather than abridge such rights. Rights are not "inalienable' in the sense that government is powerless to violate them; rather, it is the obligation of the free person to be willing to place his own life, liberty, and sacred honor between those depending on him and those who would deprive them of those 'inalienable' rights. Another quote along the same context worth preserving, and from a closely related source, is J.J. Bonforte's "You cannot enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him."

 

[TeddyKGB]

Oh wait, the rights YOU hand out are not eternal ----- go figure.

What.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Rights bestowed by GOD are permanent.

Really? So I can't kill someone or hold someone against his will? Unless God allows it, I guess.

Those bestowed by a government are only as permanent as that body feels it is to their advantage. The Bible does speak in terms of Liberty. It seems to me that even a cracked bell in Philadelphia reminds us of that reality.

It seems to me that our predecessors had to take up arms against those who would have taken "our rights." Perhaps they never considered the alternative strategy of politely reminding the approaching ship crews and armies that they couldn't take away "our rights" because God gave them to us.

 

[Spherical Time]

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

• Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 119
• Expanding on his statement that "a human being has no natural rights of any nature."

That's an interesting statement. In what book does this appear on pg. 119 of?

When was it written? It certainly seems to have some relevance to the current political situation.

 

[keith99]

That's an interesting statement. In what book does this appear on pg. 119 of?

When was it written? It certainly seems to have some relevance to the current political situation.

Starship Troopers. One would expect it has relevance to most political situations. An excellent read and perhaps the easiest ever to tell if someone has read the book as opposed to seen the film.

John Rico with blond hair and blue eyes, what a laugh. I'll say no more.

See the film you will have no idea at all what a drop is or who Roger Young was.