5 ms·
The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. (Life, liberty, right to property, etc) They are things tha
by gipp 9y ago
The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. (Life, liberty, right to property, etc) They are things that a just society is obligated to not take _away_ from you. Things that a just and wealthy society should be able to provide _for_ its citizens (health care, economic security, etc), are laudable and highly important goals. They are not rights though -- not because they aren't important enough, but simply because they are a categorically different sort of thing.
The whole reason we have the concept of rights is that a social structure in which people do not have rights is an illegitimate one. An impoverished island nation which cannot afford to provide healthcare or internet access to its citizens is not illegitimate because of it.
- Al-Khwarizmi 9y agoYour comment flies in the face of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which certainly features medical care and education.
- gipp 9y agoWhich, in turn, flies in the face of the original, Lockeian definition of "natural rights". I'm not saying this article is alone in diluting the meaning of a "right", it's been going on for years all around the world. That dilution, though, has made it basically useless as a concept.
- ska 9y agoThis stance that there has been some sort of dilution would make more sense in a world where Locke's formulation of rights was a) unique and b) widely accepted as canonical. As neither are true, it begs the question.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cmurf 9y agoThe UDHR emerged from WWII, just as did the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. and the Nuremberg war crimes trials. They're not useless. And they diluted nothing. Human beings learned something. But somehow from then to now failed to figure out a way to broaden the consensus, and hold partners accountable. It's hardly any different than a family member who has a gambling problem, or drug addiction. Do you kick them to the curb? Or do you persist in making the best of a crappy situation? In most families it's a back and forth between making the best and punishing them in a persistent passive aggressive struggle. And global politics is no different, no less messy. But having ethical standards is still not useless.
- Klockan 9y agoUnited Nations disagrees with you, look at article 26 for example: Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
- gipp 9y agoAs with your sibling comment: > I'm not saying this article is alone in diluting the meaning of a "right", it's been going on for years all around the world. That dilution, though, has made it basically useless as a concept.
- ameister14 9y agoI'd make it a bit more specific - human rights are things that you have in the absence of society, as they are universally applicable, but they don't encompass all rights. A citizen can have a right to something provided by their society.
- msla 9y agoRights only make sense in the context of a society, because they can only govern the actions of fellow humans. Animals know nothing about rights. Non-living matter knows nothing at all, and so certainly nothing about rights. Therefore, rights only exist to guide and constrain what humans do, and any group of humans living together is a society.
- ameister14 9y agoI don't agree that rights only make sense in the context of a society, as rights may exist without being codified, it's just significantly more difficult to assert them without societal assistance. I can assert rights to other people without being a member of human society. My right to the apple on the ground is the classic example.
- msla 9y agoIf you're talking to other people, you're a member of a human society. The only people who aren't members of society live entirely alone 100% of the time. Edited because I can't reply: We've hit a definitional issue, and we're not going to be able to resolve it. You know what definition I used, I know what definition you're using, so continuing is pointless.
- ameister14 9y agoNo, if you're interacting with other people persistently or associated with people you're a member of society. If you interact with people sporadically, you're not necessarily a member of a human society. If we're talking state of nature here, even persistent interaction doesn't necessarily mean society - that generally requires cooperation.
- Joeri 9y agoThere's no such thing as a natural right. You don't have a natural right to life, just head out into the wilderness and see how much nature cares about your natural right to become certain of that. All rights are social covenants provided by fellow humans.
- flubert 9y agohttps://duckduckgo.com/?q=natural+rights https://duckduckgo.com/?q=natural+rights
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 9y agoThat a concept of natural rights exist does not mean that natural rights exist. A concept of leprechauns exists too, does that mean leprechauns exist?
- sidlls 9y agoIn the absence of society there are no such things as "rights" and most especially the ones you identified. In fact, in nature it's quite common for any or all of those things to be taken away.
- gipp 9y ago> in nature it's quite common for any or all of those things to be taken away Not by people, is the point. Rights only apply in terms of humans and human society, obviously.
- rayiner 9y agoI doubt humans that existed pre-civilization were any less likely to violently take property and life from other humans than were the apes they evolved from. Killing and eating your neighbor is one of the most fundamental freedoms you have as an organism. Only in the context of society does exercising that natural freedom become a violation of someone's rights.
- gnaritas 9y ago> The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. That's simply just an absurd and frankly silly point. Stop arguing about what words should mean and pay attention to the message people are communicating. Rights are whatever society agrees they are, it's as simple as that, nothing more and nothing less; no rights are inherent. There is not "should", there is only what is.
- gipp 9y agoSure, words mean whatever the consensus is that they mean. My definition above is just the original one. If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. But if "rights" encompass things that a perfectly just, well-intentioned society might very well _not be physically capable_ of providing, simply due to lack of resources, then what the hell is the point of calling something a "right" at all? What does that accomplish? What does that mean? All I'm saying is that this new, pretty much meaningless definition we've given it of "stuff we want" is much less useful than the original.
- gnaritas 9y ago> My definition above is just the original one. And outdated and not accepted one. Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. > If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. That was decided by the masses long ago. Language evolves. This is not "new" nor is it meaningless. Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. Anyone arguing about natural rights vs whatever is having a meaningless semantic argument with no one who matters. There are no natural rights, the concept is frankly silly; rights are inherently social in nature and have always been simply what people agree on.
- gipp 9y ago> Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. Yes, I know. I agreed with that in the comment you're replying to. > Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? I don't give a shit, really, if people go for a "Locke conception" of rights or whatever. I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," if it includes super expensive stuff that a lot of countries can't afford.
- kfriede 9y agoI believe the way you presented your two arguments shows them as non mutually exclusive. Couldn't healthcare or economic security be something that society is obligated to not take _away_ from you, while also not being something that a society should provide? For the record, I'm not advocating for calling any of those things rights. Simply posing a question regarding the above statements.
- vilmosi 9y agoHow would you have a right to property without society? Property, like money and other social constructs, require a society to recognise it. You can't "own" anything of other people don't recognise the fact that you own it. Which means you need society to govern who owns what.