What is a right?

[Abbadon]

The point is that everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. Obviously everyone is not equal in other areas. Einstien was a scientific genius but I doubt he could take on Michael Jordan in a game of one-on-one.

Read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut for a good look at the view that "everyone is equal".

Peace

Watch Monty Python's Life of Brian for an similar arguement of what I'm saying: Even if they don't have the capability, they have the right.

"I want to be a woman."

"Why?"

"I want to have babies."

"But you can't."

"Don't you go oppressing me, mate!"

"I'm not oppressing you, it's a fact of life, you can't have babies."

(Third person): "Look, why don't we just say he has the right to have babies, even if he does not have the capability to do so, which is noone's fault, but we will oppose those that oppress him from having babies nonetheless."

(Or something like that).

 

[tiredimmigrant]

The only question that remains, then, is whether a society (which we agree is right and good) needs slaves at all, ...

Is that the only question? I think there is another one.

I think the key question is what rights are legitimate; i.e., what rights should a good and moral society guarantee?

I actually think that asking "does a society need slaves" addresses the practicality of rights, not their morality. Let me explain. As we've both agreed (I think) rights are protections and guarantees given to an individual. Such guarantees make it worthwhile form an individual to be part of society. The primary beneficiary of rights is the individual. Then, one has to ask if such a society is practical -- can such a society actually work, or does society need slaves. I agree with your conclusion that societies function well without slaves. I don't think this was completely obvious through history. However, where we stand now, from what we know of history, or free societies and others, it is pretty clear (to me at least) that individuals thrive best (materially and spiritually) when they have guarantees of rights.

Still, the real question is not yet addressed: what rights are legitimate?

For instance, there is a big difference in the types of rights guaranteed by the first few amendments to the US Constitution and the types of rights one sees in the U.N. charter, or -- even more recently -- in the new Iraqi constitution.

 

[Magisterium]

Peace be to you,

The idea of "inalienable rights" as per this discussion are part of a larger idea.

Inalienable rights are the result of an underlying belief in a transcendent and objective moral standard to determine right and wrong. This standard must exist before any discussion of inalienable rights can come into existence. The problem we're seeing now, is that the moral foundation upon which the idea of rights (inalienable or otherwise) are based is being eroded. As such, we now are having difficulty distinguishing between rights and abilities.

Abilities are simply all actions that fall into the scope of a person's capability. However, rights encompass only those abilities which a person is authorized to do because they are "right" (hence the name "rights").

By analogy I'll use notes on a piano. On a standard piano there are 88 keys. Without a musical standard (sheet music) no note can be considered right or wrong. However, once a standard is introduced, keys are appropriated and ordered accordingly and notes can be identified as right or wrong.

This takes us to the "problem" of morality. Morality is defined as a standard of right and wrong. Rights can only be identified according to moral standard.

The US Declaration of Independence uses the terminology of "inalienable rights" in order to assert that no human being has the authority to give or to take away certain rights which are by order of dependence, the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. In other words, one must first be allowed to live before they can enjoy liberty, and they must likewise have liberty before thay can truly pursue happiness.

As for the idea that inalienable rights can be taken away, this is incorrect. Like any rights, these rights can be violated, but not taken away. These rights are not a possession, so much as a classification. This is why if you kill someone, you've not taken away their right to life, but you've violated their right to life (which is the understanding behind the "right to life" movement).


God love you.

 

[tiredimmigrant]

Inalienable rights are the result of an underlying belief in a transcendent and objective moral standard to determine right and wrong. This standard must exist before any discussion of inalienable rights can come into existence.

I agree to this extent: in order to determine what rights should be, we have to start with morality. Morality comes before politics and is a more fundamental study. Morality is where a person decides what is good and bad -- be it through rational thought, revelation or any other process.

However, rights encompass only those abilities which a person is authorized to do because they are "right" (hence the name "rights").

Firstly, this is a equivocation on the word "right". Many words are used to represent different concepts and equivocation merely serves it confuse. It's like saying a tall duck is not really a duck because it cannot duck too well.

More importantly, this idea is exactly the opposite of what political rights are. Political rights are rules that stop the majority from acting in certain ways toward a minority or an individual. If rights are interpreted to mean "whatever is the morally right thing to do", then in a politcal context that can only mean "what the majority think is right". And that, is exactly contradictory to the purpose and meaning of political rights. If rights are whatever the majority decides you should be doing, then the concept of political rights is rendered meaningless and all one is left with is dictatorship of the majority.

 

[Ledifni]

Is that the only question? I think there is another one.

I think the key question is what rights are legitimate; i.e., what rights should a good and moral society guarantee?

Certainly, that is the next important question. But I do not list it among the questions necessary to justify rights (which, I think, is the question posed by the OP) because it seems that the legitimacy of rights follows from the society that best performs its function, which is to extend the maximum benefits that it is possible to equally extend to all members.

Of course, the answer to that question involves much speculation and opinion and trial-and-error; I don't pretend that it's an easy question to answer, or that legitimate rights are self-evident. However, once we've decided that equal rights are necessary and defined the proper function of rights, we can set about the task of choosing legitimate rights with the knowledge that we're on the right path.

I actually think that asking "does a society need slaves" addresses the practicality of rights, not their morality. Let me explain. As we've both agreed (I think) rights are protections and guarantees given to an individual. Such guarantees make it worthwhile form an individual to be part of society. The primary beneficiary of rights is the individual. Then, one has to ask if such a society is practical -- can such a society actually work, or does society need slaves. I agree with your conclusion that societies function well without slaves. I don't think this was completely obvious through history. However, where we stand now, from what we know of history, or free societies and others, it is pretty clear (to me at least) that individuals thrive best (materially and spiritually) when they have guarantees of rights.

I agree, this is a question of practicality; but that's primarily the question I was trying to answer. I consider it far more important to establish the need for rights than to establish which rights are important, because the first defines our philosophy while the second is merely in the details.

Still, the real question is not yet addressed: what rights are legitimate?

For instance, there is a big difference in the types of rights guaranteed by the first few amendments to the US Constitution and the types of rights one sees in the U.N. charter, or -- even more recently -- in the new Iraqi constitution.

Certainly. And to be honest, our society has pretty much moved past the question of whether rights are necessary, and now our important question is which rights to extend. But that's a whole new line of argument, and there are a lot of very strong and intractable opinions (often frighteningly wrong ones, I might add) on the matter

 

[billwald]

Rights are determined by the social contract of one's society, tribe, whatever.

"God is on the side with the most cannon."

 

[tiredimmigrant]

... it seems that the legitimacy of rights follows from the society that best performs its function, which is to extend the maximum benefits that it is possible to equally extend to all members.

I disagree. This justification is the opposite of the original: i.e. the protection of the individual from the demands of the majority, the proection of the individual from being enslaved, the legal construct that gives an individual the peace of mind that participating in society is to her interest.

To use the benefit of society as a justification invites the tyranny of the majority.

 

[UberLutheran]

A right is something we do, which we think everyone should get to do.

As opposed to a privilege, which is something we do which we think others shouldn't get to do (unless we say they can).

 

[BrownCoat]

Rights are determined by the social contract of one's society, tribe, whatever.

"God is on the side with the most cannon."

That's a fair point.

"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun."

 

[TeddyKGB]

Rights are determined by the social contract of one's society, tribe, whatever.

"God is on the side with the most cannon."

Are inalienable rights, then, unrealistic ideals? For the record, I think so.

 

[Orontes]

Rights are determined by the social contract of one's society, tribe, whatever.

"God is on the side with the most cannon."

Are inalienable rights, then, unrealistic ideals? For the record, I think so.

Inalienable rights are not based on the social contract model. They predate it. Inalienable rights are tied to the notion of natural law which at the very least can be traced to St. Thomas.

Unrealistic ideals? Is liberty an unrealisitc ideal? To properly answer the question you would need to flush out unrealistic some.

 

[Ledifni]

I disagree. This justification is the opposite of the original: i.e. the protection of the individual from the demands of the majority, the proection of the individual from being enslaved, the legal construct that gives an individual the peace of mind that participating in society is to her interest.

To use the benefit of society as a justification invites the tyranny of the majority.

I think you misread me; I wasn't talking about the benefit of society, but the benefits society offers to its members. Society itself need not "benefit" at all except as necessary for it to perform its function.

... it seems that the legitimacy of rights follows from the society that best performs its function, which is to extend the maximum benefits that it is possible to equally extend to all members.

As you can see, I am saying that society benefits its members; that all members should receive the same benefits (as far as possible -- we can't avoid excluding at least some criminals) in a properly managed society; that the more society benefits its members, the better; and that, therefore, the proper function of society is to offer the maximum possible benefits to its members, while still providing equal representation to all members. Does this make more sense, now?

What I'm saying should not imply tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority involves making some members slaves of the others, and that's why I say society should provide equal benefits to all members. A society that greatly benefits the most powerful group but harms everyone else isn't a society; in that situation, the powerful group is society and all the others are their slaves.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Inalienable rights are not based on the social contract model. They predate it. Inalienable rights are tied to the notion of natural law which at the very least can be traced to St. Thomas.

I am aware. The Declaration of Independence, however, references inalienable rights, which makes me ask how we know rights can be inalienable and which ones.

Unrealistic ideals? Is liberty an unrealisitc ideal? To properly answer the question you would need to flush out unrealistic some.

Well, "liberty" is ill-defined to begin with. Obviously, no one can have freedom from every unwanted influence or constraint at all times.

 

[Orontes]

I am aware. The Declaration of Independence, however, references inalienable rights, which makes me ask how we know rights can be inalienable and which ones.

Ultimately the appeal falls back onto theology. Inalienable rights and natural law have no force outside of a theological dynamic. The same applies to their identification.

Well, "liberty" is ill-defined to begin with. Obviously, no one can have freedom from every unwanted influence or constraint at all times.

"Liberty" is ill-defined, but so is "unrealistic". If one takes liberty to mean a citizen's freedom from autocracy then it is and was realizable as demonstrated in the Tready of Paris in 1783.

 

[tiredimmigrant]

Ultimately the appeal falls back onto theology. Inalienable rights and natural law have no force outside of a theological dynamic. The same applies to their identification.

If the word "theology" were replaced by the word "morality", I would agree completely. Rights are inalienable in the sense that they ought not to be alienable in a moral society.

 

[FreezBee]

Peace be to you,

.... The problem we're seeing now, is that the moral foundation upon which the idea of rights (inalienable or otherwise) are based is being eroded. As such, we now are having difficulty distinguishing between rights and abilities.

Peace be to you as well,

And wishes, don't forget. Some are afraid that if homosexual marriages were to be legalized, then everybody would turn homosexual. BTW: how do I know they wouldn't?

As for the idea that inalienable rights can be taken away, this is incorrect. Like any rights, these rights can be violated, but not taken away. These rights are not a possession, so much as a classification. This is why if you kill someone, you've not taken away their right to life, but you've violated their right to life (which is the understanding behind the "right to life" movement).

Yes, inalienable rights cannot be taken away, since they are untransferrable: you don't even have the right to give them up yourself.

Now, in most countries laws nothing is said about the right to breathe (draw your breath, that is - not a misspelling for "breed"), still we consider that to be an obvious right.

Rights are grants that limit the rights of the granter. You have the right to drive your car on a public road - the public is the granter that limits it rights to put you in jail for trespassing.

Oh well, there is going to be a shutdown of all computers on these premisses, and I have not been granted the right to write anymore, so bye for now.

cheers

- FreezBee

 

[FreezBee]

.... I wasn't talking about the benefit of society, but the benefits society offers to its members. Society itself need not "benefit" at all except as necessary for it to perform its function.

Hmm, do you by that mean that society exists in itself - apart from its members? How else could society benefit itself - without benefitting its members?

If you remove all members from society, do you assume, society to remain left behind in itself?

As you can see, I am saying that society benefits its members; that all members should receive the same benefits (as far as possible -- we can't avoid excluding at least some criminals) in a properly managed society; that the more society benefits its members, the better; and that, therefore, the proper function of society is to offer the maximum possible benefits to its members, while still providing equal representation to all members. Does this make more sense, now?

Why should criminals be excluded? Maybe they became criminals because they didn't receive the same benefits - try to prove otherwise.

Yes, society should benefit its members, because society is its members. You cannot bebefit society as such without benefitting its members. Could you have a happy society of sad people, for instance?

What I'm saying should not imply tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority involves making some members slaves of the others, and that's why I say society should provide equal benefits to all members. A society that greatly benefits the most powerful group but harms everyone else isn't a society; in that situation, the powerful group is society and all the others are their slaves.

Yes, for once I do completely agree with you

But having said that, in actual practise it works that way: the most powerful group defines what it means to be that society - everybody that disagrees is anti-social, hence by their own choice not members of that society.


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Ledifni]

Hmm, do you by that mean that society exists in itself - apart from its members? How else could society benefit itself - without benefitting its members?

If you remove all members from society, do you assume, society to remain left behind in itself?

I'm not sure what your objection is here. No, society would not remain if its members were removed, any more than, say, the United States of America would remain behind in itself if we removed all the American people. Society is not a physical thing, it's an institution that consists of rules defining relationships between people.

But what does that matter with respect to my argument? As I said, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Why should criminals be excluded? Maybe they became criminals because they didn't receive the same benefits - try to prove otherwise.

Maybe they did. Does it matter? Society cannot survive if it doesn't do anything about its criminals. The purpose of society (as opposed to a mob) is to define rights and rules by which people can live with each other. People who violate those rights and rules are criminals. If society allows people to be criminals then it's not society; it's a mob, which benefits nobody. Do you have a suggestion as to how a society could survive if everybody was allowed to do whatever they want?

Yes, society should benefit its members, because society is its members. You cannot bebefit society as such without benefitting its members. Could you have a happy society of sad people, for instance?

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. But I'd like to make a couple of observations here.

First, society is not its members. A group of people in and of themselves are a mob; to have a society, you have to add rights and rules. So society is an institution that goes beyond a simple group of people.

Second, you are right that society must benefit its members, but it's not for the reason you're thinking -- it's not because society is its members. Society benefits its members by definition because, as I have defined it, society is an instutition whose function is to benefit its members. Insofar as society fulfills its function, it benefits its members; a society that does not benefit its members is a bad society.

For an example of an instutution that doesn't benefit its members, read Plato's Republic. He describes a city with extremely oppressive and restrictive rules, in which the members are divided into classes with specific functions, and are allowed to do only those things that aid that specific function; they are not permitted any activities that make them happy, but only activities that make them useful. Plato thinks this is a good system, and that the members will be vicariously happy through the power and productivity of their city; but I disagree. Power and productivity do nobody any good if they make everyone miserable.

In Plato's city, are the members benefitted? No. The members are miserable, unfulfilled, and incapable of seeing to their own well-being. Who benefits, then? The city benefits. The function of the city is to have the most skilled craftsmen and the most powerful army and the most authoritative rulers in the world; and the members work to benefit the city in performing its function. They do not work to benefit themselves, and the city does not benefit them at all.

So it is not a given that an instutition composed of people will benefit those people; rather, it is a given that an institution whose primary goal and function is to benefit its members (and who fulfills that function as well as possible), will benefit its members.

Yes, for once I do completely agree with you

But having said that, in actual practise it works that way: the most powerful group defines what it means to be that society - everybody that disagrees is anti-social, hence by their own choice not members of that society.

Well, that's the definition of power (in the sense of authoritative power) -- the ability to shape the behavior of other humans. However, it's not necessarily true that the most powerful group defines society. I think (though I'm not sure about this) that the most powerful group defines society only when society is less powerful than they are.

Look at Western democracies for a good example. The most powerful groups in those countries are often thwarted by the institutional rules that are in place to ensure that weaker members get heard. Naturally, these rules were originally created by the most powerful groups, because at that time there was no more powerful society to thwart the powerful group; and this usually happened when a weaker group gained the power to take control of society and then created rules to make sure that nobody can take power and create weak groups that do not benefit from society.

So the important thing here, I think, is to determine what rules will ensure that society functions properly, and get the most powerful group to enforce those rules so they become self-sustaining like the US Constitution. That system has worked well in the Western world so far; although it's not perfect, it's rapidly getting better and we are moving towards a world where all members are equally benefitted by society, no matter what powerful individuals try to do about it.

So in a way, this whole discussion is an anachronism; I'm trying to argue that rights can be rationally justified by simple rules, and the rules I'm proposing are already being used and have shown themselves to be very useful and effective in practice. I'm simply trying to show the rational basis for a system that we've all already seen working.

 

[Orontes]

Ultimately the appeal falls back onto theology. Inalienable rights and natural law have no force outside of a theological dynamic. The same applies to their identification.

If the word "theology" were replaced by the word "morality", I would agree completely. Rights are inalienable in the sense that they ought not to be alienable in a moral society.

Historically this is not correct. Natural law is the product of a larger theological positioning. Further, to try and ground inalienable rights language in morality alone begs the question.

 

[FreezBee]

FreezBee, I'm still entirely confused by your pattern of posting here. I can answer each of your objections in detail but I'm afraid we're getting nowhere, because I have no clue what you're getting at. It feels as if you're just looking for things to object to, and this is escalating so fast that I'm about to get swamped just from trying to address every little tiny detail you can find to object to. Can you please edit your post and include some statement of what you're getting at, so I know from what angle to address your post? Thanks.

Done - I have deleted the original post and replaced it with the text of my later post (#42). Is that ok?

For an example of an instutution that doesn't benefit its members, read Plato's Republic. He describes a city with extremely oppressive and restrictive rules, in which the members are divided into classes with specific functions, and are allowed to do only those things that aid that specific function; they are not permitted any activities that make them happy, but only activities that make them useful. Plato thinks this is a good system, and that the members will be vicariously happy through the power and productivity of their city; but I disagree. Power and productivity do nobody any good if they make everyone miserable.

I did take a peek in Plato's Republic this morning - I assume that you have read it yourself. Do you remember the discussion between Thrasymachos and Socrates?

Thrasymachos claims that righteousness is to benefit the strongest, and his argument runs something like this: righteousness is to obey the laws (translate that to: "rules"), the laws are made by the leaders, and the leaders are the strongest, and the strongest benefit themselves.

Now, Socrates compares the leaders to a physician. What is the role of a physician? To keep his patients healthy, that is, as a physician, he works to the benefit of the patient, not to pursuit his own happiness. The "patient" of the leaders of society is the society, so the leaders are supposed to keep society healthy.

Now, let's return to our discussion. You claim that in the city decribed in the Republic the inhabitants are not allowed to benefit themselves, they have to benefit the city. Have I understood you correctly here? Assuming I have, I ask: who is the city. What I mean is: you cannot bebefit the city without benefitting the inhabitants of that city - remove the inhabitants, will you then have a benefitted city left? You have already answered that question with a "no", so what I am confused about is, what do you mean by a city/society being benefitted without its members/inhabitants being benefitted?

As for rules, the problem is, that not everybody recognizes the same rules, there are no common rules - rules are always somebody's rules. Even with laws, there may be different interpretations of laws. Also, some people are more eager to drag others to court than others, some people take easier offense than others, and so on. Mere rules do not change a mob into a society, it only gives some rules for who has the right to mob who.

You seem to believe that the rules should protect the weak against the strong, but who defines, who is week? You cannot talk about humans outside a society - humans are assighed their properties (in any meaning of that word) by the society. Have you ever tried to change society? Even moving within sub-societies of a society can change a lot. One place you may be a competent, well-functioning member, but across the street you won't stand a chance.

Now, is this better?


cheers

- FreezBee