Where do rights come from?

[Alien826]

In the most general sense, rights are something granted by the more powerful to the less powerful. All the rest is determining how the more powerful come to their conclusions.

I don't see anything corresponding to "natural" rights. We have a right to life? Someone falls off the top of a tall building. Freeze time when he is still falling and consider. Does he have a right to life? If he does then it's not going to do him much good. Do the citizens in Gaza have the rights enumerated in the Geneva Convention?

 

[Secret Chief]

In the most general sense, rights are something granted by the more powerful to the less powerful. All the rest is determining how the more powerful come to their conclusions.

I don't see anything corresponding to "natural" rights. We have a right to life? Someone falls off the top of a tall building. Freeze time when he is still falling and consider. Does he have a right to life? If he does then it's not going to do him much good. Do the citizens in Gaza have the rights enumerated in the Geneva Convention?

Kim Jong Un probably can't even spell the word.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In the most general sense, rights are something granted by the more powerful to the less powerful. All the rest is determining how the more powerful come to their conclusions.

I don't see anything corresponding to "natural" rights. We have a right to life? Someone falls off the top of a tall building. Freeze time when he is still falling and consider. Does he have a right to life? If he does then it's not going to do him much good. Do the citizens in Gaza have the rights enumerated in the Geneva Convention?

In a representative form of government, where temporary leaders, at the consent of the general public, represent that public -- then surely the public is granting itself those rights, in the name of everyone. And that seems to me a very good thing indeed.

After all, we mustn't forget that in this case, rights can also be taken away. The thing about that is, when it is taken away, it is taken away from everyone. It can be a terrible thing to want to remove LGBTQ+ rights if you've got several members of your own family in the club.

 

[Estro Felino]

From us.
Whatever right we have, or we want to have, so must others.

 

[Kfox]

But if someone were to ask what gives the Bill of Rights its authority, since someone had to write it and decide on said written rights, what would the answer be?

Elected law makers passed laws giving the bill of rights it's authority

 

[Koldo]

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.

The problem is that the concept of rights doesn't exist solely as a religious or philosophical term, but also as a legal term. As far as the legal term goes, a right only has de facto power when it is ingrained into a legal system.

 

[Alien826]

In a representative form of government, where temporary leaders, at the consent of the general public, represent that public -- then surely the public is granting itself those rights, in the name of everyone. And that seems to me a very good thing indeed.

After all, we mustn't forget that in this case, rights can also be taken away. The thing about that is, when it is taken away, it is taken away from everyone. It can be a terrible thing to want to remove LGBTQ+ rights if you've got several members of your own family in the club.

What if you didn't vote for the ruling party and they grant or take away rights that you don't agree with? I'm inclined to think that those in power are only a section of the total population. A good example is the reversal of the Roe v Wade ruling. A minority of the population skewed an even smaller minority (SCOTUS) to do something that the majority didn't want.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The State? God? Religion? Something else?

The fittest and strongest. Rights are established by dominance, not givin.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What if you didn't vote for the ruling party and they grant or take away rights that you don't agree with? I'm inclined to think that those in power are only a section of the total population. A good example is the reversal of the Roe v Wade ruling. A minority of the population skewed an even smaller minority (SCOTUS) to do something that the majority didn't want.

Yes, all of that is of course true. We are humans, and we can't create a perfect anything, much less something as complex as government hoping to reflect the will of every last one of us! If you can think of a better way, I'd love to hear about it -- truly!

What you are talking about now (RvW) is the result of some a lot of fear-sowing, some cheating (by Republicans, actually, not Democrats, in packing SCOTUS in the most hypocritical fashion ever seen, thank you Mitch McConnell), and a huge amount of populism-heading-towards-authoritarianism. The best you can hope for is that when elections actually do come around, good people will make themselves heard in the pollsing booths.

And that doesn't always work!. Sometimes it takes much longer. And I'll give you an example -- the U.S. tried for decades to pass anti-lynching legislation. You'd think, for what many think of as a "Christian nation," that would be a no-brainer. But it never happened until --- wait for it --- 2022!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What if you didn't vote for the ruling party and they grant or take away rights that you don't agree with? I'm inclined to think that those in power are only a section of the total population. A good example is the reversal of the Roe v Wade ruling. A minority of the population skewed an even smaller minority (SCOTUS) to do something that the majority didn't want.

I have a question for you though: what rights that you don't agree with do you think should be taken away? And what makes you think so? Do you have some special insight into how other people should live their lives, that you think your view should prevail?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What if you didn't vote for the ruling party and they grant or take away rights that you don't agree with? I'm inclined to think that those in power are only a section of the total population. A good example is the reversal of the Roe v Wade ruling. A minority of the population skewed an even smaller minority (SCOTUS) to do something that the majority didn't want.

By the way, take a look at what Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville is doing in the Senate, preventing the promotions and appointments of literally hundreds of US military leaders -- because he, and he alone, has decided that he will do anything, including put the country at risk, to make the military stop paying for women in the military to travel to other states for medical care. One man who supposes that he is so wise, so perfect, that he can put a nation of 350 million persons at risk to get his own way.

No, we humans really can't make anything perfect. Often enough, we can't make them even very good.

 

[Augustus]

But cultures differ etc. so if the Federal Government collapsed tomorrow, I'm assuming most/many US citizens would still broadly agree with the Bill. Brits, on the other hand, would disagree with some clauses, as would other groups. I'm assuming there's a moral foundation for what is in the Bill that most Americans, knowingly or unknowingly, subscribe to. It's usually considered Enlightenment values, from which follows the French Revolution etc. It comes from people's minds, but those minds are influenced by many things, and France and the US, despite haivng such Enlightenment values, are not the same in many ways.

The American "freedom" schtick is the continuation of the English myth of the 'ancient constitution' where freeborn Englishmen enjoyed freedoms and liberties not possessed by those on the continent due to the malign influence of Popery.

16th C notions of this were exported to the Americas, and helped inspire the revolution. Later myth-making reimagined this as a product of American opposition to tyranny.

The moral basis for rights is myth anyway, be it religious or secular.

 

[Alien826]

By the way, take a look at what Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville is doing in the Senate, preventing the promotions and appointments of literally hundreds of US military leaders -- because he, and he alone, has decided that he will do anything, including put the country at risk, to make the military stop paying for women in the military to travel to other states for medical care. One man who supposes that he is so wise, so perfect, that he can put a nation of 350 million persons at risk to get his own way.

No, we humans really can't make anything perfect. Often enough, we can't make them even very good.

I have a question for you though: what rights that you don't agree with do you think should be taken away? And what makes you think so? Do you have some special insight into how other people should live their lives, that you think your view should prevail?

I got that backwards trying to quote both your posts together.

First post, first answer.
I'm a little puzzled that you are questioning me about my right to run other people's lives when I was just giving my opinion about where rights come from. I'll answer anyway. Obviously, like most people, I have my personal opinion about "how things should be". I think my view should prevail because I think it's the best view. I try to base that on facts, as known to me. Obviously I could be wrong. I'll also state that I have no right to impose my views on others without their agreement, and can only try to convince a majority (or be part of a movement that tries to do that) and eventually get things changed. If you want an example, I am totally opposed to the "right to bear arms" in the USA. I base that the number of innocent deaths that occur on an almost daily basis, and by comparing statistics from other countries. I have zero hope or expectation that will change and have pretty much given up on it.

Second post, second answer.
That supports my view about where rights come from, as Tuberville is (temporarily I hope) in a position to single-handedly block these appointments and therefore is in a position of power regarding them. That situation is created by the current situation in the Senate. It could be changed in a minute if enough Senators would vote to do so. Incidentally, what he is blocking is the approval of the appointments in groups, as is usually done. They could appoint them individually, but it would take forever. I have to say that's about where my understanding ends. The way the Senate works is mysterious. I agree with your opinion on him, incidentally.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm a little puzzled that you are questioning me about my right to run other people's lives when I was just giving my opinion about where rights come from

Perhaps my phrasing wasn't clear enough. I wasn't questioning your right to run other people's lives (frankly, you have no such right!). Rather, I was trying to get you to think like I do, and like I wish others would. I am not all-knowing. I can't know what drives a woman to wish to abort a pregnancy. I frankly don't favour abortion. BUT. I do not allow myself the luxury of telling others what they should do concerning matters that concern them most, and me not at all. I feel the same about pretty much everything else -- religion, sex, matters of dress, you name it, so long as they are doing no harm to anyone, and do everything involving others consensually. I accept 100% that my likes and dislikes apply to nobody but me.

This is the whole reason for constitutions and rights charters, by the way -- to prevent the "tyranny of the majority." How would I feel if a majority in my Canadian Parliament could pass a law anytime they felt like it, when they have a Conservative majority, to take away my right to live with and love my same-sex partner? Well, they can't -- our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and our Supreme Court, won't allow them to. (Well, technically they could using the "Notwithstanding" clause, for a period of 5 years, renewable, but the enusing battle would ensure that was the last Conservative government for decades.)

So I guess we might say that in the case of Canada, our Charter of Rights is above the capacity of law-makers to violate. And it is that way because we, as a people (as represented in consitutional conferences) chose it to be that way. In other words, we opted to make a law we couldn't easily repeal, for the general protection and good of all. The US Constitution is much the same, with the same purpose in mind, and developed by the Constitutional Congress in Philadelphia May 26 to Sept 17, 1786, with delegates from every (then) state (New Hampshire, always stubborn, started late).

 

[vulcanlogician]

The State? God? Religion? Something else?

The enforcement of rights comes from the government. If there were no constitution or governmental body to protect us, our rights would be nonexistent. But that's not the interesting bit. The interesting bit is the foundation for our IDEA of rights.

The IDEA of rights comes from a sense of morality. We don't give people rights because it is efficient to do so. It may be efficient sometimes. (It can also be inefficient.) But that's not why we think people ought to have rights.

Most people who endorse human rights (though some of them are loathe to admit it) do so out of a sense of morality. ie. it would be wrong to prohibit people from doing x and y harmless behaviors. example: It would be wrong to outlaw homosexual acts. Why? Because such a prohibition would be harmful to gay people. It would inhibit them in their pursuit of a happy life. That's morality. Plain and simple.

 

[Alien826]

Perhaps my phrasing wasn't clear enough. I wasn't questioning your right to run other people's lives (frankly, you have no such right!). Rather, I was trying to get you to think like I do, and like I wish others would. I am not all-knowing. I can't know what drives a woman to wish to abort a pregnancy. I frankly don't favour abortion. BUT. I do not allow myself the luxury of telling others what they should do concerning matters that concern them most, and me not at all. I feel the same about pretty much everything else -- religion, sex, matters of dress, you name it, so long as they are doing no harm to anyone, and do everything involving others consensually. I accept 100% that my likes and dislikes apply to nobody but me.

I agree with you totally. But the bolded part is critical. If I see people being harmed I feel the need to do something about it, if I can.

 

[Rival]

The enforcement of rights comes from the government. If there were no constitution or governmental body to protect us, our rights would be nonexistent. But that's not the interesting bit. The interesting bit is the foundation for our IDEA of rights.

The IDEA of rights comes from a sense of morality. We don't give people rights because it is efficient to do so. It may be efficient sometimes. (It can also be inefficient.) But that's not why we think people ought to have rights.

Most people who endorse human rights (though some of them are loathe to admit it) do so out of a sense of morality. ie. it would be wrong to prohibit people from doing x and y harmless behaviors. example: It would be wrong to outlaw homosexual acts. Why? Because such a prohibition would be harmful to gay people. It would inhibit them in their pursuit of a happy life. That's morality. Plain and simple.

But you are presuming that the goal is the pursuit of a happy life; I do rather think that's slightly hubristic for my taste.

 

[vulcanlogician]

But you are presuming that the goal is the pursuit of a happy life; I do rather think that's slightly hubristic for my taste.

Well, sure. There is a debate to be had there. When we ask the questions "What is moral?" or "What is good?" there are a plethora of answers to consider.

One such answer is "The happiness and pleasant feelings of a person are good. The suffering or anguish of a person is bad. And that's a foundational principle of morality." I like that answer personally, but I'm not married to it. It's just one of the best moral theories I've yet to encounter. And when you think about it, a lot of people think this way. A person who sets out to intentionally cause harm and suffering, we call "bad." Likewise, a person who sets out to cause happiness we tend to call "good." But what do we mean "good and bad"? We are talking about the moral dimension. If someone is "bad" enough in this regard, we might call them "evil." .... for example: "Hitler is evil because he caused so much pain and suffering."

Of course there are other moral principles out there. Some folks think that it is "good" to obey God, and "bad" to do the things that God has prohibited. I personally reject this kind of moral thinking... but just like happiness and suffering, these are the criteria that SOME people use to gauge the moral worth of an action.

Wellbeing and autonomy are other possible moral criteria that one might use when gauging moral worth... etc., etc., etc..

The point remains, morality is where we get our IDEA of rights. I tend to think that happiness and suffering are foundational moral concepts (as do many others). If I am correct, then it follows that "Gay rights are human rights." Someone else might see God's commands/prohibitions as foundational to morality. In their case, it would not necessarily follow that we should have gay rights.

In the final analysis, we don't arrive at a concept of rights without first having a concept of morality.

 

[We Never Know]

The State? God? Religion? Something else?

There is a fine line between rights and privileges.

For example. The right to vote or own fire arms can be taken away. So IMO they are privileges that you have as long as you play by the rules.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The moral basis for rights is myth anyway, be it religious or secular.

Care to debunk that myth?