Musings on Rights

…or, I love it when liberals contradict themselves…

Over at Bob S.’ place last week, in the comments to this post arose quite an interesting discussion of where rights originate. One R. Stanton Scott claimed right off the bat that rights more or less depend on society — that is, that certain rights are not inherent to humans by virtue of their very existence but are dependent on societal mores and whims. I suppose one might say that last term is a loaded one, as it implies that society would do things to bestow rights on people or strip said rights from them by way of chasing certain fads or what-have-you. But is that opinion really that far-fetched, considering what happened to the Jews and other folks in Nazi Germany? As I noted in the comments, to say that people only have the rights society decides to let them have is a recipe for discrimination, tyranny and genocide — with Nazi Germany being a textbook illustration of that.

RSS defended his position by saying that rights being dependent on societal norms “makes them no less real.” And here he contradicts himself for the first time, at least in this particular debate. If rights are dependent on societal norms and relations — thereby subject to revocation depending on societal attitudes — do they exist at all in any meaningful sense of the word? I would argue that they don’t. If humans aren’t entitled to be treated in a certain way by virtue of their very existence — if they’re only entitled to said treatment because society says they are — then that opens the door to all sorts of scum to perpetrate all sorts of villainy upon those that societal consensus deems deserving of it. A couple of us asked if the Founders were wrong when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” RSS answered by saying yes, they were wrong, that all men were NOT created equal with certain unalienable rights, “(a)t least not the dark-skinned ones.” To which I replied:

“The point about the treatment of ‘the dark-skinned ones’ is well-taken; however, I do not regard the Founders’ failure to perceive the incongruity between their words and their actions as a justification for following generations’ failure to recognize and respect inalienable rights. The treatment of ‘the dark-skinned ones’ was wrong. But if your view is the correct one, it was just peachy because they didn’t have the right to be considered equal anyway. After all, that was the societal consensus back then…”

To which RSS replied: “(A) ‘right’ to be free did not exist for slaves at the time of the Founding, since rights only exist when social understandings include the concept. This does not make such a situation just of course, or suggest that enslaving them was not unjust–it simply means the understandings of the day included a different concept of justice.”

Here RSS contradicts himself yet again. If you acknowledge any kind of injustice in what certain societies did in the past, then you are necessarily acknowledging by implication that somebody’s rights were violated somewhere along the way. And this, in turn, completely negates the argument that rights are dependent on societal norms and understandings, as it implies those rights were there before society decided they weren’t. This leads to the question that I posed, which by the way was never answered: If rights aren’t dependent on societal understandings, then where exactly do they come from? I would love to see someone answer that question who would argue that rights are not inherent to one’s existence.

For a little bit there I was trying to put my finger on what exactly irks me so about that position, but I think I figured it out. It all goes back to something Sabra and I have spoken of before — the phenomenon of moral relativism. This is exactly what the “rights are dependent on societal consensus” argument smacks of, as it implies that whatever societies decide to do to certain segments is okay. If you’re going to argue that, then you necessarily have to argue that the societal consensus is just, and I think — as the old saying goes — down that road lies nihilistic madness. As I said in the comments:

“Society can contest certain rights to its heart’s content, but the recognition — and respect — of a right to life is ultimately the only thing that keeps said society from descending back into the tribal warfare that Hobbes argued was man’s natural state. If we’re not going to acknowledge and respect the basic human right to life — yes, inherent to one’s very existence — then what’s the point of existing at all? And we can talk all day long about this individual vs. collective right manure, but the fact is that if an individual is denied the best tools of self-defense, said individual is denied the right of self-defense, which ultimately can be seen as depriving him of his right to life. Which takes us right back to the question of whether said right is inherent to one’s existence or dependent on society’s whims. Do you really want to live in a world that is the latter? I sure as hell don’t.”

Yes, there is — dare I say it? a certain pragmatism in acknowledging that rights are endowed upon us by our Creator. One could almost say acknowledging those rights is the only way humankind will survive. It’s pretty frightening to think there are those who still think rights are what society says they are.

Advertisements

Tags:

One Response to “Musings on Rights”

  1. southtexaspistolero Says:

    Sabra (66.69.91.35)
    Sadly, the theory of society-granted rights isn’t at all foreign to leftist thinking. Perhaps this is another facet of progressivism–it’s certainly why I watch my words and try not to use liberal/progressive interchangably. (Classical liberalism, as you know, truly isn’t that far from modern conservatism; progressivism is a whole ‘nother beast altogether.)

    Not only is it evidence of what is wrong with moral relativism, it is another failure of reasoning from what is to what ought to be. I think this is one of the clearest illustrations of that particular moral fallicy. What Scott was claiming was that the simple fact of something being a certain way is evidence that it should be that way, which thankfully most right-thinking folks (no matter where they fall on the political spectrum) realize is utter rubbish.
    January 31, 2010, 1:54:44 PM CST – Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

    Bob S. (209.12.109.210)
    He has also stated before that IF people didn’t agree with a right they could leave the social construction.

    I thought long and hard on that one — why did it bother me.

    Then I had it. People could leave a social construction if they didn’t agree with the way right was handled –only because they had an inalienable right to do so.

    If the polity that I belong to decides that gray haired gents should hand over everything they make….and I –as a gray hair gent — disagree. Then the social construction doesn’t have unity of opinion.

    The fact that I have the right to leave shows that some things should not be forced upon the people!
    Slavery! Disarmament! Certain inalienable rights exist or I shouldn’t have the ‘privilege’ of leaving.

    Yet another case where he contradicted himself
    February 1, 2010, 9:30:31 AM CST – Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

    Borepatch (173.48.134.243)
    The English language has a word for “rights dependent on societal norms”. The word is “privileges”.
    February 1, 2010, 10:29:05 AM CST – Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

    thepistolero (71.40.227.153)
    What Scott was claiming was that the simple fact of something being a certain way is evidence that it should be that way

    That was my impression as well; in fact, I think it’s honestly the only possible way the “rights are granted by society” theory will stand. To phrase it slightly differently, if you’re going to say any part of societal consensus vis-a-vis rights is unjust, you’re implying by definition that there are rights that are being denied — which, again, implies those rights are independent of societal norms.

    If the polity that I belong to decides that gray haired gents should hand over everything they make….and I –as a gray hair gent — disagree. Then the social construction doesn’t have unity of opinion.

    I would bet you that RSS would say that a simple majority decides what rights to grant as opposed to a unanimity. And this hearkens back to the “tyranny of the majority” that democracy is.

    The English language has a word for “rights dependent on societal norms”. The word is “privileges”.
    Yes, indeed.
    February 1, 2010, 1:19:12 PM CST – Like – Reply – Edit – Moderate

    Mike W. (64.206.252.211)
    the phenomenon of moral relativism. This is exactly what the “rights are dependent on societal consensus” argument smacks of, as it implies that whatever societies decide to do to certain segments is okay

    Yup. That position means that my “rights” mean nothing the moment “society” at any given time & place decides they are meaningless. In Hitler’s Germany you and I would have been killed on sight simply for having cerebral palsy. Under this concept of “rights,” “society” has the power to murder us for no reason other than that they’ve decided our deaths are in the best interest of the collective.

    He’s saying that if society decides anyone named “Stanton-Scott” should be stripped of their possessions and then beheaded, that such action is permissible.
    February 2, 2010, 3:28:46 PM CST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: