So, let's see where we can get on this front. In order to avoid confusion, I will attempt to establish the convention of using "right" only in the sense of "a right", as opposed to "right and wrong." I will attempt to use synonyms whenever I desire the latter definition.
To start with, we should define what it means to have rights. A right, by definition, is something that you are entitled to at all times and without regard to any circumstances, correct? It is something that should never be taken away, regardless of any conceivable excuse. Then, we have certain modifiers such as civil rights or human rights. These, presumably, are rights which we are entitled to by virtue of possessing the appropriate quality; civil rights pertain to anyone who is a citizen and human rights pertain to whoever is a human. These rights cannot be taken away, so long as the person in question retains the appropriate quality - if a given person ceases to be a citizen, they are no longer entitled to civil rights, and correspondingly, if a given person ceases to be human, they are no longer entitled to human rights. For all practical purposes, this latter condition will never apply, so we may consider "human rights" to be those rights which it is wrong to take away from anyone, at any time, under any circumstances. This is the only definition I can think of that really makes sense; if anyone has another one or a modification to this one, feel free to add it.
I am aware that this runs contrary to the accepted use of the word in such cases as "rights" to free speech, assembly, arms-bearing, etc, because those "rights" can in fact be taken away; my contention is essentially that this is an improper use of the word. If it can be taken away, then why was it being called a right in the first place? The word becomes largely meaningless in this context.
This is one reason why I was hoping to avoid this discussion earlier - obviously with this definition, we will end up with very few human rights to consider, since there aren't a whole lot of things that people are unconditionally entitled to. I really don't think I can come up with a single one that is invariably acceptable, although the right to life is probably the strongest contender.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am going to have to protest your definition. You say that "A right, by definition, is something that you are entitled to at all times and without regard to any circumstances, correct?" I don't really think that this would leave us with any rights at all. This of course is not a rejection of your definition, after all I don't really believe that human beings have ANY "rights" in an absolute sense. The problem is that if you say that someone has a right (to live let's say) without regard to any circumstances, it means that that person has a right to life even if he is trying to violate my own right to life (by killing me). It precludes self defense.
This is also not a rejection of your definition, which is internally consistent. I just want to follow through on your thoughts a little to see where they take us.
I'm pretty sure I agree with you. There are certainly some people who would say that you shouldn't kill someone even in defense of your own life, but I'm not one of them, and I expect that they are the minority by a long shot, as well. I mostly just didn't assert this in the original post because I didn't want to draw such a strong conclusion in the span of a couple paragraphs, but after letting the idea simmer for a while, I think it's a warranted conclusion.
This is why I was hoping to avoid this conversation (for the purposes of my earlier post, at least); now we will have to acknowledge just how nebulous our ideas about "rights" really are. I'm not really sure where to go from here, either.
:) It's a very difficult place to find ones self.
The angle which I use to try and circumnavigate the problem is by insisting that moral codes a universal and ultimate. Thus there is not a "right" to life, but rather a moral imperative saying that it wrong to commit murder.
The whole concept of "rights" is an attempt to push the idea of morality without actually saying it (because questions of morality fall under the heading of religion and everyone knows that you can't try and push your religion on someone else!). Of course, the slight of hand is crudely done; we insist that it is morally wrong to take away someone's rights, leaving us right back here anyway!
That's just my two bits.
I think "Thus there is not a "right" to life, but rather a moral imperative saying that it wrong to commit murder" is essentially just a point of semantics though. Like you say, the whole point of a right is something that it is morally wrong to take away. You can't have universal rights without universal morality. Deep down, everyone believes in absolute morality; otherwise, they would never pass judgement upon anyone else. Not to mention, every civilised society has laws, which are essentially the embodiment of absolute morality.
I would disagree with the quoted statement too - since "I have a right to life" and "it is morally wrong for you to take my life" are essentially synonymous statements, how can you assert that we don't have a right to life and at the same time assert that there is a moral imperative against murder?
It is a difference in how you are approaching the question. The statement that I have a right to such and such is a statement of entitlement. On the other hand saying that there is a moral imperative to do (or not do) such and such is a statement of obligation. In one case it is your due, in the other it is your obligation to uphold.
In many situations you are right, they will be synonymous. However, it does require a slightly different worldview. Further it is the more basic and honest worldview because we are cutting out the illusion of rights and getting straight to the heart of the matter.
It also moves the question of killing in self defense into it's appropriate category. When building an ethical theory, we need to be using the best and most appropriate terms possible because it is a logical house of cards; if you can pull one of the bottom ones out, the rest falls down.
Post a Comment