What is a right?

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.

Ledifni said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ok, I admit that I like to contradict people just to find out what they really mean, even if they mean anything at all!

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

TeddyKGB said:

How are rights given or taken?

The Declaration of Independence speaks of "inalienable rights" but also states that a government is necessary to ensure those rights. And in any case, they do not seem all that inalienable: I can allow someone to kill me; I can be killed against my will.

It is often said that God can grant rights.

Click to expand...

That's right. That is where the whole concept of an individuals rights comes from. That is the basis in law for our civil rights. Without it, the law has no basis and can be sublimated to the will of those who have the most power. Without that, we have no rights, we can be bought, sold, used in any way or even killed by whoever is the stronger with no constraint whatsoever.

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:

That's right. That [grant from God] is where the whole concept of an individuals rights comes from.

Click to expand...

Rights only came from God in the sense that any other idea came from God. Saying that they came from God explains nothing.

What one has to explain is the moral basis of rights.

tiredimmigrant said:

Rights only came from God in the sense that any other idea came from God. Saying that they came from God explains nothing.

What one has to explain is the moral basis of rights.

Click to expand...

Actually if a rights claim is tied to the Divine will that serves as the moral basis by definition.

Orontes said:

Actually if a rights claim is tied to the Divine will that serves as the moral basis by definition.

Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose you're right. However, if rights are revealed (either directly to a believer or via a religious text), then there is really no point trying to explain them or justify them based on anything else. As the will of God, they just are.

So, if another religion says that a thief does not have the right to his hands, and they may chopped off, that divinely inspired law has the same status. In essence, the concept is removed from the realm of reason.

On the other hand, if rights are not directly revealed, then a process of reason -- from a more basic principle -- would be required.

Also, an atheist -- who cannot fall back on religious truths -- has to use reason alone to explain why individuals require rights and ought to have rights. So, the atheist has to look to his or her moral code for a more fundamental reason.

tiredimmigrant said:

So, if another religion says that a thief does not have the right to his hands, and they may chopped off, that divinely inspired law has the same status. In essence, the concept is removed from the realm of reason.

Click to expand...

Excuse me for interferring with your discussion, but there is a minor point to be aware of regarding this question.

The way I've had it explained by a Moslem, the hand of a thief is chopped of to spare the thief an even worse fate when finally being judged.

The rationale is that if you do something wrong, then if you're suffering in proportion to the wrong you've done, that wrong will not count.

So it's not simply a question of randomly given divine laws - there is some underlying logic to these laws.

I just thought to might want to know this.


cheers

- FreezBee

Actually if a rights claim is tied to the Divine will that serves as the moral basis by definition.

tiredimmigrant said:

Yes, I suppose you're right. However, if rights are revealed (either directly to a believer or via a religious text), then there is really no point trying to explain them or justify them based on anything else. As the will of God, they just are.

So, if another religion says that a thief does not have the right to his hands, and they may chopped off, that divinely inspired law has the same status. In essence, the concept is removed from the realm of reason.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If rights claim X is derived from religious precept that alone can be a coherent model. One could certainly challenge the source for the claim, but the coherency is still maintained. Coherency is one model of rationality.

On the other hand, if rights are not directly revealed, then a process of reason -- from a more basic principle -- would be required.

Also, an atheist -- who cannot fall back on religious truths -- has to use reason alone to explain why individuals require rights and ought to have rights. So, the atheist has to look to his or her moral code for a more fundamental reason.

Click to expand...

I don't know that a rights claim outside a religious dynamic requires any moral justification. A right can simply be a political expedient.

Orontes said:

If rights claim X is derived from religious precept that alone can be a coherent model. One could certainly challenge the source for the claim, but the coherency is still maintained. Coherency is one model of rationality.

Click to expand...

As long as the basis is religious revelation, there is really no purpose in discussing or attempting to reason about rights.

Orontes said:

I don't know that a rights claim outside a religious dynamic requires any moral justification. A right can simply be a political expedient.

Click to expand...

Expediency implies a "because". So, we then question the morality of that underlying reason.

I have a different take on the subject:

What is a right?

A right is anything that a person is categorically permitted to do. A right also is a restriction upon what may be done to one person by another. There is an old saying that says, "The right I have to swing my fist ends at the next man's nose." Meaning that Sam, as owner of his own body, is permitted to swing his arm in any matter that he should choose. Sam is restricted by Alex's right not to have her face impacted by Sam's exercise of this right.

Where do rights come from?

I agree that some rights come from society. For example, in Society X, it is permissable to wear a purple armband with yellow polka dots on any day of the year. In Society Y, it is only permissable to wear a purple armband with yellow polka dots on a particular day, in observance of a festival. In Society Z, it is not permissable to wear this armband on any day for any reason. In this example, we can see that, with regard to a particular article of clothing, Societies X, Y and Z grant permission (rights) in differing fashons.

Is there any such thing as 'inalienable rights'?

Certainly. One can observe this by looking at the word 'inalienable.' A careful examination of this word will lead to 'in-alien-able.' 'In' -- prefix meaning not. 'Alien' -- foreign or outside. 'Able' -- capable of being. By this reading, something is 'inalienable' if it is not capable of being foreign or put outside of something else. For example, being made of muscle tissue is an inalienable property of the human heart.

Additionally, someone (I forget who) stated that inalienable rights are untransferable -- that these rights are not able to be given up by us. I would say that these rights are non-transferable. It's not that we don't have the right to give them up, it is that it isn't possible for us to give them up. Inalienable rights are permissions that we have due to the fact that we're human.

Can inalienable rights be violated or taken away?

Violated? Certainly. Taken away? No. I have the right to free speech. This right is inalienable. By definition, it's not possible for me to give this right or for anyone to take it from me. It may certainly be violated by others. Others may silence me because they don't like what I have to say. What they cannot take away, however, is my capacity to speak my mind.

Just my $.02

Samurai

I disagree that rights come from society. Of course a society can recognize or not recognize rights and a society can violate or uphold rights. However, it would be wrong to say that a society decides on legimate rights.

If the leaders of a society deny legitimate free speech and enforce this with the threat of law, as in North Korea, China and Iran, then it is not "okay". Rights are required because of society, because of political organization (i.e., the need for human beings to deal with each other). However, some such groups and countries are moral and some are immoral. The moral ones respect individual rights.

TeddyKGB said:

A related question: How do we come to know what rights (of the inalienable sort I suppose) we have? Can they be delimited solely by noting whom their exercise might affect?

Click to expand...

We come to know what rights are legitimate by examining the reality: specifically the nature of man.

In other words, the process has to start with the question: what benefit does a human being get from living in society and what harm? This then leads to the question: how can we establish a principle that is applicable for all individuals, which can ensure that each individual benefits from society and is not harmed by society.

Historically, it has not been an easy question to answer. The ancient anwser was: sorry, not possible. Let's have a heirarchy of individuals, startiung with the king down. One answer that was tried historically, but really became widespread in the last few centuries, was to assume that all men are equal, and then to decide things by democratic vote. That sounded good, but didn't work either. Turns out that majorities are pretty good at tyrannizing minorities.

These experiences then led to the questions I asked above, and -- in turn -- led to the idea that individuals need certain rights.

In essence, the starting point for what rights a person has is: a person can do anything he or she wishes, as long as they do not do very narrowly defined forbidden acts.

So, the rights question really needs to be turned around: what things can a society legitimately and morally prevent a person from doing? What are the things that a person can be stopped from doing (e.g. murdering another) because to do so undermines the basic principle of living in a society.