What Rights Are and Are Not

[Feelings]

Herroo friends. I been pondering some shit and wanted to run it past y'all to see if there are any big gaping holes I've missed.

What impression do you get, when somebody says that something is a "right"? "Natural rights", aka "human rights" or "inalienable rights" are said to be "self-evident and universal" sez Wiki. To me, the gravity of entitlement and immutability implied by the characterization of something as a 'right' presumes too far. I think that a more fitting word for 'right' is 'preference'. For illustration purposes, here are a few lines from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the U.N.:

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Who made these rules (not these rules specifically, but where do notions such as equality, fairness, humane treatment and dignity get their status as an 'entitlement'), and why? Why it came from humans!! We made this shit right up. We don't like being treated as less than anyone else. We don't like doing twice the work for half the pay. We don't like being arrested just because the cop didn't like our face. We don't like getting shot in the head. And it bothers us when such things happen to others as well. Also, there is a 'social contract' aspect to this as well. If nobody is allowed to hurt anybody else, then we are all better off.

My hypothesis is that rights are only rights because we say that they are. There is no further preponderance to rights than this.

 

[arbygil]

If we break it down, perhaps it's more of a moral answer, than a simple black and white one. We all want to be treated a certain way, and we all inherently hope for or believe that if we treat someone well, that we'll be treated well in return. The whole "do unto others" thing.

I think the need for our rights came from a deeper, innate moral code. The Social Contract (Rousseau et al) goes into this a bit more, and you can find books and texts on this philosophical theory. Whether it works or not is another story.

 

[invisible]

they're human because they rise above animal things: dominance, territorialism, etc. yes we made it all up, but perhaps that is just the point - that it is in our nature to be able to decide to be greater than animals. our ability to make these decisions is what separates us and makes us human. otherwise aren't we wasting our human potential?

 

[Feelings]

If we break it down, perhaps it's more of a moral answer, than a simple black and white one. We all want to be treated a certain way, and we all inherently hope for or believe that if we treat someone well, that we'll be treated well in return. The whole "do unto others" thing.

I think the need for our rights came from a deeper, innate moral code. The Social Contract (Rousseau et al) goes into this a bit more, and you can find books and texts on this philosophical theory. Whether it works or not is another story.

I think I covered this in my post. We want to be treated a certain way, so we make up a bunch of rules stating that people should treat each other that way. But essentially we're making up rules to suit our own preferences, and call those rules 'rights'. I'm not saying this is wrong, or that it doesn't work, but I'm drilling down to the essence of what a 'right' really is.

 

[Feelings]

they're human because they rise above animal things: dominance, territorialism, etc. yes we made it all up, but perhaps that is just the point - that it is in our nature to be able to decide to be greater than animals. our ability to make these decisions is what separates us and makes us human. otherwise aren't we wasting our human potential?

I wouldn't go so far to say that we rise above other animals in those respects. Humans are generally pretty darn selfish. But my hypothesis is not about how different we are from other animals, or in what respects we are greater. I'm drilling down to the essence of what a 'right' is.

 

[invisible]

I wouldn't go so far to say that we rise above other animals in those respects. Humans are generally pretty darn selfish. But my hypothesis is not about how different we are from other animals, or in what respects we are greater. I'm drilling down to the essence of what a 'right' is.

sorry, my way of communicating my thoughts may have been unclear. i don't think humans necessarily rise above animals in terms of dominance, selfishness, territorialism, whatever, or are automatically greater than other animals. what i meant is that as humans we naturally have unique abilities to perceive our more animal qualities and to choose to rise above them. i think the notion of rights arises from this difference and this ability, and that rights are about making a choice to rise above being animal. these sorts of human rights statements seem to me to be designed to safeguard against animal things, to protect humans from being treated by each other in ways that we as humans are able to, but other animals are not. they are our rights as humans because they are uniquely human, inborn and natural, arising from the ability to make uniquely human discriminations based on transcending animality. i realise, this is a rather idealistic perspective, but then i think ultimately the whole idea of human rights is idealistic. not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[AzulSoul]

In my opinion, all of the 'rights' we have in western society are actually privileges that come with the cost of responsibility. If you think about it from an analytical point of view, 'rights' provide an evolutionary advantage. A society that makes a set of 'rights' and ensure that all members respect them can work much better as a collective and is much more efficient.

What interests me more is different culture's view on the punishment for breaking another's 'rights'. In England there is no death penalty, so if you murder another person you don't forfeit your own 'right to life'. In the USA things are different....

These privileges are important from a spiritual perspective because everyone is born deserving of them. They're privileges because we have broken them, and when we see them broken we (societies) tend to do nothing about it. Now, I wonder what that says about humanity......

 

[Rasmus]

*Rasmus1981 puts his gloves and begins his warm up*My response will be here soon.

 

[invisible]

:wof:

 

[arbygil]

I think I covered this in my post. We want to be treated a certain way, so we make up a bunch of rules stating that people should treat each other that way. But essentially we're making up rules to suit our own preferences, and call those rules 'rights'. I'm not saying this is wrong, or that it doesn't work, but I'm drilling down to the essence of what a 'right' really is.

You may not find it, though - a "right" is a moral and very personal idea. It's a philosophical idea. I'm not sure you can actually pin it down. It's like asking why humans murder or why humans fall in love. There's no real reason for some of these things, but we are indignant when our rights are taken away. But not every "right" is important or ethical. Our rights may conflict with someone else's - and then, who is more correct?

Why do we have rights? Why not? I don't think you can live your life without righs. Prisoners even have some rights, although this varies from country to country. Some just have the right to breathe and survive.

 

[grt$5vb]

Checks and balances to keep unethical people from yielding all the power?

 

[Gaze]

In my opinion, all of the 'rights' we have in western society are actually privileges that come with the cost of responsibility.

This^^^. Many of what we claim are "rights" once were simply "privileges" meaning that they weren't deserved but received as a result of chance or opportunity, or gained. Today, rights are "entitlements" we are told we should have simply because we are people. That's problematic and often abused.

For example, it's often the case to hear "I should have the right to the same amount of money as someone else" although we didn't earn it or work for it. But yet somehow, we're told "we have a right to wealth". Now, we have this sense that we should just get things just because. Just a note: I'm not arguing we should have to roll stones up a hill just to have basic rights. The argument is that anything we get we should receive effortlessly. It's like we've lost what it means to earn something because we're so focused on our "right" to have it without having to do anything.

We also use the concept of rights to excuse ourselves from considering other people's feelings. Since it's our right to do what we want and say whatever we feel, we don't have any responsibility to anyone else to consider how our insistence on our right to get what we want affects anyone else directly or indirectly. We've become very comfortable with the idea that we shouldn't have to worry about anything or have consequences.

For example, today, the idea that everyone has a right to education makes people think that they shouldn't have to work for it.

I am not arguing that life should not be easier and that we shouldn't work to make life better and not as stressful for everyone, but we underestimate the value of earning something rather than simply expecting it just because it's a "right".

 

[Feelings]

sorry, my way of communicating my thoughts may have been unclear. i don't think humans necessarily rise above animals in terms of dominance, selfishness, territorialism, whatever, or are automatically greater than other animals. what i meant is that as humans we naturally have unique abilities to perceive our more animal qualities and to choose to rise above them. i think the notion of rights arises from this difference and this ability, and that rights are about making a choice to rise above being animal.

The notion that we are 'rising above' is a human judgement, and based upon deeply seeded values. Why is pleasure good and pain bad? Why is life good and death generally considered bad? Because humans (and possibly other animals) like it that way, that's why.

these sorts of human rights statements seem to me to be designed to safeguard against animal things, to protect humans from being treated by each other in ways that we as humans are able to, but other animals are not. they are our rights as humans because they are uniquely human, inborn and natural, arising from the ability to make uniquely human discriminations based on transcending animality. i realise, this is a rather idealistic perspective, but then i think ultimately the whole idea of human rights is idealistic. not that there's anything wrong with that.

That's the common argument for human rights. That these rights are 'self-evident'. As in, they are our rights because it is obvious that they are. Not much of an argument if you ask me.

 

[invisible]

wow, it's just like as though you really read what I wrote. thank you.

 

[Feelings]

In my opinion, all of the 'rights' we have in western society are actually privileges that come with the cost of responsibility. If you think about it from an analytical point of view, 'rights' provide an evolutionary advantage. A society that makes a set of 'rights' and ensure that all members respect them can work much better as a collective and is much more efficient.

Well I looked up the word 'privilege' and apparently it means the same thing as 'right'. I feel as though the term 'privilege' carries less of a weight of entitlement as the term 'right' does, though. And, I interpret 'responsibility' as meaning that because we are afforded certain privileges, that we are responsible for granting the same privileges to others in return. As I referenced in OP, it has been purported that the reason for having rights is because of a social contract. Society does work better and is more efficient if there are certain rules in place.

What interests me more is different culture's view on the punishment for breaking another's 'rights'. In England there is no death penalty, so if you murder another person you don't forfeit your own 'right to life'. In the USA things are different....

I think this deserves to be treated as a separate topic. Now we're getting into 'law', law as an expression and enforcement of what is socially prescribed as acceptable behavior.

These privileges are important from a spiritual perspective because everyone is born deserving of them.

The notion of 'deserving' is a human opinion based upon what we prefer.

 

[Feelings]

*Rasmus1981 puts his gloves and begins his warm up*My response will be here soon.

U been warming up 12 hours. You must have started out really cold.

 

[Feelings]

It's like asking why humans murder or why humans fall in love. There's no real reason for some of these things,

Yes, there is. The answer is in how our brains are wired.

but we are indignant when our rights are taken away. But not every "right" is important or ethical. Our rights may conflict with someone else's - and then, who is more correct?

I too believe that rights are a very personal idea. I think that seeing rights as a personal 'opinion' or 'preference' is more realistic than a more common way of seeing rights, which is that of an empirical entitlement, as a FACT of life.

 

[Feelings]

Checks and balances to keep unethical people from yielding all the power?

How are ethics determined?

 

[grt$5vb]

I knew that would come into question. It would seem they are subjective.

 

[Radiantshadow]

I don't think there are any "natural rights" aside from what you're willing to fight for; if it's judged important enough to be worth defending by whomever, it is a 'right'. Objectively, the only basis for entitlements is for power and security to evade death long enough to continue a species and preserve the lifestyle that let them do so*. Along the evolutionary line, someone decided group-think was more useful than solo flight through the jungle. Cultures - specifically religion - have played a very large role in deciding what is and isn't morally acceptable (the idea of rights is a moral issue). There are similarities between cultures because we are, after all, humans that want to survive. I'd jot everything else down to cultural influence/conditioning, which I don't know enough of to comment further.

Perhaps? This is just speculation.

*This is really wordy, my apologies. The primary objective of life is to continue living. Anything that helps this happen, like evolution and tradition (paradoxical choices), is employed. Conditioning, in a nutshell. Rather obvious, though.