What is a right?

[capefeather]

Didn't want to derail existing threads but I find this mildly interesting to talk about. That and while there are much more intelligent forums out there to talk about this, I guess they're a bit... too together? Not sure what to say about it.

The "moral" debates on a lot of the political threads depend greatly on what people think a "right" should be, and whether people think inaction is an action in itself. If you think that a "right" is something that people are legally compelled to exercise, well, you're going to run into a problem. See, in that sense, "rights" clash. Because of socioeconomic factors, you're not going to be able to satisfy every "right" in that sense. In fact, your supposed "right" to choose what you want to do is violated by basically every other "right". So either rights should be extremely weak and inaction should not be viewed as an action in itself, or this definition of "right" is unsuitable.

The other thing is that choices clash, too. You (a private enterprise, not a government) want to build a freeway passing through what is currently my house, and I don't want my house to be demolished. Obviously, someone has to be *gasp* forced into doing something he/she doesn't want. Forcing people to do stuff, even making them "slaves to the system" (whatever that means exactly), is inevitable. Someone has to run the sewers, someone has to address medical problems, someone has to do the "dirty work" and like it. This is not a black-and-white issue of which policies infringe on your "freedom" (they all do); rather, anyone who wishes to invoke "maximization of freedom" should do it quantitatively, and recognize that no one I know of would endorse utilitarianism in its purest, most global form, where I'd have to give everything I get to someone less fortunate.

I think that rights are ways of communicating our ultimate desires for society, not how we should force people into any kind of action. Accepting a right is not a matter of, "I'm obligated to do this no matter how unreasonable or impossible it is," but rather, "I'll do the best I can to do this in a manner that makes it coexist with other rights." It's a sign of commitment that can be broken if it's unreasonable... kind of like marriage. You're not being an evil nepotist if you hire your brother rather than the guy you don't know, assuming you have no other way of picking one over the other (same qualifications). This isn't black-and-white.

But that's just what I think. What about you guys?

 

[Alan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

 

[Temperantia]

Pretty much what Alan said. If you want to get into civil rights and law and how that interacts/interferes with natural law, that's when shit is flung.

 

[Stratos]

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4104394&postcount=246

 

[capefeather]

Well, I do know some of the stuff in that Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure what you guys are trying to say. I can read up on everything if you want, but what does that change?

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

that's your right

 

[MrIndigo]

An entitlement to perform or prevent certain types of behaviour.

 

[FlareBlitz]

A right is the ability to do what you want, which is either reinforced or negated by the existence of others also doing what they want. Groups of humans get together and form societies to defend certain rights from being negated or to reinforce certain rights.

There is no "natural law".

 

[Deck Knight]

A right is the ability to do what you want, which is either reinforced or negated by the existence of others also doing what they want. Groups of humans get together and form societies to defend certain rights from being negated or to reinforce certain rights.

There is no "natural law".

Every instance of "right" in your sentence could be replaced by "privilege" and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

The difference between a right and a privilege is that a right is unalienable. It must therefore have features that make it universal, distinct, intangible, and unlimited.

Universal because rights must be self-evident. A protection on a human being established merely by the human being existing.

Distinct because rights must be definable, there must be clear ways to determine if a right has been violated by another person or a government. This gets into Justice, which I'll touch on at the end of my post.

Intangible because they must be universal, i.e. they do not require any other being to supply them to you in the practice of that right.

Unlimited because they must be universal and intangible, i.e. they must be available to be exercised as many times as possible. E.g. you cannot have a right to free speech only 3 times. You cannot have a right to life that only lasts for the first 20 years of it.

The Declaration of Independence spells out three such unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which Madison chose rather than Locke's "property" so that eventually slavery could be abolished).

Justice is ultimately the balancing of rights against each other. When someone uses their liberty to infringe upon another's life, they have committed a punishable act. If the aggressor, in the process of trying to take a life forfeits his own in the altercation, that act is not punishable. The action of the aggressor in question was to suspend the right to life of the intended target, and in so doing he opened himself up to retaliation of the same terms.

Where Justice gets tricky is when different rights are weighed against each other, such as someone who in defense of their family or their property takes the life of the aggressor. That is where public policy and jurisprudence come in to take the measure of the rights of each party and to come to a conclusion.

Of course natural law exists. Rights supersede governments. If a government can take it away from you (in an objectively just manner in and of that usurpation itself), it isn't a right.

 

[billymills]

A right is something you are willing and able to defend if you felt you needed to. Natural law does not exist, and what is written in a document, no matter how important to the founding of the United States, does not imply that universal rights exist.

If rights were universal they could not be inconsistent: there could not be scenarios in which you would chose one over another. They would need to hold in all possible scenarios. If rights were universal they would not only be limited to humans, they would need to apply in whatever minor way to everyone and everything. (You are free to harm animals as much as you want, you just can't harm ones that are cute or that are actively defended by humans.)

Rights have changed over time and reflect the opinion of those who are willing to fight about it.

@MrIndigo: I am talking about rights. I do not believe Human or Natural rights exist.

 

[MrIndigo]

Every instance of "right" in your sentence could be replaced by "privilege" and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

The difference between a right and a privilege is that a right is unalienable. It must therefore have features that make it universal, distinct, intangible, and unlimited.

Universal because rights must be self-evident. A protection on a human being established merely by the human being existing.

Distinct because rights must be definable, there must be clear ways to determine if a right has been violated by another person or a government. This gets into Justice, which I'll touch on at the end of my post.

Intangible because they must be universal, i.e. they do not require any other being to supply them to you in the practice of that right.

Unlimited because they must be universal and intangible, i.e. they must be available to be exercised as many times as possible. E.g. you cannot have a right to free speech only 3 times. You cannot have a right to life that only lasts for the first 20 years of it.

I disagree with your assumption that you can't have a right that's limited by duration or times, nor one that is nonuniversal.

We're looking for a -right-, not a 'human right'. A right granted to a subset of people could still be a right even though there are humans who don't have it.

Similarly, a right that had a fixed duration (say, the first 20 years of your life in your example) is still a right throughout that duration. It would only be a privilege if it could be revoked during that period.

Also @Flare: You're only describing positive rights there, not negative. It's not just a right to DO something (positive rights), it's a right to stop things being DONE TO you (negative rights).


@thread generally - Are you talking about 'rights' or 'natural rights'/'human rights'. One is a subset of the other.

 

[umbarsc]

There are two kinds of rights -- socioeconomic rights and civil/political rights. Socioeconomic rights are the rights to basic goods (like food and shelter), while civil/political rights are traditional Western rights like the right to worship, vote, free speech, etc. How you prioritize these rights reflects your upbringing/status -- most people who value political rights are privileged westerners, while there aren't as many poor people declaring property to be an absolute sacred right (you can guess which one I'm more sympathetic to). Rights are probably more of a cultural construct than a moral truth, and even most deontologists will concede that there are at least some limits to rights (i.e., killing one innocent person to prevent nuclear war).

One thing that makes discussion very muddled is when people conflate moral and legal rights. Legal rights are descriptive, moral rights are normative. Legal rights are basically social norms or codified rules that give protection/entitlement, while moral rights (as contextualized by a theory of morality) are rights that ought to be upheld, even if no one does.

The difference between a right and a privilege is that a right is unalienable. It must therefore have features that make it universal, distinct, intangible, and unlimited.

Justice is ultimately the balancing of rights against each other. When someone uses their liberty to infringe upon another's life, they have committed a punishable act. If the aggressor, in the process of trying to take a life forfeits his own in the altercation, that act is not punishable. The action of the aggressor in question was to suspend the right to life of the intended target, and in so doing he opened himself up to retaliation of the same terms.

These two seem to contradict. If a right is "inalienable", "unlimited", and "established merely by the human being existing", it seems like you can't take away someone's right just because they infringed upon someone else's rights. If you say they gave up their right, that seems to contradict "by virtue of being human".

Of course natural law exists. Rights supersede governments. If a government can take it away from you (in an objectively just manner in and of that usurpation itself), it isn't a right.

So rights exist because governments can't be just if they violate rights? What circular reasoning?

Also, saying that "natural law" exists doesn't really say anything because it's entirely devoid of meaningful content. Natural law could mean the right to life, liberty, and property, or it could mean utilitarianism (in which case no one has inalienable rights), or it could mean something else altogether. Once you begin to say that this one specific conception of "natural law" is true, you're just begging the question (more generally, appealing to "natural law" is usually just a way of saying "I'm right, it's self-evident" and stopping there).

 

[Alan]

Technically speaking, a right is anything you feel you are entitled to. This varies from person to person, obviously. Someone in, lets say, Kenya probably values food and shelter more than the freedom to protest and practice whatever religion they please. The reason I linked to the Natural Law thing earlier in the thread is because the idea of natural law outlines what are considered by most to be basic human rights. Natural law promotes a very laissez-faire way of thinking, in that, if it doesn't affect others negatively, then it's an acceptable thing. (I thought everyone knew what natural law was when I linked it, so I'm just giving it a quick once-over). If you do an action that negatively impacts another person, than you are expected to be reprimanded for it (re: death penalty for murder, prison time for thievery, etc).

I think that makes sense... to me at least...

 

[FlareBlitz]

Every instance of "right" in your sentence could be replaced by "privilege" and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

That was intentional. "Rights" and "privileges" are the same.

The difference between a right and a privilege is that a right is unalienable. It must therefore have features that make it universal, distinct, intangible, and unlimited.

Rights are not inalienable. You have a right to life, but someone can murder you. Murder is illegal, of course, but that doesn't bring you back to life.

Universal because rights must be self-evident. A protection on a human being established merely by the human being existing.

Is it self-evident that you have a right to property merely by existing? It would be amusing if you say yes, since property didn't even exist for a large part of humanity's history.

The Declaration of Independence spells out three such unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which Madison chose rather than Locke's "property" so that eventually slavery could be abolished).

The declaration of independence is an example of what I was talking about - "Groups of humans get together and form societies to defend certain rights from being negated or to reinforce certain rights."

Justice is ultimately the balancing of rights against each other.

Spoken like a true liberal. I would agree entirely.

Of course natural law exists. Rights supersede governments.

Not really. The first Homo Sapien to walk the planet had no rights. We eventually established societies, and then decided to create a set of ethics and behaviors that were individual to each society and, holistically, created "rights". Rights do not exist outside of the constructs used to define and defend them.

Also @Flare: You're only describing positive rights there, not negative. It's not just a right to DO something (positive rights), it's a right to stop things being DONE TO you (negative rights).

Same thing. Stopping something being done to you IS doing something. The differentiation between positive / negative rights are an amusing trick of semantics created by libertarians to justify their lack of support for sensible things like universal healthcare. Any "positive" right can be made to be a "negative" right and vice versa, simply by modifying the language of the situation.

 

[MrIndigo]

Same thing. Stopping something being done to you IS doing something. The differentiation between positive / negative rights are an amusing trick of semantics created by libertarians to justify their lack of support for sensible things like universal healthcare. Any "positive" right can be made to be a "negative" right and vice versa, simply by modifying the language of the situation.

No, there is a difference - in fact, one of the parts of the legal system (property) is based upon it (negative and positive covenants pass differently when land ownership is transferred).

For example, the right to not be punched in the face is a negative right.

The fact that you can phrase it as a positive sentence doesn't change the fundamental nature of the right itself. If it's a right that permits you to take action unrestrained, it's positive. If it's a right that restrains another's action while you remain inactive, it's negative.

It's not really that relevant in terms of the concept of clashing rights/justice, since two positive rights or a positive and a negative right regularly clash (I struggle to think of two negative rights clashing, but it could be possible). The balancing act is still used.

 

[Razza]

everyone having the right to vote is a bad idea, i dont think stupid people should have the right to vote as they will have no idea what they are actually voting for.

On the other hand establishing criteria that determine competency for voting would be incredibly hard to make and impossible to implement.

Democracy: the only place where 2 idiots can outdo a genius

 

[MrIndigo]

everyone having the right to vote is a bad idea, i dont think stupid people should have the right to vote as they will have no idea what they are actually voting for.

One of my professors has done a study that shows that the majority of Americans have voted FOR policies that work directly against their interest.

 

[Ice-eyes]

One of my professors has done a study that shows that the majority of Americans have voted FOR policies that work directly against their interest.

It's the typical scenario - a social conservative worker votes for a conservative candidate, and his trade union gets abolished as a result.

The problem is that the expressive value of your vote is far greater than the real value of your vote, because the probability of your vote actually mattering is miniscule, but you always get the expressive value.

 

[Yuki [old]]

On the other hand establishing criteria that determine competency for voting would be incredibly hard to make and impossible to implement.

Such a test could also prevent minorities and immigrants whose first language isn't English for voting in their best interests.

We've seen this happen before in American history: shortly after the Reconstruction era ended several states in the former Confederacy passed laws that required a basic literacy test before a person could vote. On the surface this makes sense, but there was an underhanded reason for it: being a few years removed from slavery in an enviornment that was unfriendly to them, the majority of blacks who remained in the south did not know how to read, so these laws effectively kept them out of the political system until they were ruled unconstitutional.

 

[az]

interesting; i disagree with almost every post in this thread

"rights" do not and cannot exist in my eyes unless they are conferred by duties

else you're just shouting out that you have x -- stating you have a right to a fair trial, fex, doesn't suddenly transform a dystopia into a fair and impartial political and criminal justice system

the only context in which they have any valuable meaning is when thought of as part of a social contract you make with a higher power. a right is an appeal to that contract -- it has been laid out beforehand that y gives you x, so you are entitled to x. you have a right to x

any other "right" is fanciful

 

[capefeather]

Rights in the abstract sense can still provide a direction to take a society, and give us a basis for evaluating various governments. Of course you can't transform a dystopia with just an idea of rights or even a document recording them. However, that can't be entirely avoided, anyway. You can't stop people from killing by showing them the Bill of Rights, either.

What higher power would you suggest, anyway?

 

[az]

your thought process is the wrong way round

governments should be evaluated on how well the uphold their end of the social contract (or whether there even is one), not how well they subscribe to your individual idea of abstract norms that appear to be universal but are in fact subjective

the higher power is the state

 

[FlareBlitz]

The fact that you can phrase it as a positive sentence doesn't change the fundamental nature of the right itself.

This is the part that confuses me about your post. Rights are abstract, and language is used to define them. If the difference between a negative and a positive right can be boiled down to a difference in linguistic representation (that is, if a positive right can be logically rephrased as a negative right), I would argue that it does change the fundamental nature of the right itself, simply because the fundamental nature of any right is contingent upon the language used to define it.

I realize that common law recognizes the existence of positive / negative rights in certain fields, but that's more due to the utility of such categories than a philosophical statement as to their validity.

It's not really that relevant in terms of the concept of clashing rights/justice, since two positive rights or a positive and a negative right regularly clash (I struggle to think of two negative rights clashing, but it could be possible). The balancing act is still used.

I see. My apologies for misinterpreting your intent.

governments should be evaluated on how well the uphold their end of the social contract (or whether there even is one), not how well they subscribe to your individual idea of abstract norms that appear to be universal but are in fact subjective

^

 

[MrIndigo]

This is the part that confuses me about your post. Rights are abstract, and language is used to define them. If the difference between a negative and a positive right can be boiled down to a difference in linguistic representation (that is, if a positive right can be logically rephrased as a negative right), I would argue that it does change the fundamental nature of the right itself, simply because the fundamental nature of any right is contingent upon the language used to define it.

I realize that common law recognizes the existence of positive / negative rights in certain fields, but that's more due to the utility of such categories than a philosophical statement as to their validity.

The same sort of thing is at work - it's sort of a substance over form thing for the most part (i.e. regardless of how you describe the right, what actually happens when a person exercises it?).

That being said, it does form the basis of some philosophical positions related to the balancing of rights. For example, some people believe that when a positive right and a negative right clash, the negative right should win. The premise is that compelled noninteraction is less harmful overall than compelled interaction, or that people should be entitled to have a totally solipsist existence if they want to.

 

[Hipmonlee]

your thought process is the wrong way round

governments should be evaluated on how well the uphold their end of the social contract (or whether there even is one), not how well they subscribe to your individual idea of abstract norms that appear to be universal but are in fact subjective

the higher power is the state

Surely governments should be evaluated on both of these things. A government that is extremely thorough in upholding the contract "when we arbitrarily imprison and torture you, we agree that we will be responsible for feeding your pets" I am pretty sure is not a good government.

A person's idea of abstract norms is usually pretty close to what that person would accept from their government. They dont need to be universal to be relevant.