From where are rights derived?

[Koldo]

I'm not writing in Brazil.

Nor I am writting in the USA.

 

[Koldo]

You are ridiculously hard to please, or you're not seeing what I'm trying to convey. Look at the "inalienable rights" enshrined in the US Constitution, which includes the right to "life." Now, suppose you murder me? What happened to my right? Oh, the state may come after you, they may imprison you -- or they may never find you, in which case you get away with it. But the plain, undeniable fact is the state, in this case, could not guarantee that right that it claims to have granted me. It has been unjustly denied me -- but the fact that it was unjust doesn't give me my life back.

Therefore, why would you even suppose that a right depends on the state's "guarantee?"

Because the concept of rights is grounded on the power to dictate what the law is. They are an essential gear in any legal systems, and just like any gear completely irrelevant when disconnected from a bigger system. You can declare something is a right all you want, but without the power to make that actually be the case it is just an empty claim.

 

[EconGuy]

which is usually government.

I don't like the nebulas term "government" because it makes it sound like government is a thing unto itself. I realize you may know this, but government is made up of people. Sometimes a minority in the case of authoritarians who do what is in their own best interest and others it is made up of a fairly elected body of people whose charge is to carry out the consensus of the people. Everything else exists between those two extremes. In both cases governments are an extension of people, though we probably agree that

 

[InChrist]

And if she didn't accept the good news? If she stuck to Hinduism (or whatever), even after having read the Gospels. Is it up to you, God, or the Bible whether she is redeemed?

God

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because the concept of rights is grounded on the power to dictate what the law is. They are an essential gear in any legal systems, and just like any gear completely irrelevant when disconnected from a bigger system. You can declare something is a right all you want, but without the power to make that actually be the case it is just an empty claim.

Well, then, you must accept the Korean model, in which you have only such rights as you are given by those in power, and for only so long as those in power decide you can keep them. And you have no right to disagree, no right to protest, no right to seek redress. You must behave as a cringing coward, bending under the task-master's lash and doing what you are told.

As a Humanist, I see the world differently.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, the year of my birth, was predicated not on laws and power, but on the acceptance of universal human dignity. Read the Preamble, which bases its reasoning on conscience, not on law, in which rights are not granted by law but are protected by law.

Preamble (emphasis added by Evangelicalhumanist)​

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Fundamentally, from where do you believe that rights come from??

Since you started both this thread and the one on debating Libertarianism, I really think that you should try reading an excellent book by a great philosopher that speaks to both these subjects with great clarity and power. The book is

Towards the Light: The Story of the Struggles for Liberty and Rights that Made the Modern West​

Paperback – June 19 2014 – by A.C. Grayling​

n Towards the Light, A.C. Grayling tells the story of the long and difficult battle for freedom in the West, from the Reformation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from the battle for the vote to the struggle for the right to freedom of conscience. As Grayling passionately affirms, it is a story - and a struggle - that continues to this day as those in power use the threat of terrorism in the 21st century to roll-back the liberties that so many have fought and died to win for us. Including an appendix of landmark documents, including the British and American Bills of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the Bloomsbury Revelations edition also includes a new preface by the author reflecting on developments since the book's original publication.

 

[Koldo]

Well, then, you must accept the Korean model, in which you have only such rights as you are given by those in power, and for only so long as those in power decide you can keep them. And you have no right to disagree, no right to protest, no right to seek redress.

I don't know anything about the Korean model to comment about it. Those in power can grant you the right to disagree and protest, if they don't then you don't have those rights.

You must behave as a cringing coward, bending under the task-master's lash and doing what you are told.

Not having the right to protest and disagree doesn't mean people won't protest and disagree though. Not all laws are made equal, some are more just than others. Some are more ethical than others. Some are more morally good than others.

As a Humanist, I see the world differently.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, the year of my birth, was predicated not on laws and power, but on the acceptance of universal human dignity. Read the Preamble, which bases its reasoning on conscience, not on law, in which rights are not granted by law but are protected by law.

Preamble (emphasis added by Evangelicalhumanist)​

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been ratified by many countries. It is this adoption into a legal system that makes those rights de facto rights, rather than empty claims. There is absolutely no distinction between an empty claim over something being a right and something actually being a right other than the latter being incorporated into a legal system.

Just to be clear, abandoning the idea of natural rights doesn't mean that people ought not to fight against tyrants, for example. On this case, since I am promoting legal positivism, it merely entails the understanding that rights are ideas made real by sheer power, which is exactly why we should seek to turn into rights the things that are essential for us to flourish.

Also, it is interesting that you are bringing up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it contains many positive rights.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't know anything about the Korean model to comment about it. Those in power can grant you the right to disagree and protest, if they don't then you don't have those rights.

Perhaps you need to brush up on democracy, then. When those "in power" in a democracy abuse the electors, the electors give them their walking papers and choose somebody else who will treat them better.

Also, it is interesting that you are bringing up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it contains many positive rights.

I don't know why this distinction between positive and negative rights is so important to you. Yes, it is a negative right to say that your right to practice your religion shall not be infringed, and it is a positive right to say that the courts must presume that you are innocent until proven guilty. Still, for myself, my philosophical approach is that negative rights are those which inhere to the human person, and which government should be (and therefore mostly is in the west) restrained from interfering with. Positive rights are those for which good, compelling, logical arguments (such as guilty until proven innocent) can be made, and which it therefore seems reasonable to adopt.

 

[We Never Know]

I'm with the majority here. Rights come from whomever enumerates and enforces them, which is usually government. It's only meaningful to say that only I have a right to park in my driveway if I can legally call a tow truck if necessary and have an offending vehicle moved and the owner billed for the tow. I have a right to my assigned airline seat if the airline enforces it for me if I need them to. Otherwise, absent the ability to enforce one's right, in each of these cases, claiming a right is meaningless.

I'm an American living in Mexico, where the government is small (weak) and corrupt at the lowest levels. Laws are often not enforced, which can be a problem for somebody used to clamoring about rights. One of my former neighbors tried to get a granite cutting and sanding business moved away from across the street from his home with a progressive series of threats under the assumption that since there were zoning laws being broken, he could enforce his will. The police told him that if they enforced the law this time, they'd have to do it all of the time, whatever that means, but it was clear that they wouldn't help him. Then the lawyers. Still no satisfaction. Eventually, he had to move in self-defense after alienating his neighbors, and he had no rights there, either, because government didn't support him. He never had those rights he assumed and claimed for himself.

I didn't see a mention of "God" in either the Declaration or the Constitution, and we know that many of the Founders were deists.

That scripture, in my opinion, is why the Founders made references to rights coming from a creator. Actually, there at least two instructing Christians to submit to the authority of the king:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2
• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

So how do you convince people to take arms against the divinely-appointed king? By telling them that their creator grants them the right to rebel, which contradicts scripture if by creator one means the Christian god. You don't see creators mentioned in any other context but the Declaration when justifying rebellion against a king.

It's pretty easy to see what isn't being done by a god or anybody else, and there is insufficient reason to think that what does happen was caused by a god.

"I didn't see a mention of "God" in either the Declaration or the Constitution, and we know that many of the Founders were deists"

The constitution doesn't make a direct reference to a god. However it uses "the year of our Lord" in article VII.

 

[Koldo]

Perhaps you need to brush up on democracy, then. When those "in power" in a democracy abuse the electors, the electors give them their walking papers and choose somebody else who will treat them better.

Therefore?

I don't know why this distinction between positive and negative rights is so important to you. Yes, it is a negative right to say that your right to practice your religion shall not be infringed, and it is a positive right to say that the courts must presume that you are innocent until proven guilty. Still, for myself, my philosophical approach is that negative rights are those which inhere to the human person, and which government should be (and therefore mostly is in the west) restrained from interfering with. Positive rights are those for which good, compelling, logical arguments (such as guilty until proven innocent) can be made, and which it therefore seems reasonable to adopt.

Presumption of innocence as a positive right? Can you cite the source that states that as a positive right?

The distinction between negative and positive rights is important because your understanding of what consists a right has been limited to the freedom to do something (as in the State not interferring to make something illegal). I don't even agree that sums up the concept of negative rights, but more importantly, positive rights go way beyond that. Positive rights are demands that citizens can legally make to the State to have goods and services provided to them. Therefore, not fitting your conception of what is a right.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Presumption of innocence as a positive right? Can you cite the source that states that as a positive right?

In Canada's Charter: Section 11, d Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal."

In Roman Law, the sixth-century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides, as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies"

According to Talmud, "every man is innocent until proved guilty. Hence, the infliction of unusual rigours on the accused must be delayed until his innocence has been successfully challenged. Thus, in the early stages of the trial, arguments in his defence are as elaborate as with any other man on trial. Only when his guilt has become apparent were the solicitous provisions that had been made to protect defendants waived"

The presumption of innocence is fundamental to Islamic law where the principle that the onus of proof is on the accuser or claimant is strongly held, based on a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi. "Suspicion" is also highly condemned, this also from a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi as well as Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim.

Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

There is tons and tons more, but I hope that will do for now.

The distinction between negative and positive rights is important because your understanding of what consists a right has been limited to the freedom to do something (as in the State not interferring to make something illegal). I don't even agree that sums up the concept of negative rights, but more importantly, positive rights go way beyond that. Positive rights are demands that citizens can legally make to the State to have goods and services provided to them. Therefore, not fitting your conception of what is a right.

Look, you seem to be stuck in a "this-is-how-it-is-so-this-is-how-it-must-be" rut. I have been trying to discuss this with you as an issue of philosophy -- how humans seek to explain our reality, and then how we can make that reality better. And one of the ways to do that is to try to understand what should be considered fundamental rights that inhere to the human by virtue of nothing more than his humanity (the negative rights that law should be designed to protect), and rules by which communities and societies can improve the prospects for all through establishing rights and responsibilities to each.

If you consistently fall back on the notion that "new rulers can confer new rights and deny old ones," then you also accept that democracy is not a workable system -- that the people have no say in how their world is ordered. But as we have seen through history, revolutions have (far too brutally, usually) people will eventually demand to have that say. And if that is the case, then I think it wise for us to have a sound philosophical basis for what we do with that say.

 

[Koldo]

In Canada's Charter: Section 11, d Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal."

In Roman Law, the sixth-century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides, as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies"

According to Talmud, "every man is innocent until proved guilty. Hence, the infliction of unusual rigours on the accused must be delayed until his innocence has been successfully challenged. Thus, in the early stages of the trial, arguments in his defence are as elaborate as with any other man on trial. Only when his guilt has become apparent were the solicitous provisions that had been made to protect defendants waived"

The presumption of innocence is fundamental to Islamic law where the principle that the onus of proof is on the accuser or claimant is strongly held, based on a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi. "Suspicion" is also highly condemned, this also from a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi as well as Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim.

Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

There is tons and tons more, but I hope that will do for now.

I am afraid you have wasted some time writting that, for there is no dispute that the presumption of innocence is a right in many countries. My questioning had to do with you calling it a positive right. I would say it is a negative right.

Look, you seem to be stuck in a "this-is-how-it-is-so-this-is-how-it-must-be" rut. I have been trying to discuss this with you as an issue of philosophy -- how humans seek to explain our reality, and then how we can make that reality better. And one of the ways to do that is to try to understand what should be considered fundamental rights that inhere to the human by virtue of nothing more than his humanity (the negative rights that law should be designed to protect), and rules by which communities and societies can improve the prospects for all through establishing rights and responsibilities to each.

I was essentially talking about what rights are (an expression of power), not about what rights should be de facto rights. That's another conversation.

If you consistently fall back on the notion that "new rulers can confer new rights and deny old ones," then you also accept that democracy is not a workable system -- that the people have no say in how their world is ordered. But as we have seen through history, revolutions have (far too brutally, usually) people will eventually demand to have that say. And if that is the case, then I think it wise for us to have a sound philosophical basis for what we do with that say.

I don't get how you go from 'new rulers can grant new rights and deny old ones' to 'democracy is not a workable system'. In a democracy, the rulers are chosen by the people, able to, therefore, grant new rights and deny old ones according to the will of the people.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am afraid you have wasted some time writting that, for there is no dispute that the presumption of innocence is a right in many countries. My questioning had to do with you calling it a positive right. I would say it is a negative right.

You would say that, but history has not always done so. Even today, in nations run by dictators, many trials are for show, not for proving guilt. Hell, witches were burned for "looking" like witches -- all they needed was a wart or to, or to be losing a bit of clarity of thought, as happens sometimes to the elderly. And they were burned or hanged for it -- even in the United States! (And they're still being killed in Africa.)

I was essentially talking about what rights are (an expression of power), not about what rights should be de facto rights. That's another conversation.

No it's not. It is the same conversation. You are just ignoring the question of where power comes from.

I don't get how you go from 'new rulers can grant new rights and deny old ones' to 'democracy is not a workable system'. In a democracy, the rulers are chosen by the people, able to, therefore, grant new rights and deny old ones according to the will of the people.

The most important question that constitutions in democracies try to answer is this: "How do we prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minorty?" In general, the answer to this has been to incorporate bills of rights which seek to limit the powers of a legislative body. Yes, constitutions can be changed, but the best examples are notoriously difficult to change -- by design.

 

[Koldo]

You would say that, but history has not always done so. Even today, in nations run by dictators, many trials are for show, not for proving guilt. Hell, witches were burned for "looking" like witches -- all they needed was a wart or to, or to be losing a bit of clarity of thought, as happens sometimes to the elderly. And they were burned or hanged for it -- even in the United States! (And they're still being killed in Africa.)

This has no bearing on what I have said.

No it's not. It is the same conversation. You are just ignoring the question of where power comes from.

It comes from whoever or whataver power structure is governing any given place at a given time.

The most important question that constitutions in democracies try to answer is this: "How do we prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minorty?" In general, the answer to this has been to incorporate bills of rights which seek to limit the powers of a legislative body. Yes, constitutions can be changed, but the best examples are notoriously difficult to change -- by design.

Not only changed. They can be completely discarded and new ones can take their place. The existence of constitutional rights in a democracy is the will of the majority.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This has no bearing on what I have said.



It comes from whoever or whataver power structure is governing any given place at a given time.



Not only changed. They can be completely discarded and new ones can take their place. The existence of constitutional rights in a democracy is the will of the majority.

As I said, you are stuck. "This is how it is, therefore this is how it must always be." I am coming from a philosophical perspective. Your stance seems to be "this is how bad it is" and you stop there. I am asking, "is there a way to make it better?" You won't discuss that.

As a result, I don't see anything of use coming from our continuing this dialogue.

 

[Koldo]

As I said, you are stuck. "This is how it is, therefore this is how it must always be." I am coming from a philosophical perspective. Your stance seems to be "this is how bad it is" and you stop there. I am asking, "is there a way to make it better?" You won't discuss that.

As a result, I don't see anything of use coming from our continuing this dialogue.

I am not just saying 'this is how it is'. I am saying it doesn't make sense to talk about rights as if they could be something other than an expression of power. That's intrinsical to the conception of actual rights. We can definitely discuss about rights should exist, but that's a different topic.

The concept of natural rights is nothing more than wishful thinking. It is what people wish were the enacted rights.

 

[wellwisher]

I think the history of political abuse by England and what you sugest are both plausible motives. It is the only document that appeals to a divine, so I've always been curious why it is the only one.

The unique idea of God given rights suggested that there was an optimized set of rights that apply to all and not just some. The problem was identifying these ideal God given rights and implementing them. The Founding Fathers of the USA, took an approach that was similar to an extension of the Parliamentary form of Government, with land owners able to vote; representative republic. With land cheap and plentiful in the New World, any man's home could be his castle; House of thousand of Lords.

They assumed self reliance and contribution in terms of pursuing one's own happiness with hard work and ingenuity, while also paying taxes. Women and Children and renters could not vote since they were more dependent, with dependency placing limits on fulfillment of rights.

For example, we have the right to bear arms in the USA. However, this does not mean you get a gun automatically by that right. You still have to work buy one and jump through the hoops, which needs some self reliance. We do not have a government gun handout for poor people, so they can practice that right. That would be an entitlement. Right fulfillment takes some self reliant effort. Entitlements do not need effort.

The main difference between rights and entitlements is right apply to all, while entitlements only apply to some. Welfare is an entitlement since you cannot get it if your income is too high. It is not for everyone. This topic is about rights which often get confused with entitlements. Entitlements do not require self reliance.

There are many people who are not self reliant enough to take full advantages of their rights. The right to pursue your happiness or rather pursue what makes you happy, may be out of reach due to your economic status. The right is there for you to pursue, but the ability to achieve that right; buy a gun, may be out of reach.

This is where family came in. If you were a father who owned land, you would organize your family so they could prosper and thereby be entitled to a better life that includes their dreams of happiness. But to sustain that state when you are gone, they also were taught to be self reliant and self sufficient for their families; teams.

The breakup of the family unit had a large impact on preventing people from fulfilling their rights. The entitlements are not enough without the extra lessons of family life, that allow one to reach self reliance and have full access to rights. The America dream is a level of self sufficiency where your dreams can be approached and made possible for your children. Too much entitlement thinking; faux rights, can be regressive to the ideal of human rights.

 

[InChrist]

Of course not, because "here on earth" is where all the evidence is that God does not exist at all. Therefore, best not look here, right?

Actually, the presence of evil here on earth reveals there is a Creator God from whom is the reference point and reason we can even know what is evil. if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, or all the other evil in this world. The reality of evil actually requires the existence of God and His goodness in contrast.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Actually, the presence of evil here on earth reveals there is a Creator God from whom is the reference point and reason we can even know what is evil. if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, or all the other evil in this world. The reality of evil actually requires the existence of God and His goodness in contrast.

Really? Without being "told from above" you can't tell that the murders in the millions committed by Hitler and Stalin were evil? REALLY?!? Can you tell if it's raining when you're standing in it?

 

[InChrist]

Really? Without being "told from above" you can't tell that the murders in the millions committed by Hitler and Stalin were evil? REALLY?!? Can you tell if it's raining when you're standing in it?

Everyone equally gets wet when standing in the rain. The problem is that if there is not a specific reference point or Lawgiver, then every person will come up with their own idea of what is evil or not. That would mean a wide variation of perspectives concerning what is good or evil, even if the majority of people agree about the big evil events that occur. Clearly, Hitler determined in his own mind what he was doing was okay.