POLITICS PART 2: RIGHTS
The best political document concerning rights in history.
The Declaration of Independence is probably the most famous, and most important political document upholding human rights in history. All Americans read it in grade school, and its eloquence certainly gives us pride that this country was founded on lofty principles. Unfortunately, confusion abounds with the term rights, as the Declaration simply "declares" it to be so, without further explanation. That's not the purpose of the document, but most people continue through their education without a firm understanding of rights, or worse; a contradictory or pessimistic one. After all, do rights even exist, or are they just a nice thought? Are they simply "self-evident"? Must they come from God? How many more are there besides "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Human rights, constitutional rights, civil rights, womens' rights, gay rights, workers' rights, gun rights, religious rights, animal rights, the right to education, healthcare, contraception, Wifi, the list goes on! Today, the term is thrown around constantly, and its meaning isn't clear. Are these all rights? What makes them so? Are rights subjective, created because enough people demand something, or is there an objective definition? The issue of rights is one that's central to politics, but sadly neglected in our education. Ask the average person what a right is and chances are you won't get a coherent definition that could stand up to serious questioning. Without an understanding of rights, it will be impossible to defend them and advocate the correct type of government.
Human rights, constitutional rights, civil rights, womens' rights, gay rights, workers' rights, gun rights, religious rights, animal rights, the right to education, healthcare, contraception, Wifi, the list goes on! Today, the term is thrown around constantly, and its meaning isn't clear. Are these all rights? What makes them so? Are rights subjective, created because enough people demand something, or is there an objective definition? The issue of rights is one that's central to politics, but sadly neglected in our education. Ask the average person what a right is and chances are you won't get a coherent definition that could stand up to serious questioning. Without an understanding of rights, it will be impossible to defend them and advocate the correct type of government.
WHAT ARE RIGHTS?
Rights are the crowning philosophical achievement during the Enlightenment, which culminated with their political application during the founding of America. Even though rights have existed as long as mankind, they weren't acknowledged before this period, and had to first be discovered by reason. Kind of like how the earth always revolved around the sun, but we didn't know it until our knowledge advanced enough. As a group, the "Founding Fathers" identified our rights correctly, although the understanding was often incomplete and not explained properly. The Declaration, while magnificent, gives the impression that rights are almost mystical gifts. Belief in a "creator", while it's one way of arriving at the concept of rights, isn't necessary. No supernatural being has to bestow them on us to validate them. As our society secularizes, it's essential to have a secular, rational definition, or it will become impossible to defend them from the ever present attacks..
Contrary to Jefferson's observation, rights aren't "self-evident". They are philosophical principles that rest upon mountains of previously formed concepts. They are moral principles applied to society. To give a concise definition:
A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.
Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
Rights are the crowning philosophical achievement during the Enlightenment, which culminated with their political application during the founding of America. Even though rights have existed as long as mankind, they weren't acknowledged before this period, and had to first be discovered by reason. Kind of like how the earth always revolved around the sun, but we didn't know it until our knowledge advanced enough. As a group, the "Founding Fathers" identified our rights correctly, although the understanding was often incomplete and not explained properly. The Declaration, while magnificent, gives the impression that rights are almost mystical gifts. Belief in a "creator", while it's one way of arriving at the concept of rights, isn't necessary. No supernatural being has to bestow them on us to validate them. As our society secularizes, it's essential to have a secular, rational definition, or it will become impossible to defend them from the ever present attacks..
Contrary to Jefferson's observation, rights aren't "self-evident". They are philosophical principles that rest upon mountains of previously formed concepts. They are moral principles applied to society. To give a concise definition:
A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.
Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
So what does this mean? First, it applies only to an organized, social context. Rights have no meaning to a man alone on a desert island. Birds, fish and plants are not conceptual entities, and thus have no morality. They can neither understand, nor act according to any moral principle. Thus, they can't violate our rights. It's only when people live amongst each other in a civilized society that rights become meaningful, possible, and morally necessary.
No rights
|
Possibility (and necessity) of rights
|
As we covered in ethics, man survives and achieves his goals through reason, and its resulting actions. To live life properly as a human, we must be able to reason in order to practice our virtues (independence, integrity, productiveness, etc.). In other words we must be left free. Free to think and act according to what our nature requires as rational beings. A dog can live its life properly with a master, a man can't. If a man is to live properly on earth, it is right for him to be free to engage in life sustaining actions (thus, the term "rights"). The opposite of acting by right is acting by permission. Due to our nature, we don't morally need any permission from others to act, our main moral consideration in a social context is that we don't violate others' rights.
The fact that men and governments can become criminals does not negate the theory of rights. Just because innocent men can be robbed, murdered or enslaved doesn't mean they have lost their rights. Rights are inalienable, meaning they exist because of our human nature and can't be severed from any rational being. They cannot be taken away, only infringed upon. The act of infringing on rights, while possible, is immoral. The "right" always remains with the victim, the criminal is wrong.
Since rights are inalienable, they cannot be granted by anyone, including government. They can only recognized. The idea that government grants rights is nonsensical. It would mean anything could be a right, as long as enough people wished it to be so. It would also mean rights could be taken away by decree. The only rational way to approach rights is to view them as objective moral principles, and government as a means to protect them.
There is one fundamental right; the right to one's life. All other rights are derivatives of this, the main ones being liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Let's examine each one.
The fact that men and governments can become criminals does not negate the theory of rights. Just because innocent men can be robbed, murdered or enslaved doesn't mean they have lost their rights. Rights are inalienable, meaning they exist because of our human nature and can't be severed from any rational being. They cannot be taken away, only infringed upon. The act of infringing on rights, while possible, is immoral. The "right" always remains with the victim, the criminal is wrong.
Since rights are inalienable, they cannot be granted by anyone, including government. They can only recognized. The idea that government grants rights is nonsensical. It would mean anything could be a right, as long as enough people wished it to be so. It would also mean rights could be taken away by decree. The only rational way to approach rights is to view them as objective moral principles, and government as a means to protect them.
There is one fundamental right; the right to one's life. All other rights are derivatives of this, the main ones being liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Let's examine each one.
LIFE
The right to life means that we have the moral right to sustain and protect our own life. We "own" ourselves (ownership meaning having a moral claim to something). No one else can morally claim ownership on your body or the contents of your mind. You don't belong to anyone or any other entity. Not to your family, community or government. They might provide immeasurable benefits and happiness to you, but they have no moral claim. Only you have the moral imperative and responsibility to decide how to live your life. Conversely, this also means you have no moral claim on anyone else's life. To deny this fact would require one to prove how some other entity could own, and have a moral claim your life.
LIBERTY
To sustain our life, we need to gain knowledge, choose values, and practice virtues. In other words, we need to use reason to think and act on our own judgements. Liberty is the method we use to achieve this. The only way to learn, form judgements, and act on those judgements, is to have liberty. We might be able to survive without liberty, but we couldn't achieve our purpose and potential as humans. The virtue of independence demands that we have the freedom to think for ourselves, and the virtue of integrity demands that we have the freedom to act on those thoughts.
PROPERTY
Since we own our own bodies and minds, we also own the material goods they produce. We have the right to gain, keep, give and dispose of these material values. Having the right to life and liberty, without property, is nonsensical. We need material goods to survive and make our lives better, and much of our thinking and actions are aimed at this goal. To be free to act, but not to reap the rewards of those actions is a contradiction. It's not real freedom. No entity has any legitimate moral claim to another's property. After all, where would that claim originate from?
Note: this does NOT mean a right TO property. Only the right to acquire property through one's actions. Even if someone desperately needs a material good to sustain their life, it gives them no moral claim to that good in a civilized society. That would infringe upon someone else's property rights.
The right to life means that we have the moral right to sustain and protect our own life. We "own" ourselves (ownership meaning having a moral claim to something). No one else can morally claim ownership on your body or the contents of your mind. You don't belong to anyone or any other entity. Not to your family, community or government. They might provide immeasurable benefits and happiness to you, but they have no moral claim. Only you have the moral imperative and responsibility to decide how to live your life. Conversely, this also means you have no moral claim on anyone else's life. To deny this fact would require one to prove how some other entity could own, and have a moral claim your life.
LIBERTY
To sustain our life, we need to gain knowledge, choose values, and practice virtues. In other words, we need to use reason to think and act on our own judgements. Liberty is the method we use to achieve this. The only way to learn, form judgements, and act on those judgements, is to have liberty. We might be able to survive without liberty, but we couldn't achieve our purpose and potential as humans. The virtue of independence demands that we have the freedom to think for ourselves, and the virtue of integrity demands that we have the freedom to act on those thoughts.
PROPERTY
Since we own our own bodies and minds, we also own the material goods they produce. We have the right to gain, keep, give and dispose of these material values. Having the right to life and liberty, without property, is nonsensical. We need material goods to survive and make our lives better, and much of our thinking and actions are aimed at this goal. To be free to act, but not to reap the rewards of those actions is a contradiction. It's not real freedom. No entity has any legitimate moral claim to another's property. After all, where would that claim originate from?
Note: this does NOT mean a right TO property. Only the right to acquire property through one's actions. Even if someone desperately needs a material good to sustain their life, it gives them no moral claim to that good in a civilized society. That would infringe upon someone else's property rights.
Not what Jefferson was referring to!
PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
As we covered in ethics, the primary purpose in one's life is to achieve happiness. This is our moral standard. If we have the right to life, that means we have the right to pursue the purposes of that life. This means we have the right to live for our own sake and fulfillment. The purpose of our existence isn't to enrich our overlords or achieve "the greater good". This doesn't mean we shouldn't help others, it just means it should be on our terms, using our own judgement. It's our right to determine our purpose in life and how to achieve happiness, no one else's. This is contrary to the prevailing view before the Enlightenment that the masses existed to serve the lords and state, and contrary to the more contemporary socialist view that our moral purpose is for the greater, or collective good (which is conveniently never properly defined).
Note: this does NOT mean you have the right to be happy, or for anyone to provide you with a means to achieve happiness. You can't demand ice cream or health care because you think it might contribute to your happiness. It only means the freedom to act and achieve one's own happiness.
As we covered in ethics, the primary purpose in one's life is to achieve happiness. This is our moral standard. If we have the right to life, that means we have the right to pursue the purposes of that life. This means we have the right to live for our own sake and fulfillment. The purpose of our existence isn't to enrich our overlords or achieve "the greater good". This doesn't mean we shouldn't help others, it just means it should be on our terms, using our own judgement. It's our right to determine our purpose in life and how to achieve happiness, no one else's. This is contrary to the prevailing view before the Enlightenment that the masses existed to serve the lords and state, and contrary to the more contemporary socialist view that our moral purpose is for the greater, or collective good (which is conveniently never properly defined).
Note: this does NOT mean you have the right to be happy, or for anyone to provide you with a means to achieve happiness. You can't demand ice cream or health care because you think it might contribute to your happiness. It only means the freedom to act and achieve one's own happiness.
RIGHTS ARE INTERCONNECTED
Remember, all of these rights are interconnected. They are based on moral principles, and just as we can't function without both mind and body, we can't be truly free with 1/3 or 3/4's of our rights. All must be recognized to allow a human being proper freedom. Having intellectual liberty without economic liberty is illogical, as is having political freedom without property rights. Each right pertains to different areas of human activity. Obviously, some liberty is better than none, but if the ideal is to create a society that upholds the principles of human morality, all rights must be respected. If you're thinking that no country in history has ever done this completely, you'd be correct. Then again, no country had a constitution aimed at protecting rights before the United States. The proper theories of politics should be what ought to be the best society for man, not what's pragmatic given the current system.
The next post will examine how rights can be violated, and go more in-depth to determine what are and aren't rights.
Remember, all of these rights are interconnected. They are based on moral principles, and just as we can't function without both mind and body, we can't be truly free with 1/3 or 3/4's of our rights. All must be recognized to allow a human being proper freedom. Having intellectual liberty without economic liberty is illogical, as is having political freedom without property rights. Each right pertains to different areas of human activity. Obviously, some liberty is better than none, but if the ideal is to create a society that upholds the principles of human morality, all rights must be respected. If you're thinking that no country in history has ever done this completely, you'd be correct. Then again, no country had a constitution aimed at protecting rights before the United States. The proper theories of politics should be what ought to be the best society for man, not what's pragmatic given the current system.
The next post will examine how rights can be violated, and go more in-depth to determine what are and aren't rights.