Rights vs. Duties

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hello F(r)iends,

Should all human rights be protected?

Should humans have the right to believe that their race is superior? Inferior? Should humans have the right to believe that other races are inferior? Should humans have the right to believe that alcohol is evil? Should humans have the right to have all white neighborhoods? All black? Should humans have the right to all Christian neighborhoods? All Muslim? If I run a business in town and choose only to serve black people, should I have that right? Should I have the right to not serve homosexuals? Should I have the right to only serve homosexuals? Should I have the right to serve only Christians? Only Men? Only women? Why or why not? Should I have the right to serve only smokers? Should I have the right to serve only Hispanics? Jews? Arabs? Blue eyed, hot bodied blondes?

In the United States, where all men are created equal, we protect people from discrimination; however, are the rights of “discriminators” being infringed upon? Should I have the right, due to my religion, to serve only Atheists?

Should humans have the right to believe if it infringes on anothers rights?
Should humans have the right to believe in “x”?

-Thirst
{try not to focus on the individual questions, rather on the general idea}

2

The converse of a right is a duty, so the simple answer is ‘no’ - we shouldn’t have whatever rights we want or think we should have.

My cousin was interviewing some prospective applicants to Oxford colleges for Philosophy last week and one of the questions he was asking them is along these lines - what rights should be protected, do people have the right to their opinion etc. Only two out of a whole afternoon of applicants understood that the converse of a ‘right’ is a ‘duty’ and that this meant that most ‘rights’ cannot be held simply by virtue of being desirable, but rather that wherever someone claimed a right another had to accord him that right by way of duty.

Good topic.

3

Hello F(r)iends,

OBW, correct me if I am wrong, but the argument then becomes that it is our duty to believe in “X”. That is, it is our duty to believe in equality for all; it is our duty to tolerate what “Y” has deemed a sin; et al…

What are the duties of mankind?

-Thirst

Edit: Changed title of the thread from: The Right To Believe In An “ism” to “Rights Vs. Duties”

4

A right is something we deem the meets the bare minimum for civilized existence. You have a right not to fear for your life when you enter a public place. Without rights, we cannot have a civilization. You have loose tribes.

Duties are something that we as individuals have to do, as per societies requirements. They are the grease that keeps our machine going. For example, if we shirk our duty to pay taxes, we no longer have roads, police, firemen, ect. Without duties, we cannot have a society.

In that, duties are more basal. What happens when we do not respect one another and obey social norms? Those are duties.

5

Hi thirst.

This is a bogus question. Rights do not apply to beliefs, but to actions. We may state rights in terms that seem to indicate that they apply to beliefs, but this is not truly the case. The right to believe in God, for instance, is a theoretical, unenforcable, needless and unimportant one absent some action, even when that action is based solely on that belief (which is, in practise, a doubtful scenario). The right here really only applies to worshipping him, which means engaging in some activity that expresses that worship. Those actions inevitably have consequences beyond the mere belief of the actor. It is those actions and those consequences that are regulated by rights, not the belief itself.

For the record, I am a social contractarian that has no particular use for rights, but that can be talked into adopted a few if they can be shown to be useful. Rights are inventions, some useful, some not.

fausty

6

I am resolved, as was Locke, Jefferson, Rand, and many other philosophers; that all humans are, as humans, unique and equal; and that it follows from this that they have a natural right to life, which means the right to freely pursue the qualitative happiness symptomatic of the fullest flourishment of life.

A “right” is a moral concept. It has no meaning outside of the context of morality, and morality requires an understanding of terms such as “value” and “freedom” to be meaningful. A value presupposes an entity for which something can be of value, and such an entity must have the freedom to choose that value or work against it inorder for morality to have meaning or applicability. First, I want to discuss that concept of “value,” how it can only be applied to living things. Second, I want to discuss how only human living things have the “freedom” which requires morality and rights.

  1. The concept of “value” does not apply to non-living things. A rock does not have anything to gain or lose. It may change it’s form but never cease to exist. Living things, however, do have something to lose, their life. Life is a process which must be sustained. It is a built-in, intrinsic value for living things. If action is not taken to preserve and promote the life of an organism, it dies. So, value can be applied to living things.

This is not enough yet to make the concept of morality meaningful. If a living thing does not have the freedom to choose not to pursue its intrinsic value, then its actions in promoting and protecting its life, its intrinsic value, are still descriptive, not prescriptive. It makes no sense to tell a tree that it ought to pursue life. A tree does that anyhow. Most living things do whatever their natures allow to protect and promote their lives. It, therefore, makes no sense to say living things have a" right" to attempt to survive. Moral terms are not applicable to living things which must do what they do by their natures.

  1. Human beings are different. They have some automatic functions but not enough to flourish. Human beings must cultivate their language and an ability to reason, and they must choose to employ reason or accept the consequences of not employing reason. Humans must use their judgment. Their natures are not complete. With their freedom, they participate in creating their own natures within generalizable parameters. Some of those parameters include respecting the “rights” other humans to participate in creating their own natures.

The idea of respecting human rights is included in Kant’s philosophy, in the categorical imperative and in the dictum that one ought to treat each individual as an end, not as a means. It is included in Sartre’s philosophy when he says that choices we make are made for everybody. This is just another version of the categorical imperative, that one ought not do what one would not prescribe for anyone else in that situation to do. It was a way of keeping his relativism from becoming too personal, too private, too irrelevant. Versions of the golden rule are other ways of looking at respecting equal, human rights. We shouldn’t do to others what we don’t want them to do to us. It is the libertarian ideal of doing whatever we want as long as we allow others to also do what they want. We have a right to pursue happiness but not by violating another person’s right to pursue happiness. That is what is meant by “equal” right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a condition of existence required for the proper survival of all human beings. That is what is meant by “natural” or “unalienable”

I open myself to questions.

bis bald,

Nick

7

Hi, Nick. I have many questions, but I dislike long posts. I’ll start with, er, um, your first sentence. How exactly does it follow from the position you stake that all humans are unique and equal (perhaps you could explain what you mean by “equal” here - equal in what way, I mean) that they have a natural right to life?

A natural right, usually, is one that is not dependent upon human invention. Does this uniqueness and equality cause the right? If it implies the right, howso does it? Does the right imply the uniqueness and equality?

Forgive me for saying so, but I find the phrase “it follows from this” just a bit vague. What logical operation are you describing here?

fausty

8

You have the right to be “selfish”. You have the right to breath, eat, sleep, etc. These are all “selfish” acts, done for self. But when you try to change the people around you, or “change the world” – this is “unselfish”; it is nolonger about self, it is about others. Charity and opression are each unselfish acts upon others; one is good for them, one is bad for them, but each was your own will extending out of yourself, and then altering others.

But, who says that anyone even has any “rights”? Suppose a father and a mother had to watch one of their children die? Did a small bacteria or virus have more “rights” then a human being? One “infringed” upon the “rights” of another. Why? One was “stronger” then the other.

I’ve forgotten the name of the general that had said this, but he did say:
“Our only right is our strength.”

“Human rights” are given to humans, by the people who have power over society; these are the rulers and the law systems. If you where more powerful then them, you could give yourself more “rights” then them.

This [at the root] is actually all a question of selfish vs unselfish, or trying to effect another’s body – instead of focusing on your own. But what happens when someone combines selfishness with the idea of not being greedy and mundane? What if someone is almost completely “Selfish” – but does not exploit others? That’s too hard for people, they would rather attach themselves to the world, and then complain when the world didn’t live up to their expectation, or cooperate.

9

First, human beings are unique among living things in that they require a volitional, structured form of symbol manipulation to flourish. They are not bound by their natures, as are trees or insects and other animals. Humans use their reasoning ability, sometimes, to be creative, resourceful. They participate in creating their own natures. They are free. They are different in kind and not just degree from other living things.

Second, they are equal as humans. If one human has a right to pursue a flourishing survival, then all humans do. It is not the case that one human or a faction of humans is more or less human and thus more or less entitled to flourish than another. If rights are the conditions of existence required for the flourishing survival of humans, it follows from the fact that they are equal that they have equal rights to these conditions. If all As are B, and humans are A; then humans are B. Do you see?

bis bald,

Nick

10

Rights and duties are determined by the collective.

Merely posing the question, means you either demand or ask for a right you deny yourself because it wasn’t given to you from someone else.

11

Nick, I realize that you are not presenting this as a formal argument, but you are arguing your case in some way. Even so, there are some problems.

There is much that I must leave aside, at least for the moment, because your premises, such as they are, contain so many unaddressed assumptions that I fear my main point would be lost if I dealt with all of them. You are, for one thing, playing fast and loose with the generally used meaning of “nature”, as in “human nature”. This concept usually does not include creative participation. A nature is fixed, immutable, or it is not a nature. You can change the meaning of a word to give it a technical usage, but you must explain to the reader that you are doing that, and then stick to that technical meaning. You have not done this, which is at least one of the reasons I am confused.

That being said, it seems as if the one actual implication you have attempted here is this: If one human has the right to pursue a flourishing survival (whatever that may be), then all do. Firstly, where have you established that one human has this right? Secondly, how does this imply that they all do? You must at least describe this equality of all humans to some extent. Surely we are not equivalent the way, say, one and one are.

Also, it remains to be shewn, at least by you, that rights are required for this flourishing survival. The consequent of an implication means nothing until you have somehow established that the antecedent is acceptable as a fact. The consequent may be true, but this would be accidental vis a vis your argument.

Remember, if you will, that I am only asking about your first point - the first sentence. I still do not think you have even attempted to establish any fact, or candidate for an accepted premise in any argument you may be making here. This is, in fact, not an argument at all, but an edict.

So, these rights are required (tell me why this is so) and all humans are equal (in what way? In that they are all equally human? - surely you can see the logical problem here) so we all have an equal right to these rights.

I am not attempting to burlesque your argument. I am trying to learn if there is more than one premise to it.

f

12

I think it is safe to say that it is an immutable aspect of human nature that we are group-beings. A lone human is barely (if at all) anything. Especially if compared to other animals.

As such, we need a code to regulate this natural order. From that code, rights and duties arise.

A natural progression from a very important aspect of our nature.

13

Hi, Xun. I agree that we need a code. But “natural” rights are permanent legitimizations of claims to social goods. As such, to really be natural rights, they must precede the moral code, and do not arise from it. This is why most rights-based moral philosophy degenerates into a natural rights paradigm, as does Nick’s.

Again, I have no qualms about the need for a moral code. But Natural Rights are fiction. What you say here is resting on a slippery slope to natural rights, at least.

Thus is the relentless search of the philosopher for certainty. Certainty is not required for the creation of an orderly society. Why fall back on certainty, then?

f

14

Perhaps you have not read Sartre, who distinguishes between being-in-itself, (en-soy) which is fixed, complete, loosely an object with a fixed nature, and being -for-itself, (pour-soi) which is incomplete, fluid, indeterminate. It is this in-itself, the subject, which corresponds to human consciousness. It is the being which is in the process of becoming. This is how exisitentialism gets to freedom. I have not changed the meaning of words. This terminology has been around in existential writings.

It is not the case that all humans can play basketball as well as some, but all humans are equal qua humans. They are rational beings similar enough to each other that they can emphasize with each other. One knows that torture and murder are wrong because one would normally not wish, himself or herself, to be tortured and murdered. The golden rule and the categorical imperative work because of this. Psychotics and sociopaths who don’t see this may think that killing humans is somewhat like killing fish. They don’t see the big deal, but they have a disorder.

I understand how validity and truth work. Your condesension amuses me. I am defining rights as conditions of existence for the flourishing survival of humans, qua humans, in groups. And, I think it is self evident that all humans are so equal and have equal conditions of existence required for their flourishing survival. Those who disagree with me would fall into the category of racists or bigots of some kind, who think some humans are more or less entitled to a flourishing existence than others.

So you say. I quess that’s your edict.

bis bald,

Nick

15

Thanks, Nick. That you think that the categorical imperative “works” is enough for me. I surely see that further conversation is futile.

f

16

The categorical imperative has problems when it comes to situation ethics and flexibility, but it does eliminate hypocracy and offer a justification for punishment. If one ought not do anything unless he or she can prescribe it as a universal law, then one can’t really say it is alright for him or her to steal from others but those others ought not steal from him or her. The murderer who murders but thinks he or she should not be punished for doing so is an irrational hypocrite. It is a tighter version of the negative golden rule, which works as a moral principle.

Of course, since you don’t see this, I agree that further conversation with you is futile.

bis bald,

Nick

17

But, “rights” are a construct. We call them ‘rights’ because we have found them to be incredibly useful within our natural society. Human society, like anything else, evolves and changes. Are we to argue that the nation-state of today is the same as the city-state of antiquity? Are we to argue that tribal patriachies are the same as modern societies? Though these ‘rights’ have not always been a part of human society, for human society in its present form they are very much required.

That’s why I said that rights are necessary for a civilization (such as we have now); whereas duties are necessary for society (as it has always been). Rights are duties of the State. Before civilization began, the despot did not truly owe his underlings anything, that is a right-less society. Yet, the underlings did owe the despot quite a great deal, in terms of action.

18

Xun - I think that you have presented here about as concise a history of rights as is humanly possible. I wish that such economy of expession were a gift that I possessed.

I cannot respond further at this time, as I must now go to Miami Beach and party like a rock star. But my response will generally be that, within the framework of a social contract, rights are not necessary, but may be employed if useful. This is not a Rousseauan (?) or Rawlsian SC, that I speak of. Perhaps we will find that you and I disagree only on minor points. I am very interested in what you have to say, however. I am always interested when someone has thoughts as clear as yours seem to be. Bit of a rarity 'round here.

I only respond now because I was impressed with your presentation, and thought I would say so.

f

19

Human society evolves and changes. This is evidence of human freedom. However, humans have not evolved into something else yet. Humans of ancient times were as human as humans of today. That which promoted and protected their flourishing survival was generally the same then as it is today. That which threatened and destroyed them is generally the same as it is today. If natural rights are conditions of existence required for the flourishing survival of humans, they are the same today as they have always been since humans first evolved and will be the same until humans evolve into something else.

Legal rights do change. The paper rights that get constructed by people to secure their natural rights depend on the people. If they are well constructed, by a just government, they do secure natural rights, conditions of existence for the flourishing survival of humans, but they can be inadequate, in conflict with those rights, or even violate those rights.

People don’t get their natural rights from governments. The purpose of governments is to protect the natural rights people have by virtue of being human, rights which existed prior to the existence of humans just as the conditions for sound existed even when nodody was around to hear it.

bis bald,

Nick

20

Ach so!
That is where we must disagree. Under the tribal system the despot (who is the State) had every right in the world to kill those beneath him. This was natural and this was the way of the world. Much of the history of mankind is the history of might makes right and, in some cases, rights.

Our society has evolved (mostly) beyond those primitive times, mostly through the invention of rights. As you have suggested, they represent a selective advantage to societies (what was it the Athenian cried upon the defeat of the Persians? “Behold the power of Democracy!” I believe). However, this represents a societal evolution.

You say the man of today is the same as the man of the tribal times, and I ask: how so? Our society is completely unrecognizable to them. Many of them would not understand its functionings, nor would many of them want to embrace its seeming instability.

We have five fingers and five toes, but is that the extent of what it is to be human? Our society has evolved, even if we, mere carriers of knowledge and genes, have remained physically the same.

You say that which provides a selective advantage is natural. I can agree to that, but just because it is natural does not mean that it is eternal.