A philosophical question on human rights (or lack thereof)

[Ra'Sona Races-The-Wind]

Quite heavy going this, so be warned.

SO I've been thinking, what with all these atrocities in the world and such, and the talk about suffering and death and war on the news (when they aren't plugging celebrity non-stories and pointless gossip) and I've noticed that there are two very different core views on human rights as a whole. Everyone of course likes to pick and choose what they are personally entitled to, but that's a matter of personal perspective. What I'm wondering is on a wider scale.

Now of course as we all know there's the 'established' human rights to food, clean water, housing and personal safety, but those are described as either 'granted' or 'protected' depending on who's talking and that's what got me thinking, because those two terms are not the same thing. I'm going to ask you to bear with me through a HUGE speech and just take it as read for the sake of this discussion that as humans we either have the right to everything, or the right to nothing. All the possible rights or none of them, and this is what interests me.

So here's the question: Are we born with the right to choose whatever we want to do and are then limited by the decrees of our government, or are we innately without the right to anything at all and are then granted them by the government?

[veraka]

A baseline to think off of is this: are humans born evil, or do we have it input into our lives and therefore choose to do it of our own accord. I believe that this topic reflects the same concept at its core. As far as human rights are concerned, we are all born with right to choose what to do with our lives; it is our willingness, or lack of, that determines whether the government decrees have any effect on us, and how much you are willing to resort to to keep that willingness.

[Bhaern Quel]

[quote:15swcnfb] Are we born with the right to choose whatever we want to do and are then limited by the decrees of our government, or are we innately without the right to anything at all and are then granted them by the government?[/quote:15swcnfb]

Even this is not a correct question in some respects. People can be born without ability to do for themselves.

Setting aside that factor every human has the right of choosing what they will do. Such a right is not protected as such, because people can make very bad choices. Governments are the establishments of people that are designed to meet their goals. The US was based on free thinking and maximum citizen rights possible. Soviet Russia was founded on the promise of equal rights for everyone, as soon as we get though the current times of troubles. The UK evolved from Kingdom to more civilian rule though the people do not rule the country.

Human rights are only a social contract between people. Oh governments and the UN have set forth principles of what human rights should be, just like treaties have set forth rules for conducting war. These social contracts are not always adhered to.

People at times working together force government to recognize individual rights and some times governments take away rights of the people.

[Argoth]

As much as I think of this conversation as pointless, I'll go with what Veraka said. Whichever way it goes it does not change anything about how we live our lives. Should someone want to impose their beliefs upon others, there'll be other others that will counterbalance the 'imposer'. Human rights is based on social contract and as such is completely subjective. Spartans had a social contract that 'faulty' babies should be killed outright and that was the right thing to do. Did the baby have a right to live? We, today, say yes, every life has the right to live. Did they think so? No, otherwise they wouldn't have contracted killing off 'faulty' babies.

[Ra'Sona Races-The-Wind]

Well, I try not to instigate discussions unless they're ultimately pointless; less chance of things becoming personal and creating drama that way. I'm just interested in what everyone thinks.

To Argoth, I'd say based on my experience so far that very few people truly believe that everyone has the right to live; intellectually the principle is sound but I have discovered that some people, as much as I hate to say it, just need to be put down before they cause any further harm to the people around them. Not that there's ever any way to make that distinction, and once you start trying to enforce it you swiftly lose control of the process. It's not an option under any circumstances, but that doesn't stop me wanting a very select few to just go and die a horrible death somewhere alone and un-mourned. I like to think it's justified from what I've endured at their behest, but of course it's an indefensible position and I'm just trying to justify my support for my own agenda, as we all do. Still, while I will passionately agree that no-one has the right to take a life, I can't help but not believe it completely. I have enemies like anyone, and I occasionally hate people enough to wish them dead.

But, back to the main topic: I'm of the opinion that all humans are born with the freedom to choose how they live their lives, and the imposition of law is a shackle on this, sacrificing an amount of personal freedom to create a safety net for society in general. Of course, eventually it's not such a great deal any more. The powers start being misused, and the only recourse is to renegotiate the terms. I'm of a mind that civil war is, ultimately, inevitable. Still, in the grand scheme of things everything does seem to get better as time goes on. Who was it that said "Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others we've already tried."? Maybe it's better to measure the true capability of a government by how long it takes before there's another civil war to oust the corruption and start with a clean slate.

[Argoth]

Sorry about the previous post, had a crappy day.

Now you've touched another important point. There is no evolution without confrontation. Heraclitus said it long ago, (course, he referred rather to fire being the ultimate element out of which everything is made, but he had a good point) that war is the only queen and mother. Or something along those lines. Even when a baby learns to speak its first language it does so through confrontation. Once it hears a sentence, it tries to take it part (not intentionally) and make out some rules out of it. Once it hears something else, the previous set is shattered and re-built. People discuss and bathe themselves in conflict while discussing. Nice, ain't it?

[Ra'Sona Races-The-Wind]

Well, it's true that adversity creates a need for evolution of ideas; then again a lot of cool stuff was invented purely on whim. Da Vinci for instance was a paid inventor, yes, but a great deal of his things were just made for the hell of it, never looked for a buyer or anything.

So stagnation (boredom) can push people to invent and evolve, too.

[Talwyn Aureliano]

This is a great topic and I will post on it once I've had a bit more time to crystalise my response!

good one R'as

[Bergeth'fryn]

My personal experiences have led me to side with Frederick Neitzche. Man is not born with rights. Such rights do not exist. They are only respected so long as they can be useful. That after all, Neitzche says is the point of, Judeo-Christian Morality. Limit the 'rights' of others, threaten with hell and purgatory for doing the very things you do yourself. All in all, if we want rights, in the end, we have to show others that these rights do indeed belong to us, and we will pwn the hell out of anyone who thinks otherwise.

[BaravarImrathiln]

If I understand the original question aright, you're asking about the distinction between "negative" rights, and "positive" rights. Bear with me, as this distinction is a little bit subtle, and kinda arcane. You're all smart, so I know you'll get it, once I clarify.

A "negative" right is any thing that I can do without the aid of a government, or another person. So, the right to free speech is a negative right, in that I don't require anyone to do anything for me to be able to speak my mind. Likewise, I don't need anyone to do anything for me to be able to own a weapon, if I can afford to purchase one.

So, a negative right is something that I can do for myself, without outside interference from government. Nothing is taken away from anyone else, and nothing is forced upon me. My negative rights end where yours begin, and vice versa.

Think of negative rights as the rights you have when you're left the hell alone, so to speak. Their existence is a de facto part of your state of nature.


The other side is the positive rights. Things like education, a job. These things in many respects, when they become rights, are things that are granted to you by a government or other actor. They don't originate with your a priori state of nature. This means that in some cases, as in health care, police services, and other such things, the government takes from you a certain something, usually money, since it's more fungible, and uses it to obtain for you and the polity generally, some benefit. Naturally, these can be taken too far.

The "right not to be offended" is a positive right that can only be guaranteed by government actors trampling on your negative right to free expression. Because of this interference, positive rights are far less clear in their scope. Positive rights can become invasive very quickly, and can be problematic as a result.


Personally, I don't really agree with Nietzche that there are no rights that we have right away, but I think he was traipsing around the periphery of wisdom. Negative rights require constant, vigilant protection or they will be overwhelmed by the vast demand for the positive rights.

The US constitution was written and founded on the concept of negative rights. It outlines in relatively clear language. It does not list the rights of the polity, but it lays out the specific powers of the federal government. It enumerates what the government may do, and several times it says, in essence, "if we didn't tell you specifically that you get to do a thing, you don't get to do it."

I think humanity in its state of nature is endowed with certain rights, and those rights can be excercised without any action from outside forces. Things become more troublesome because we are social creatures, and we do try not to suck. So we try to ensure that everyone can have the basics. The real debate lies in the balance between the negative rights, and the positive ones. Both sets of rights exist in terms of social existence, I think. The key point is where you put the balance between the two.

[Penumbra]

We are born with the right to live and the right to achieve anything that we are capable of achieving without aid from outside forces. Unfortunately, many people seem to believe that this means that anyone can become successful and have a great life. This, unfortunately, is not the case. As humans, we are born with the right to try to do anything we want but outside forces will always have an either positive or negative influence.

This is not to say that the government or some other body of power will not attempt (and probably succeed) to prevent you from achieving certain goals that you feel you have an innate right to.
I think it all goes along well with what BaravarImrathiln said about "positive" and "negative" rights (though I have to admit that I have never heard those specific terms before).

[Aylstra Illianniis]

I think what it all boils down to is that all people have the rights to "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness." Notice that does not necessarily mean that they have the right to BE happy, just to pursue it. Ya gotta WORK for it.