3 ms·
Invoking rights like this creates a bridge between the normative (what ought to be) and the descriptive (what will be, whether it ought to or not). Often, yeah,
by bulatb 3y ago
Invoking rights like this creates a bridge between the normative (what ought to be) and the descriptive (what will be, whether it ought to or not). Often, yeah, to borrow the obvious "truth" of a normative statement so a false descriptive one looks true.
It lets you say "I really, really think that X is good" but act as if you're just reporting "Everyone agrees with me that we should do whatever 'X is good' implies." It muddles the meaning of rights, tarnishes the concept by equating the support for rights in general with a specific, controversial position many people will reject, and all to make an argument that won't stand up to scrutiny and makes your audience feel cheated.
It's confusing even trying to describe what's normative and what's descriptive in the headline. Arguing descriptively that something is a right, which isn't widely thought to be a right, because it ought to be a right, because then your claim would be accepted, is too convoluted. It's making a descriptive claim about what normatives I do accept that's actually a normative claim about what normatives I ought to behave as if I accept. What?
If you want argue for specific action, just do it. Don't try to tell the audience what they believe.
The framing also means that people argue about rights instead of whatever the point was, like we're about to do here.
- atoav 3y agoI didn't read it like that at all. To me when they say knowledge is a human right there is always a mental asterisk of "but it isn't". Otherwise why would they be doing what they do? And now one could argue is or should knowledge be a human right? What is the role of knowledge within a free and democratic society? How does adding friction to the access of information influence said free society? In wich cases is such a friction, or even a regulation of access desireable from the standpoint of a free society? When back in the the Suffragettes argued voting is a human right, they did so in the context of a society where they (women) didn't get that right. Was it therefore a bad argument? I don't think so, as the appeal to universality helped them get men on board.
- bulatb 3y agoI think this illustrates the problem: when it's framed in terms of rights, the conversation needs such careful wording and so many asterisks that it distracts from the point. I'm leaving out a bunch of things I want to say because it takes too long to say them. When someone says that X should be a right, is making it a right the ultimate goal? (What specifically does "should be a right" even mean? What do they think rights are? What do I?) Usually there's something else that making X a right implies, a goal for which the right is just an instrument. If making X a right results in Y, and Y is good, and that's why X should be a right, then why not argue directly for Y? Otherwise you make a purely moral argument that only works on people who already share your values. What if they don't? That happens all the time with moral framings. One side doesn't understand the other doesn't care about their values and repeating or restating them in different ways won't change that. Calling X a right is a position statement, not an argument. If you want to use it as a premise in an argument that "X is a right, therefore Y," you have to make a separate argument that X is actually a right. You can't just assert it. Borrowing the moral weight of humans rights most people recognize, attaching it to an asserted right most people don't, and using that to argue for an outcome based on their support for "human rights" is turning human rights into a stick to hit them with. The more it's used, the more they learn to roll their eyes at arguments invoking "human rights." What happens when they start to roll their eyes at human rights?
- ringo-ring 3y ago> It muddles the meaning of rights, tarnishes the concept by equating the support for rights in general with a specific, controversial position I am sorry, but knowledge is not specific, it is a very old, basic and fundamental concept. Without knowledge, human race wouldn't exist. It is not some transient and quirky concept suddenly made up. Even if controversial, it is a good candidate to be considered a human right. indeed, in the UN declaration of human rights, there is a right to education already in article 26 - it is not that different from knowledge, but knowledge as a concept fits here much better.
- bulatb 3y ago"The concept" is referring to rights. I can see how it could be unclear.