Where do rights come from?

[Rival]

The State? God? Religion? Something else?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Three lefts.

 

[Secret Chief]

Our minds.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

The State? God? Religion? Something else?

Consensus.

 

[Rival]

In all seriousness, rights are a human-made concept, just as 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.

But who enforces them and by what authority? If they are made up, which is a fair point, on what basis have we at least agreed to act as though they're meaningful?

 

[SalixIncendium]

But who enforces them and by what authority? If they are made up, which is a fair point, on what basis have we at least agreed to act as though they're meaningful?

At least here in the US, government bureaucrats for starters. We have the Bill of Rights created and ratified late in the 18th century. Then we have human rights groups that petition bureaucrats and whips in the legislative branch of government to add or amend rights.

 

[Rival]

At least here in the US, government bureaucrats for starters. We have the Bill of Rights created and ratified late in the 18th century. Then we have human rights groups that petition bureaucrats and whips in the legislative branch of government to add or amend rights.

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?

 

[SalixIncendium]

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?

The US Federal Government.

 

[Rival]

The US Federal Government.

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

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

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

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

I suppose I would have to go back to what @Secret Chief and @Revoltingest said and my elaboration. Their moral foundation is a mental concept arrived at by a consensus of a group or a society.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose I would have to go back to what @Secret Chief and @Revoltingest said and my elaboration. Their moral foundation is a mental concept arrived at by a consensus of a group or a society.

Examples of consensus...
1) The legal right to abortion in USA comes & goes
based upon consensus of SCOTUS justices.
2) As consensus of the public evolved towards
gay marriage, SCOTUS eventually approved it.
(But changes in justices might reverse it.)

 

[Rival]

I suppose I would have to go back to what @Secret Chief and @Revoltingest said and my elaboration. Their moral foundations is a mental concept arrived at by a consensus of a group or a society.

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.

 

[Rival]

An example of consensus...
The legal right to abortion in USA comes & goes
based upon consensus of SCOTUS justices.

But the argument often still hinges on rights of mother/rights of baby, so the language is the same. Other cultures may not use or understand such rights language.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

Correct. And the rights of a particular society are based upon the morals arrived at by a consensus of minds of that particular culture.

 

[Rival]

Correct. And the rights of a particular society are based upon the morals arrived at by a consensus of minds of that particular culture.

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

For instance, the Didache makes a pronouncement against abortion without recourse to language of rights, and for many Christians this pronouncement is enough as a moral authority because of a top-down chain from God to the Apostles to everyone else. I'm wondering what is the chain of authority here, for example. I hear a lot of talk about rights, but not much talk of where those rights come from and why we ought to observe them in the first place. I think it's a very important question.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the argument often still hinges on rights of mother/rights of baby, so the language is the same. Other cultures may not use or understand such rights language.

True dat.
Still, it's always about consensus.

 

[Rival]

True dat.
Still, it's always about consensus.

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Consensus varies. In USA, there is no durable
agreement on abortion rights & bodily autonomy.
At times, various legal rights arise, but are then
modified, or even abandoned.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

For instance, the Didache makes a pronouncement against abortion without recourse to language of rights, and for many Christians this pronouncement is enough as a moral authority because of a top-down chain from God to the Apostles to everyone else. I'm wondering what is the chain of authority here, for example. I hear a lot of talk about rights, but not much talk of where those rights come from and why we ought to observe them in the first place. I think it's a very important question.

I've already touch on where I think they came from. As far as why we ought to observe them, I think as with other law much of why we observe them is fear of consequence. If you don't observe them, you risk consequences up to and including prison or eternal damnation. That's not exclusively the reason, but I think that's a large part of it.