Where do rights come from?

[Koldo]

But why have all these people come to the same conclusion? It's rare for even a class of students to come to such unanimity, let alone whole nations. There must be something more here, binding their beliefs together, a much deeper philosophy directing the thought process.

But it is not about unanimity. You won't see the citizens of those nations actually agreeing in unanimity on a specific list of rights.

 

[1137]

The State? God? Religion? Something else?

From objective morality.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm more asking what gives them their moral basis.

Is there any particular philosophy behind them, any argumentation, any method?

Our sense of community. The Golden Rule.

 

[Rival]

But it is not about unanimity. You won't see the citizens of those nations actually agreeing in unanimity on a specific list of rights.

I don't see anyone levelling any serious challenges to the BoR.

In order to emigrate to the USA one must agree to certain terms and conditions, which include moral and cultural.

If the citizens didn't broadly agree on the Bill the US would be an anarchy.

 

[Shaul]

Rights are innate qualities of a being that derive from the natural order of that being. Rights are self-generative and self-expressed. They are internal to the being and require nothing external to it but can be constrained by external forces.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Human rights are rooted in philosophy, law, and the values held by various societies and cultures. They do not have a single, universally agreed-upon source, but they have evolved over time through a combination of historical events, philosophical thought, and legal developments. As @Revoltingest says, they are arrived at -- if they are arrived at at all -- by consensus. Thus, they can differ from society to society, or be more generalized as various societies, through treaties, agree to conform with one another. Here are some key sources and influences on the development of human rights:

1. Philosophical and Ethical Foundations: Human rights have deep philosophical roots in the ideas of individual dignity, equality, and justice. Thinkers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and others have contributed to the development of ideas that underpin human rights.
2. Religious and Moral Traditions: Many religious and moral traditions emphasize the inherent worth and dignity of every individual. These traditions have played a role in shaping the moral principles that underlie human rights.
3. Historical Struggles and Documents: Important historical events, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the American Declaration of Independence (1776), and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), have contributed to the development of human rights by asserting principles of liberty and equality.
4. International Agreements and Treaties: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, is a pivotal international document that outlines a broad range of human rights. Various international treaties and conventions have further codified and expanded upon these rights. Still, we must not forget that though the UN adopted the Declaration, many member states honour them in the breach, as Hamlet says.
5. Legal Systems: National legal systems and constitutions in many countries incorporate human rights principles and protections. Courts and legal decisions also contribute to the development of human rights jurisprudence. Again, this can be considered to be a kind of consensus, per @Revoltingest.
6. Social and Political Movements: Social and political movements, such as the civil rights movement in the United States, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, and women's rights and LGBTQ+ movements worldwide, have played a crucial role in advocating for and securing human rights.
7. Customary International Law: Some human rights principles have become a part of customary international law through consistent state practice and the recognition of certain rights as fundamental norms.

Of course as with the UN Declaration, the specific content and interpretation of human rights can vary among different cultures, legal systems, and political ideologies. Nonetheless, there is a global consensus on a core set of fundamental human rights that include the right to life, liberty, and security, the right to be free from torture and slavery, the right to equality before the law, and the right to freedom of thought, expression, and religion, among others.

Again, with respect to @Revoltingest, who used a single word -- which I am incapable of -- human rights have evolved and continue to evolve through a complex interplay of philosophical, historical, legal, and social factors. In other words, consensus. They represent a set of principles and values that seek to protect the dignity and well-being of every individual, regardless of their background or circumstances.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm just wondering why a particular culture arrives at that set of morals and upon what foundation is bases them/which authority.

From life experience, like anything else - specifically the inevitable relationships between individuals and the greater world. And given different humans find themselves in different environments - both ecological and social - that will shape different sets of behavioral limitations (aka, morals) within those individuals and collectives.

 

[Rival]

Nonetheless, there is a global consensus on a core set of fundamental human rights that include the right to life, liberty, and security, the right to be free from torture and slavery, the right to equality before the law, and the right to freedom of thought, expression, and religion, among others.

I agree with most of what you've written except this. I don't see this in many nations.

 

[MikeF]

I'm just wondering why a particular culture arrives at that set of morals and upon what foundation is bases them/which authority.

I think one must take into account that any generation is raising the next generation within the accepted framework that currently exists. If one looks at the historical record, one can see how moral frameworks evolve and change over time. Sometimes change occurs with little fuss, other times it takes pressure for change building over multiple generations that then may result in a dramatic change within the generation in which the change is codified and accepted or tolerated by the majority. Even once change occurs, it can take generations for society to reach some form of equilibrium after the change. The abolishment of slavery in the United States might serve as an example here.

If you want to understand where it all began, you will have to turn your attention to our earliest pre-language ancestors in which evolved instinctual behaviors primarily governed individual and group actions.

 

[Koldo]

I don't see anyone levelling any serious challenges to the BoR.

In order to emigrate to the USA one must agree to certain terms and conditions, which include moral and cultural.

If the citizens didn't broadly agree on the Bill the US would be an anarchy.

There is significant dissent over the second amendment, and one of the amendments has de facto been repealed.

It is also important to notice the Bill of Rights actually contains very few rights. Thus, giving litte room for disagreements.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I agree with most of what you've written except this. I don't see this in many nations.

Well, what I said is that these rights are "recognized" more or less globally, but as I also said, in some places they are honoured more in the breach than in observance. Where governments are more authoritarian, totalitarian, oligarchic, Theocratic or Dictatorial you'll hear about such rights, but not observe them so much in practice.

 

[Rival]

Well, what I said is that these rights are "recognized" more or less globally, but as I also said, in some places they are honoured more in the breach than in observance. Where governments are more authoritarian, totalitarian, oligarchic, Theocratic or Dictatorial you'll hear about such rights, but not observe them so much in practice.

Soviet Rights...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm more asking what gives them their moral basis.

Is there any particular philosophy behind them, any argumentation, any method?

17th Century Liberal Humanism, as represented by Locke, for example, whom Jefferson largely copied in the Declaration of Independence

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There is significant dissent over the second amendment, and one of the amendments has de facto been repealed.

It is also important to notice the Bill of Rights actually contains very few rights. Thus, giving litte room for disagreements.

The BoR is actually mostly a list of proscriptions limiting what government can do to people, what are called Civil Liberties...can't make laws concerning the free exercise of religion, for example, and must provide for fair and speedy trials...the Writ of Habeus Corpus (Show me the Body) is written into the body of the Constitution itself, and is another limit on government: it must show just cause for the arrest and trial of an individual.

 

[LuisDantas]

The State? God? Religion? Something else?

Once we leave aside what amounts to political pressure for other perceptions and claims, at the end of the day and when we look at the actual facts our personal rights do exist and can only exist as the direct result of other people's willingness to grant us the spaces and privileges that build those rights.

Our rights come from existing in a society that wants us to have those rights and whose members are willing and able to cooperate with the expression of those rights.

 

[Mister Emu]

The State? God? Religion? Something else?

Rights are a philosophical construct, their authority is provisioned under a metaphysical ordering of reality.

Tertullian coined the term when he spoke of the "fundamental human right" to freedom of belief, which he noted as "a privilege of nature" in his letter to Scapula. There were times/locations with enlightened rulers in the past, who have allowed people this or that consideration that we recognize as rights today, but as far as I know they haven't been shown to have an underlying principle of an obligation that no one or group had the authority to revoke or deny/were a fundamental part of our nature as humans. That is to say, the philosophy of universal human rights are emergent from the Christian cultural context, undergird by its foundational Jewish heritage, with God as a supreme sovereign who has given gifts of freedom to humanity which are fundamental to the very nature of existence.

In all seriousness, rights are a human-made concept, just as are the concepts of good and evil. So as @Secret Chief points out, rights are nothing more than a concept made up in one's mind.

Consensus.

At this point you are no longer talking about the same construct. You're using the language of familiarity and comfort to describe something wholly different.

The entire point of human rights is that they are not socially constructed and cannot be removed by dint of earthly power or social pressure, only violated.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Once we leave aside what amounts to political pressure for other perceptions and claims, at the end of the day and when we look at the actual facts our personal rights do exist and can only exist as the direct result of other people's willingness to grant us the spaces and privileges that build those rights.

Our rights come from existing in a society that wants us to have those rights and whose members are willing and able to cooperate with the expression of those rights.

Well, and (I would argue) our own willingness to assert our right to the spaces and privileges that build on those rights...and our own willingness to do so for others...

I summarize it as "asserted by individuals, granted by society...in an ongoing dance between the individual and the society."

 

[Koldo]

The entire point of human rights is that they are not socially constructed and cannot be removed by dint of earthly power or social pressure, only violated.

That's rather what we would like them to be.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's rather what we would like them to be.

It's more the meaning of the term; if you aren't talking about privileges of nature independent of immediate social reality, if you don't believe it is possible for society to violate your rights, you aren't talking about rights.

Otherwise you're trying to define human rights by the very thing, socially constructed preferences for behavior that are authorized by the community, that human rights discourse is an argument against.

 

[Revoltingest]

At this point you are no longer talking about the same construct. You're using the language of familiarity and comfort to describe something wholly different.

The entire point of human rights is that they are not socially constructed and cannot be removed by dint of earthly power or social pressure, only violated.

To this heathen there is nothing observed that makes
rights "true" in the sense that they're invariant, inerrant,
& immutable. They vary with time, place, & culture.