What is a right?

by Narkissos 23 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  prophecor

  My only point is there is no absolute, objective or transcendent truth in such matters. Individually and collectively, we only have the "rights" that we affirm and struggle for.

  I recognise that there are things that are great about our various countries, as a whole. I, also, realise that we as a collective human society would do well to incorporate the things that work towards the betterment of its citizens across the board. To take the working examples of various societies and tweak what it is that works, while doing away with, or at the very least, suppressing the things that do not.

  It has been mentioned, several times as to how great a system of health care has been afforded its citzens over in England. I was never aware as to thier having a form of socialised health care. I am glad that this has come to my understanding as I so closely, out of ignorance, associate what goes on in America as what must be similar to what happens in the U.K. She is afterall, the mother of all Americans.
• 

  LittleToe

  Of course not. I think we have a lot to learn this way (the UK health system, which is much more "socialist" than the French, and works, is very interesting to me for instance).

  Regretably we're only going to lament it once it's gone.

  There are so many areas of life where equity seems an impossible dream. If I had to choose one area of community equity, health would be it. For that reason I choose the utopia that has health as a "right".

  I strongly suspect that what we would like to see as "rights" are merely "privileges with the veneer of commonality". We grow accustomed to them and to wean us away from them would create mayhem. Society has us bound in a psychological contract of expectations. Ask someone in the third-world what they class as rights?

  The right to breed, if both parties are agreeable, is about the only one. In some countries, even this is regulated. Beyond this, stark realities clearly demonstrate that there are few rights, and Ethiopia is perhaps a modern-day example of what happens when the only right is breeding to the exclusion of even eating!

  Maybe that Maslow knew a thing or two about needs and wants
• 

  TD

  Hi Narkissos,

  Are "human rights" written somewhere, in heaven or in nature, other than in human laws / customs which are the provisional, ever-changing result of power struggle and negotiation, in an equally ever-changing economical-social conjuncture?

  No. This is why I find the concept of "Animal rights" somewhat humorous.

  And then what is the point of discussing "rights," if they are not grounded anywhere else than in the socio-political arena itself? Whose interests does our "opinion" serve?

  Often it is pure unadulterated self-interest. But when the end result benefits whole classes and groups, self-interest is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when real, harmful inequalities exist. Human nature virtually guarantees that those most willing see a wrong undone are those that have themselves suffered from it.

  I personally tend to think that the Marxist concept of "class consciousness" has been too quickly swept under the carpet. When I hear lower middle-class people ranting against social rights I can't help imagining sheep speaking the wolves' language, to their own detriment.

  Yes....I think some will miss the subtlety here.
• 

  Narkissos

  Ross,

  I choose the utopia that has health as a "right".

  That's an excellent formulation to me.

  I strongly suspect that what we would like to see as "rights" are merely "privileges with the veneer of commonality". We grow accustomed to them and to wean us away from them would create mayhem. Society has us bound in a psychological contract of expectations. Ask someone in the third-world what they class as rights?

  This brings in the issue of economical globalisation, which is exactly the point where the Western European "rights," due to decades of social class struggle, but increasingly forgetful of the Marxist "internationalism," find themselves challenged. Tough question. Perhaps the Western poor have yet to become a lot poorer and lose a lot of their present "rights" -- cynically depicted as "privileges" by the ultra-liberalists -- before a new global class awareness emerges.

  TD,

  This is why I find the concept of "Animal rights" somewhat humorous.

  Of course human concern about animals (or biodiversity, for instance) is what is usually at stake. Perhaps a dog barking when you try to approach its food is closer to voicing a right...
• 

  Forscher

  Well, here is a try at html as well as a reply.
  
  Narkissos

  My only point is there is no absolute, objective or transcendent truth in such matters. Individually and collectively, we only have the "rights" that we affirm and struggle for.

  That is very true from the materialist point of view Narkissos. If there is no creator, then there are no absolutes other than the forces of the natural world. Thus, "rights" are just social constructs, subject to the whims of whoever holds the power to enforce or deny them. The founding fathers recognized that truth. That is why they grounded their recognition of certain rights within a theistic/Christian framework. Without him, their reall isn't any such thing as "rights" outside of what ever a society chooses to abide by.
  Forscher
• 

  Forscher

  Spelling could've been better. But maybe I'll get there on the coding.
  Froscher
• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks for the input Forscher -- actually I was expecting someone would come up with this, or another, non-social ground for the notion of "right". Unlike you I think "nature" could provide that too -- but then for a dramatically reduced definition of "right". Or the individual "I" in a libertarian utopia -- but then to a potentially explosive definition.

  The founding fathers recognized that truth. That is why they grounded their recognition of certain rights within a theistic/Christian framework.

  I'm not so familiar with American history, but was it not rather deistic (in the perspective of European "Enlightenment") than theistic or Christian?

  Without him, their reall isn't any such thing as "rights" outside of what ever a society chooses to abide by.

  And with him? I mean, how does a belief in "God" guarantee or found any specific right? Historically it was deemed compatible with slavery, racial segregation, or sexual discrimination until social power struggle decided otherwise.

  What I could concede is that, theoretically, a religious society, provided the religion is more spiritualist than fundamentalist, might be more open to the potential "rights" of those (individuals or minorities) who have not yet gathered enough power to impose their rights. But I'm afraid we lack concrete examples.
• 

  John Doe

  "What is a right?
  
  Everything that isn't left."

  Or straight, or stationary, or up, or down, or sideways, or backwards, or...well, you get the idea. ;-)
• 

  JeffT

  I usually feel like a voice in the wilderness on this, but I'll give it another try.

  This is what the founding fathers said (and I think they had it right)

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

  In other words all rights and authority are yours. For the purpose of having an orderly society we grant certain powers and duties to the government, thus limited our rights in certain areas. In the United States those powers and duties are enumerated in the Constitution. If a power has not been given to the government, it is still yours. The writers of the Constitution did not put in a bill of rights because they were afraid that people would think that such a bill limited people to those rights listed in the constitution (I think they have been proved right on that). The states refused to ratify the Constitution without such a bill of rights so they wrote it up, including the tenth which says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This almost wasn't included because many of the founding fathers regarded it as redundant.

  Regarding your rights, the question that needs to be asked is "have I given the government the authority to do this?" For example on health care, have you authorized the government to take your money to pay for people's health care? (Don't bring up other people's money, if the government can take theirs, it can take yours).

  This question doesn't not get asked often enough.
• 

  zen nudist

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

  I ponder which god they were talking about as this is completely opposite, in my view and the view of many, from what Paul says in Romans which lead to the notion of the Divine right of kings, so popular in chrisitan europe for many centuries.

  it seems they were stating the view of a god not found in any records other than perhaps the secret masonic ones.