Rights

[olweasel]

How do you personally define rights?

Most of the sources I've used gave ambiguous, or subjective definitions.

People use rights as the very basis for their moral and legal ideologies.

They validate these rights as being god-given, or being self-evident (ex. natural rights).

But in actuality, is there a such thing as rights? Can there be morality and social cooperation without the espousing of a belief in rights?



Looking through some of the discussion on this forum, I've noticed that many of you tend to use the Randian definition of rights:

http://freedomkeys.com/rights.htm


I've found some interesting responses to this:

http://home.ca.inter.net/~grantsky/rights.html
http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=472


Also, George Carlin did an interesting bit on people's belief in rights. He goes on to make several good points, actually.

[YOUTUBE]4F1Lq1uFcAE[/YOUTUBE]​

 

How do you personally define rights?

Most of the sources I've used gave ambiguous, or subjective definitions.

I use the term "standards of interpersonal behaviour" to refer to ethics. Most people agree that there should be standards of interpersonal behaviour (and if you don't then I definitely can't have a conversation with you -- since that invokes a dozen such standards) so once we've got that far we need to determine what these standards should be.

This is a matter of some contention as you might imagine, but most people will agree to a few basic principles in this field:

Firstly that standards of behaviour should be universal. That is: they should be applicable to all people (explicitly: "currently sentient, rational agents") at all times and places, and in any situation.

Secondly, that standards of behaviour are only valid when negative rather than positive. The first point makes this so, but its worth clarification. Standards of behaviour should say what you can't do, not what you can do. The burden of proof is automatically on whoever is describing a standard.

Thirdly, that any system of ethics (standard of behaviour) should be evaluated from some pre-moral or super-moral perspectives. -- This is the sanity test. One such perspective is "conducivity to human life" (because the purpose of ethics is human flourishing.) Another is: do humans without any standard of behaviour fare better than humans with this particular standard of behaviour? (again: human flourishing.)

This, at the moment, isn't a complete proof. But it suffices to say that once you boil it down like so, applying the above rationally derived rules, you eventually get to just a few basic universal rules: One of which is don't steal (private property) and another of which is don't harm (non-aggression.)

 

[olweasel]

Secondly, that standards of behaviour are only valid when negative rather than positive. The first point makes this so, but its worth clarification. Standards of behaviour should say what you can't do, not what you can do. The burden of proof is automatically on whoever is describing a standard.

That's needed in order for rational ethics to be coherently applied.

But this is where your definition diverges from each and every other one I've heard.

In its legal application, a right entitles one to do something. You have the right to bear arms, to speak freely, etc.

 

That's needed in order for rational ethics to be coherently applied.

But this is where your definition diverges from each and every other one I've heard.

In its legal application, a right entitles one to do something. You have the right to bear arms, to speak freely, etc.

That's a common misconception. The right actually disallows others to take your guns away from you without just cause. The right to bare arms is a negative right.

To test if something is a negative or positive obligation ask how it is enforced? In the enforcement of said right are you required to do some particular thing (positive obligation) or to merely abstain from doing some particular thing (negative right)?

If we pretend that rights as commonly defined actually exist and are a valid concept we can elaborate the differences more clearly. The right to freedom of speech is merely the right to have others not restrict your capacities to produce and distribute information. The right to 'free healthcare' requires others to do something, namely provide you healthcare.

As we've both pointed out above, if you apply a sounder definition to ethics and rights, then this notion of a positive right goes by the wayside. 'Free healthcare' can't be universally valid for all people [currently sentient, rational agents] at all times in all situations, because else who is providing the healthcare? It would require a slave category of health-care worker in the simplest inception and it would violate the right to private property (thus creating a contradiction) in the complex inception. Further, it would label as immoral/unethical all those who lived before us who simply had no free capital or time to apply whatever medical knowledge they had to the general socialist welfare; Thus, arguably, it also fails the coma test as well as violating the first premise (universality) a number of times and creating an intractable contradiction in nearly all ethical standards.

(The coma test is that a man in a coma can necessarily do no wrong, therefore any ethical theory which accuses him of doing wrong is probably not a valid ethical theory.)

 

I believe that the term ''rights'' implies what a person should and should not expect to happen to them.

I expect to get paid a million dollars.

Rights are natural, stemming from morality which comes from reason.

Wouldn't natural rights stem from nature? And if not, which morality, and how are you defining that?

Because it is unethical to commit homicide, I should not expect to be murdered. It is thus my prerogative to be free of such moral evil. This is my natural right, determinable through reason and enforced by morality.

You've said nothing, just deferred the issue back one level: You say rights are expectations stemming from morality, and its immoral to commit homocide, therefore you have a right not to be murdered. You might as well say that rights are morality and leave it at that <- at least this would have a clear meaning.

 

[olweasel]

That's a common misconception. The right actually disallows others to take your guns away from you without just cause. The right to bare arms is a negative right.

To test if something is a negative or positive obligation ask how it is enforced? In the enforcement of said right are you required to do some particular thing (positive obligation) or to merely abstain from doing some particular thing (negative right)?

If we pretend that rights as commonly defined actually exist and are a valid concept we can elaborate the differences more clearly. The right to freedom of speech is merely the right to have others not restrict your capacities to produce and distribute information. The right to 'free healthcare' requires others to do something, namely provide you healthcare.

As we've both pointed out above, if you apply a sounder definition to ethics and rights, then this notion of a positive right goes by the wayside. 'Free healthcare' can't be universally valid for all people [currently sentient, rational agents] at all times in all situations, because else who is providing the healthcare? It would require a slave category of health-care worker in the simplest inception and it would violate the right to private property (thus creating a contradiction) in the complex inception. Further, it would label as immoral/unethical all those who lived before us who simply had no free capital or time to apply whatever medical knowledge they had to the general socialist welfare; Thus, arguably, it also fails the coma test as well as violating the first premise (universality) a number of times and creating an intractable contradiction in nearly all ethical standards.

(The coma test is that a man in a coma can necessarily do no wrong, therefore any ethical theory which accuses him of doing wrong is probably not a valid ethical theory.)

What I was getting at is, that's not how the right is used legally today.

If that is what the right really ensued, then it doesn't exist in that context.

The government decides in the first place who is permitted gun ownership.

They've seized guns from and imprisoned otherwise lawful people for simply not having the state's license.


I realize that I contradicted myself by using the right to free speech as an example. Since either way, that's always been universally recognized and applied as a negative right.

I agreed that distinguishing between positive and negative rights would make a lot more sense of things, stemming from the possibility of inherent rights.

Also, I brought up the discussion about rights to some left-wing ideologues, who in turn brought up "the right to universal healthcare". Interestingly, they tried to reach out by connecting it with "the fundamental right to live", which is a shared value of the right. They pretty much said: "If you deny someone healthcare, you deny them the right to live."

But the right to live basically means allowing someone to live, or non-coercion.

The moral assessment there rests with the reality that letting someone die doesn't equate to killing someone.

You can logically come to the conclusion that the right to live does not implicate the right to universal healthcare.

I believe that the term ''rights'' implies what a person should and should not expect to happen to them. Rights are natural, stemming from morality which comes from reason. Because it is unethical to commit homicide, I should not expect to be murdered. It is thus my prerogative to be free of such moral evil. This is my natural right, determinable through reason and enforced by morality.

You didn't provide any actual definition as to what rights are.

 

What I was getting at is, that's not how the right is used legally today.

If that is what the right really ensued, then it doesn't exist in that context.

The government decides in the first place who is permitted gun ownership.

They've seized guns from and imprisoned otherwise lawful people for simply not having the state's license.

Yes, in common language it means government endowed privilege.

Also, I brought up the discussion about rights to some left-wing ideologues, who in turn brought up "the right to universal healthcare". Interestingly, they tried to reach out by connecting it with "the fundamental right to live", which is a shared value of the right. They pretty much said: "If you deny someone healthcare, you deny them the right to live."

The philosophy of "right to life" was largely replaced with self-ownership to avoid this confusion. The confusion is actually deliberate on the part of the marxists and socialists. They've been polluting the terms of the original liberals for centuries.

You didn't provide any actual definition as to what rights are.

Or how the concept of justice fits into a purely moral definition of rights.

 

[olweasel]

I think "the right to abortion" would be another point of interest.

Pro-life advocates could claim that it's a positive right, and that it obliges physicians to perform abortions.

Pro-choice advocates could claim that it's a negative right, and that it keeps the state from forbidding abortions.

 

[FireZ]

I believe rights and privileges get twisted/reversed all the time.

Just because you think you should have something doesn't mean you are entitled to it.

Rights are natural but some rights come with "Rules". My example here is voting. Anyone in the U.S. who meets a few certain requirements automatically attains the right to vote. Whether they use it or not is up to them.

In the end there are basic moral rights and then there are "acquired" rights such as above. Most of these rights are privileges that can be taken away.

 

[olweasel]

I believe rights and privileges get twisted/reversed all the time.

You should first provide your definitions and then explain how to logically distinguish between the two.

Just because you think you should have something doesn't mean you are entitled to it.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

But don't you agree with the vast majority of people in thinking of a right as an entitlement to begin with?

Rights are natural but some rights come with "Rules". My example here is voting. Anyone in the U.S. who meets a few certain requirements automatically attains the right to vote. Whether they use it or not is up to them.

How are rights natural?

How would rights be so if they were governed by any other force than nature?

In the end there are basic moral rights and then there are "acquired" rights such as above. Most of these rights are privileges that can be taken away.

That sounds especially confusing when I weigh in your first statement.

 

[¥The Irish Pker¥]

I believe "rights" is just a term used for one's own morals and principals. Their are those "god given rights" that are naturally known, and those that the government has placed to keep a certain order over the masses.

 

[olweasel]

I believe "rights" is just a term used for one's own morals and principals.

But do you think that the concept is really valid or applicable?