International - Rights - what are they?

[Bikelbees]

I thought I would start this thread to present a single theory of rights in response to what IMO is a confused understanding prevalent not only on DF, but also in the legal profession, especially the media and just about everywhere. I think its essential that we have a coherent view on this if we are ever to progress campaigning style effectively.

How often do we hear about the balancing rights, eg in abortion debates - balancing the rights of the unborn child with those of the mother, then balancing the rights of the father's wishes with the mother. Every rights debate you hear on the news is about balance,the rights of protesters v the rights of people to go about their business, the rights of animals v the rights of people to use them, the right to state benefits v the rights of people to keep their income and not be taxed to pay for scroungers, the rights of free speech v the rights of persons not to be offended by racist remarks or incitement, the rights of the individual to take drugs v the rights of society to be ordered etc etc.

I'm going to throw my view in and define rights in a way that I consider to be the most politically useful. I'm saying I want rights to be a tool of relative empowerment, and I'm not just being pedantic here, I only use the word when it fits in with my definition of rights which means the following:

"a right is something that can be exercised by an autonomous adult against authority to permit him to do something that an authority might otherwise seek to curtail".

This means that the following do not have legal rights as such (as they cannot exercise rights): Children, animals.

The following examples are not "rights" claims (as they are a demand for intervention by the state): social security, protection from harassment or offence, clean water or education.

That is my view and I would be interested in explaining it further or debating with dissenters.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	nice, should make for an interesting thread ;)
	An interesting topic for discussion that underlies almost all of the other discussions on this forum

[FuBai]

Rights are an interesting concept, as is the idea of 'inalienable rights'. Rights are really non-extant soft and fuzzy concepts which are not corporeal. Rights, as in the idea that we innatley deserve to be allowed to perform a certain action, or even to think a certain thought, really don't exist in any meaningful way without permission. Really when we talk about rights we are discussing what we are 'allowed' to do by those who have the power to curtail those actions, which is often predicated by mass opinion, and therefore the kratos of the demos. For instance take an imaginary society, in honnor of Moore we will call it Utopia. Utopia consists of 100 people, 80 of whom beleive it is an innate right that the tallest person in Utopia has the right to rule all of Utopia. Because 80 out of the 100 people beleive it, it becomes a right. Not because it can be identified, in solidarity, as a right with fixed or external value, it's value is derived directly from the power dynamic within Utopia, or, to put it another way, if it was only 20 people who beleived that the tallest person should rule, and 80 thought it was the shortest, then it would be the shortest person who would have the 'inalienable right' to rule. In this case I use numbers to illustrate power, but power can be equaly derived from weaponry etc. The whole concept of rights is derived entirley from the power dynamics and beleifs of the society those rights spring from. In this case then rights have not external or higher value, they are internal to society.

Thus when we look at those things which are considered rights by the populace, we must remember that they are only held to be 'rights' because the power dynamic of the beleif system predicates them to be. Thus to claim even something so prima facie apparent as a 'right to life' is only to claim that people are permitted to live, and, should the beleif structure or the power dynamic change, that right may no longer exist in any meaningful manner.

[El Calico Loco]

It depends on whether one is talking about rights in the ethical sense or rights in the legal sense.

As ethical theories, rights theories are basically deontological. If one has a right to X, it means that others have a duty to provide X. In the case of something like the rights to life or liberty, that means only that others must not interfere with one's life or liberty via deception or violence. There is no balancing of rights in this case - something is either right or wrong based on whether a fundamental right is being violated.

The legal arena is less clear. I can't speak to other parts of the world, but America has a tradition of legal rights based on Enlightenment philosophy and English common law stretching back to the Magna Carta and beyond. In the beginning, these rights were thought to be God-given or based on natural law, such as John Locke's "life, liberty, and property". The state was not the provider of rights, only their guardian. The Bill of Rights explicitly states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

These days, people claim rights to all kinds of things - a right to a job, a right to an education, a right to health care, a right to vacation time, et cetera. Many of these are codified in the UN Declaration of Universal Human rights. The trouble with many of these goes back to ethical justification - if one has a right to X, that means others have a duty to provide one with X. Having a right to a job means that someone is obligated to provide one. Many of these "rights" are justified via utilitarian arguments, which makes them very different than traditional notions of rights. Logic and ethics are often trumped by rhetoric and politics in such discussions.

Personally, I like the Lockean tradition of life, liberty, and property. My thoughts on property rights are closer to the classical liberal conception than the modern conservative or libertarian one (hint: land is not an absolute property right as is the right to the fruits one's labor - see Geoism). Even so, I know that many will disagree - "property is theft", and all that - and that's okay, because I think the best rights-theory arguments against the drug war stem from the fundamental rights to life and liberty, anyway.


ECL

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

It depends on whether one is talking about rights in the ethical sense or rights in the legal sense.

As ethical theories, rights theories are basically deontological. If one has a right to X, it means that others have a duty to provide X. In the case of something like the rights to life or liberty, that means only that others must not interfere with one's life or liberty via deception or violence. There is no balancing of rights in this case - something is either right or wrong based on whether a fundamental right is being violated.

In this sense from whence do these deontological 'rights' and 'duties' derive thier 'absolute nature'. Demonstrate thier existance, not in terms of social benefits but in terms of thier absolute nature in the abscence of society or humanity, for instance. Are these rights of value external to humanity, or are they of value only in relation to society. In the second instance they are simply tools for social cohesion with not external or higher value, and the first case is unprovable. For instance is my right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness only a right because it is deigned to be so by those who have power over me, or is it because it has some higher, trancedential value?

[El Calico Loco]

You're right - rights theories are generally not justified by practicality. Deontology is a nonconsequentialist ethical system. Rights/duties are supposed to be accepted as self-evident.

Of course, if you want to get into meta-ethics...what is the justification for any ethical system? Arguments from practicality are consequentialist, most of them utilitarian - ie, the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But even that begs the question - why is the greatest happiness for the greatest number any more correct than the individual's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

At some point, you have to settle on some axioms as a foundation; otherwise, you get trapped in infinite regress. Axioms are first principles - by definition, they have to be accepted without further justification. I think much of the political debates in this world stem from people failing to state their first principles, or even failing to realize that they have these sub rosa premises.

One example is the notion of "right" vs "left" in economics (laying aside other political issues for the moment). Put aside both the opportunistic politicians who really don't care about anything but reelection and the knee-jerk followers who believe whatever their friends and family believe; there are honest thinkers on both sides, and they tend to talk past each other because of their different axioms. The economic philosophy of right vs left can be described as fair processes vs fair outcomes. The intellectual on the right wants people to be treated equally, in terms of rights and privileges, and accepts that this will lead to unequal outcomes (such as wealth existing side-by-side with poverty). The intellectual on the left is more concerned with equal outcomes, even if that means treating individuals unequally (such as taxing some to subsidizing others). It's an honest disagreement based on different core values.

So...when it comes to asserting one's rights, I think there is a practical element in play. Even if rights are supposed to be self-evident, it does one little good to appeal to a right that those you're appealing to don't accept. An assertion of a right will often be met by utilitarian arguments in opposition, which is much like throwing a football at a Chess board - the opposing sides are not even playing the same game. Or the opponent will often appeal to the "rights" of society, or something like "the right to not be robbed by a junkie hopped-up on goofballs". I view such statements as operationally meaningless and a sure sign that the arguer is either incapable of abstraction or skilled at empty rhetoric - but, sadly, they do have to be countered.

I think the strongest logical arguments against the Drug War are utilitarian, because it can be shown - assuming people will actually fucking listen - that it doesn't even accomplish what they wish it would...and can't. But rights-based arguments can be used to appeal to those who reject utilitarianism as an ethical system.

But the best "arguments" of all aren't based on logic...because logic is useless against most people. *smirk*


ECL

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

You're right - rights theories are generally not justified by practicality. Deontology is a nonconsequentialist ethical system. Rights/duties are supposed to be accepted as self-evident.

Of course, if you want to get into meta-ethics...what is the justification for any ethical system? Arguments from practicality are consequentialist, most of them utilitarian - ie, the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But even that begs the question - why is the greatest happiness for the greatest number any more correct than the individual's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

At some point, you have to settle on some axioms as a foundation; otherwise, you get trapped in infinite regress. Axioms are first principles - by definition, they have to be accepted without further justification. I think much of the political debates in this world stem from people failing to state their first principles, or even failing to realize that they have these sub rosa premises.

One example is the notion of "right" vs "left" in economics (laying aside other political issues for the moment). Put aside both the opportunistic politicians who really don't care about anything but reelection and the knee-jerk followers who believe whatever their friends and family believe; there are honest thinkers on both sides, and they tend to talk past each other because of their different axioms. The economic philosophy of right vs left can be described as fair processes vs fair outcomes. The intellectual on the right wants people to be treated equally, in terms of rights and privileges, and accepts that this will lead to unequal outcomes (such as wealth existing side-by-side with poverty). The intellectual on the left is more concerned with equal outcomes, even if that means treating individuals unequally (such as taxing some to subsidizing others). It's an honest disagreement based on different core values.

So...when it comes to asserting one's rights, I think there is a practical element in play. Even if rights are supposed to be self-evident, it does one little good to appeal to a right that those you're appealing to don't accept. An assertion of a right will often be met by utilitarian arguments in opposition, which is much like throwing a football at a Chess board - the opposing sides are not even playing the same game. Or the opponent will often appeal to the "rights" of society, or something like "the right to not be robbed by a junkie hopped-up on goofballs". I view such statements as operationally meaningless and a sure sign that the arguer is either incapable of abstraction or skilled at empty rhetoric - but, sadly, they do have to be countered.

I think the strongest logical arguments against the Drug War are utilitarian, because it can be shown - assuming people will actually fucking listen - that it doesn't even accomplish what they wish it would...and can't. But rights-based arguments can be used to appeal to those who reject utilitarianism as an ethical system.

But the best "arguments" of all aren't based on logic...because logic is useless against most people. *smirk*


ECL

I would agree with you by-enlarge, but I was hoping to pre-empt those that seem to beleive that rights are 'inalienable' or 'inherent', or that rights are anything more than legalistic/social constructions which, in the abscence of society, still have meaningful value. The only way such a thing could be said to be true is if there was some external assignor of value - that which some people call God. I will assume that a concept as flimsy and outlandish as God will not be debated seriously in this thread, although the existance of such a being does seem to underpin the debate, however if we reduce it to these terms we enter the murky realms of epistemology which is an endless debate.

[El Calico Loco]

Rights theories don't necessarily require God; some atheists have attempted to make justifications for such based on human nature or natural law. I tend to think these are a bit weak, however, even when I agree with their aims.

You can also go in the opposite direction - it could be that the thing that will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number is to convince everyone to believe in some fundamental set of rights. Rule-utilitarianism is similar to this.

If we want to leave philosophy behind for the moment - and you're right, people have been arguing about ethics and epistemology and metaphysics for thousands of years and will continue to do so for thousands more - I think the important rights for a society to recognize ought to be based on utilitarian grounds. A healthy society needs rights to protect citizens from the deceptive, the monopolizing, and the violent... and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about free-market criminals or corrupt government officials.

No society can flourish if individual citizens are frustrated and hopeless, and these sensations can be caused by too much government authority as easily as they can be by too little. Compare anarchic Sudan with the USSR under Stalin - they both sucked pretty bad. The ideal situation has guardians (police, courts, soldiers, lawmakers) that protect the citizens, but do not to rule them; it's a delicate balancing act figuring out how to get one without the other. The Magna Carta was one attempt. The American Bill of Rights was another.

It's too bad that no piece of paper can protect the individual from the majority when it's ignorant, complacent, angry, or afraid. Modern propagandists are adept at instilling these moods in people.


ECL

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

"a right is something that can be exercised by an autonomous adult against authority to permit him to do something that an authority might otherwise seek to curtail".

This means that the following do not have legal rights as such (as they cannot exercise rights): Children, animals.

I know that the majority of departments/States have a requirement for the parent and minor to both waive the minor's rights before any questioning. I also know that assault on a Police Dog is just as, if not in most cases MORE serious that assault on a Police Officer. And since everyone loves dogs, the sentences are usually harsher! lol

Just curious, where did you get that definition from?

[Mint boi]

assault on a police dog is punished tougher than assault on an officer? Wtf?

Edit: not that i disagree with this being the case!

[Bikelbees]

Good responses so far:

Fubai: of course rights are merely legalistic constructs. You are right to suggest that being democratic can be a mandate for tyranny in that 49% of the population can be oppressed by 51% (a crude example; often a government in power may have far fewer votes and of course its "votes cast" and nowadays most people don't bother voting anyway). I guess this is the role of constitutions and Bills of Rights, to entrench key principles which are outside of the remit of change. It may surprise you that generally I'm against such instruments such as the ECHR, UN declarations etc. I don;t consider rights to be vested in any higher authority, they are merely tools - ideally we need no rights whatsoever, they are only important because we are defined as legal subjects in our culture.

ECL: I'm talking about legal rights here, although those should vest from ethical values. I'm specifically excluding rights which require that governments need to provide something such as welfare, I call those "entitlements", in the case of other citizens, these are not rights on two grounds in that rights are "freedom from" and do not relate to the state and its manifestations. I cannot see what a right to life means other than a ban on state executions. Your contributions in the last post reveal that you have thought about this a lot; certainly utilitarianism and democracy as principles need not respect the rights of individuals and written constitutions entrench the status quo.

Marxism is not compulsory!

PO: the fact that parents need to consent negates the notion of the child's rights absolutely, rights indicate some power; where "rights" are exercised by someone else on your behalf (eg if you end up in a vegetative coma) then it represents your powerlessness, and not really a right, but a legal authority for someone else to act in specific circumstances under a duty of care; if children had true rights it would be terrible.

I just pieced this "definition" together from bits of material I picked up from conferences, the work of Robert Nozick, jurisprudence studies all in an attempt to clarify what a right could possibly mean, clearly two persons claiming opposite things cannot both have a right to it, then for it to be adjudicated; as one of those rights would be worthless - I then realised we are using and mis-using the word and undermining it.

PS It may appear that I am the Mod for this thread and forum; I am not, I am only doing Law and Order threads.

[Bikelbees]

I think you nearly have my point, I'm saying rights don't protect you from any other individual as rights are only concerned with your relation to the state. Ideally your status would be such that you didn't need rights to define your relationship with the state, but yes, as thats not the case at this time you certainly do need them now, but remember they are a necessary evil, nothing to celebrate especially when people are giving them away!