From where are rights derived?

[vulcanlogician]

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

There are two questions being asked here. A government enforces a system of rights. But they don't typically create them.

Let's take a look at America. Did the founders create a government which then created rights? No.

Our founders borrowed heavily from the ideas of John Locke. Locke proposed three primary rights: life, liberty, property. (Sound familiar?) His reasoning for people's having rights in the first place had to do with social contract theory and the ultimate aims of society (with some theology thrown in, but I typically ignore that... because you can easily ignore it and make perfect sense of Locke). That's where the IDEA of rights come from (at least from an American liberal perspective).

Now, once you have an idea of what system of rights we ought to have, who enforces that? The government. But rights don't "come from" the government. At least, not the IDEA of rights or the notion that we ought to have rights.

The founders didn't create a government which then created our rights. They created a system of rights and set up the government to protect that system. This system of rights sets prohibitions on the gov't just as much as it enables it. They even created a system of constitutional amendments which allow the people (via the government) to change our system of rights.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unhappily, that doesn't always seem to work, though, does it? I mean, in the US, support for same-sex marriage stands at 71%, which is not bad at all, and for abortion in most cases 61%, and yet shady manipulation by conservatives is actively working against both. For contraception, the support stands at 90%, yet Clarence Thomas has managed to put it at least on the agenda of many conservatives in his concurring opion in Dodds.

Unscrupulous political machinations -- even in the most democratic of countries -- can defeat the will of the majority more often than you might like to think.

I hate io invoke Godwin's laws but I wonder if Hitler in Germany used some of the same tactics as Trump and other conservatives. There is no doubt that there was a fair amount of hatred in Germany, but I doubt if it was ever a majority, and yet the Holocaust happened. One has to be ever on the alert for those that will abuse the system.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're preaching to the choir, brother. You do understand though that my point was about how rights are created, not whether any given right is "good" or that it can be difficult to do?

Yes, I understand that.

One of the reasons I refer to myself as a liberal (small-l) is that I am a firm believer in the maximum freedom for the individual possible. I do not ask questions about people's personal lives, and I don't judge when people make choices I would not make, so long as no one is harmed.

As it happens, for example, I have personally never liked recreational drugs, not even marijuana -- but my partner, who can't get around so easily, very much does. Well, it's legal in Canada, and my preferences aside, I'm quite happy to go buy him what he wants. Personally, I'm not at all interested in drag performances -- but I see no reason why those who enjoy performing in or watching them shouldn't be able to do so. What do my tastes have to do with what anybody else should be permitted to enjoy?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I hate io invoke Godwin's laws but I wonder if Hitler in Germany used some of the same tactics as Trump and other conservatives. There is no doubt that there was a fair amount of hatred in Germany, but I doubt if it was ever a majority, and yet the Holocaust happened. One has to be ever on the alert for those that will abuse the system.

I was rather under the impression that while the majority were probably not overly concerned with Jews, Gypsies or gays, it seems clear that Hitler was careful to foment hatreds against those groups, and others. Hatred and fear, as many MAGA Republicans can tell you, are potent sources of power over the masses.

 

[Heyo]

I hate io invoke Godwin's laws but I wonder if Hitler in Germany used some of the same tactics as Trump and other conservatives. There is no doubt that there was a fair amount of hatred in Germany, but I doubt if it was ever a majority, and yet the Holocaust happened. One has to be ever on the alert for those that will abuse the system.

Trump and his cronies borrow heavily from Hitler's playbook but as they don't employ all their tactics, it would be wrong to call them fascists, fascistoid is a more proper term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trump and his cronies borrow heavily from Hitler's playbook but as they don't employ all their tactics, it would be wrong to call them fascists, fascistoid is a more proper term.

I think that perhaps the only thing that stopped Trump was the he knew that he did not have the armed forces behind him.

 

[Heyo]

I think that perhaps the only thing that stopped Trump was the he knew that he did not have the armed forces behind him.

That's one of the (few) things that distances him from the fascists, he hates the military and he can't hide it. He has insulted the troops and some soldiers openly. And without the military or against the military you can't have a successful coup.

 

[Alien826]

I was rather under the impression that while the majority were probably not overly concerned with Jews, Gypsies or gays, it seems clear that Hitler was careful to foment hatreds against those groups, and others. Hatred and fear, as many MAGA Republicans can tell you, are potent sources of power over the masses.

What I'm seeing, and I welcome correction from anyone that knows German history better, is the creation of a minority that can be led to threaten the rest of us. Brown Shirts in Hitler's case, MAGAs in Trump's case. The rest are, frankly, frightened of them and don't want to be victimized by speaking out. It's the only reason I can think of to explain why Trump doesn't disappear in a cloud of disapproval (or even laughter) by the still sane majority.

I would love to know what he expected to happen after the Capitol was taken over. I'll bet (with little to no evidence) that establishing military rule with himself as dictator figured somehow.

 

[Stevicus]

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

There are two questions being asked here. A government enforces a system of rights. But they don't typically create them.

Let's take a look at America. Did the founders create a government which then created rights? No.

Our founders borrowed heavily from the ideas of John Locke. Locke proposed three primary rights: life, liberty, property. (Sound familiar?) His reasoning for people's having rights in the first place had to do with social contract theory and the ultimate aims of society (with some theology thrown in, but I typically ignore that... because you can easily ignore it and make perfect sense of Locke). That's where the IDEA of rights come from (at least from an American liberal perspective).

Now, once you have an idea of what system of rights we ought to have, who enforces that? The government. But rights don't "come from" the government. At least, not the IDEA of rights or the notion that we ought to have rights.

The founders didn't create a government which then created our rights. They created a system of rights and set up the government to protect that system. This system of rights sets prohibitions on the gov't just as much as it enables it. They even created a system of constitutional amendments which allow the people (via the government) to change our system of rights.

I think this is a pretty clear and cogent explanation which covers the topic quite well.

I've heard the argument that a right is, essentially, a claim.

As a concept, it doesn't necessarily mean it applies to everyone equally. A monarch or feudal lord might have claimed their "rights," but that was only for them. And that usually depends on how much force they can muster up to defend their rights.

With human rights in general, these concepts came about after major upheavals and uprisings where the state was enjoined to accede to granting certain rights, rather than face a disgruntled and restless populace. Along similar lines, governments might have been compelled to grant rights to people of a certain class, nationality, gender, or race, while denying them to others, although this, too, met with strong resistance and could not be maintained.

So, it might be said that rights are derived out of a sense of political expediency and practicality. The consequences of government not granting rights to its citizenry could ultimately lead to both internal and external problems for such a government. WW2 saw some of the most brutal and horrific human rights violations imaginable, and in the aftermath, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was forged. That's probably even more comprehensive than our own Bill of Rights in America.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

From the existence of a community willing to support, enforce and sustain them.

"Rights" is a misleading choice of word. "Gifts", "givens" or even "boundaries" would make more sense.

Edited to add: on second thought, "gifts" and "givens" are also misleading, for opposite reasons. It might be worth trying to alternate between "rights" and "gifts" or even to combine the two words somehow.

 

[InChrist]

Actually the Bible does say that. But Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe.

You seem to have your own version of heaven. What is it?

No, the Bible doesn’t refer to torture or hot coals in reference to one’s eternal destiny.

I don’t have my own version of heaven. The biblical version is that heaven is a place of holiness, love, purity, joy, peace , beauty, and creativity; no tears, suffering, or death. No one can have eternal life in heaven unless perfectly holy and righteous, which is impossible for anyone, since everyone sins and falls short of God’s perfect holiness. The Bible says eternal life in heaven is available through the forgiveness and righteousness of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[InChrist]

Thus conveniently explaining away why God doesn't seem to do anything where and when it would actually accomplish something.

How do you know what God is or isn’t accomplishing?

 

[InChrist]

Do you really have a right if no-one is there to enforce it?

Maybe not in a practical sense, as far as being able to live out one’s rights. Nevertheless, if one has certain rights given by the Creator then I think such rights exist, are valid and real and even when they are infringed upon or a person cannot exercise such rights.

 

[Heyo]

I would love to know what he expected to happen after the Capitol was taken over. I'll bet (with little to no evidence) that establishing military rule with himself as dictator figured somehow.

Military rule is out of the picture for Trump. As they have already demonstrated, the military doesn't take orders from Trump.

Trump's dream was to overturn the election by threat and intimidation and rule as "democratically elected" President.

 

[Mock Turtle]

As mentioned by @sayak83 in #36, I'm in agreement as to rights being a social contract that any group of people, and mostly of societies or even whole countries, agree to adopt, with a corresponding taking on of responsibilities as to ensuring such are applicable to all, and people knowing what they gain or lose by respecting such rights or not doing so. I don't believe humans have any 'natural rights', but life seems to be easier overall, and more pleasant, if we do have such rights rather than other situations developing - like various things being imposed upon us and coming from some particular viewpoint. And reciprocal rights seems to be the closest as to what many moral systems have as a basis - something like, the Golden Rule along with Kant's categorical imperative.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How do you know what God is or isn’t accomplishing?

The Holocaust. The Maternity/Children's hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine. Boxing Day tidal wave that killed over 1/4 million people in 14 countries. Nearly 70,000 people killed in Turkey and Syria just this year by an earthquake. The endless slaughter of children in their schools.

Now, you can claim that all this will be made better in heaven somehow, but that's just a claim, nothing more. But down here, on earth, where all that dying and misery has happened and is happening -- sorry, but heaven remains silent on all that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

Rights are an attempt to put ideals into practice, but humans beings are too conflicted for ideals. We desire the attainment of conflicting goals. This does not mean that ideals don't exist. What this implies is that rights are something which we partially implement and which only truly exist in idea space, but we keep trying to get closer to them. Its like romance, because it is the pursuit that matters, not the attainment. We do have rights but can never fully attain them. Nevertheless it is good and practical to recognize we have them and that they are not merely consensus nor merely agreements.

 

[vulcanlogician]

So, it might be said that rights are derived out of a sense of political expediency and practicality. The consequences of government not granting rights to its citizenry could ultimately lead to both internal and external problems for such a government. WW2 saw some of the most brutal and horrific human rights violations imaginable, and in the aftermath, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was forged. That's probably even more comprehensive than our own Bill of Rights in America.

I personally think it is a sense of reasonableness and morality where we derive our concept of universal human rights. As the Nazis showed, it can be quite politically expedient and practical to deny rights to a slice of the population... it can justify giving a fascist regime power and/or the ability to oppress/murder its citizenry. So I disagree that political expediency or practicality is where we derive our concept of rights.

BTW, when I use the term "rights" in this context, I always mean "universal human rights" and NOT the particular "rights" of powerful people to exercise their power. I might call the latter "privilege." (Although this is a distinction that not everyone makes when they use the term; I'm just saying what I mean when *I* say "rights.")

 

[Koldo]

There are two questions being asked here. A government enforces a system of rights. But they don't typically create them.

Let's take a look at America. Did the founders create a government which then created rights? No.

Our founders borrowed heavily from the ideas of John Locke. Locke proposed three primary rights: life, liberty, property. (Sound familiar?) His reasoning for people's having rights in the first place had to do with social contract theory and the ultimate aims of society (with some theology thrown in, but I typically ignore that... because you can easily ignore it and make perfect sense of Locke). That's where the IDEA of rights come from (at least from an American liberal perspective).

Now, once you have an idea of what system of rights we ought to have, who enforces that? The government. But rights don't "come from" the government. At least, not the IDEA of rights or the notion that we ought to have rights.

The founders didn't create a government which then created our rights. They created a system of rights and set up the government to protect that system. This system of rights sets prohibitions on the gov't just as much as it enables it. They even created a system of constitutional amendments which allow the people (via the government) to change our system of rights.

What makes something be a right? By what standards do we ought to evaluate the claim that something is a right?

What distinguishes an empty claim about something being a right and something de facto a right?

My answer is that the only distinction between an empty claim and the real deal is someone backing up through force the existence of that right. And therefore, we can effectively say that a government created rights.

 

[Stevicus]

The Holocaust. The Maternity/Children's hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine. Boxing Day tidal wave that killed over 1/4 million people inm 14 countries. Nearly 70,000 people killed in Turkey and Syria just this year by an earthquake. The endless slaughter of children in their schools.

Now, you can claim that all this will be made better in heaven somehow, but that's just a claim, nothing more. But down here, on earth, where all that dying and misery has happened and is happening -- sorry, but heaven remains silent on all that.

I suppose from the viewpoint of one who believes in an Afterlife and that death is not really the end, then one might take the view that the suffering is transitory and that everything turns out okay in the end. That would mean that death is no more significant than the "death" of a character in a video game. But then, that begs the question that, if life is nothing more than a game, why should "sin" be taken so seriously? Why should religion demand rituals, sacrifice, and worship, when life is nothing more than a silly game that will eventually end? Why should religion be taken any more seriously than Super Mario Brothers?