What is the basis for the existence of human rights?

[jay gw]

Human rights:

Certain universal rights many argue should be enjoyed by all people.
Those rights that humans have by virtue of their humanity and not by any merit of their own.

What is the best explanation that you've ever come across for the existence of and reason for recognizing human rights?

Why do those arguments & justifications for the existence of human rights not convince everyone?

[TobiasTheViking]

If i want to have rights (at others valition), i have to give them rights (at my valition).

And i would prefer that to be always.. in both directions.

[Z]

Survival, largely. If we fail to recognize a basic standard of 'rights', then we allow those stronger than us to do things we do not want them to do. Really, this is about the core of any law, isn't it?

[balrog666]

Originally posted by jay gw
[B]Human rights:

Certain universal rights many argue should be enjoyed by all people./B]

Balogna! The statement utterly meaningless without some denotation of same.

I think this thread would work better if you named a few of these so-called rights. Or allowed us to vote on each one. Certainly that would provide a basis for some real discussion rather than nebulous handwaving.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by jay gw
What is the best explanation that you've ever come across for the existence of and reason for recognizing human rights?

Why do those arguments & justifications for the existence of human rights not convince everyone?
Defining rights as "something which ought to be morally respected", it follows logically from the basic meaning of a moral right that individuals have a duty to see that certain moral claims are fulfilled.

Using suffering as an example of a moral claim, and understanding that causing something to suffer is unethical, then its follows simply and logically that beings have a basic moral right to be protected from suffering.

Simple as pie. No social contracts, and no begging the question with "natural rights".

[balrog666]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Using suffering as an example of a moral claim, and understanding that causing something to suffer is unethical, then its follows simply and logically that beings have a basic moral right to be protected from suffering.

Simple as pie. No social contracts, and no begging the question with "natural rights".

So, if someone is starving and I have some food, does their "moral cause" lay an obligation upon me?

Or can I just kick them back into their ditch?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by jay gw
Those rights that humans have by virtue of their humanity and not by any merit of their own.
Jay, I voted "strongly disagree" in your poll because your questioned asked "There are rights to which people are entitled simply because they are human". The answer is "no", because being a member of the human species has no moral component at all, and could never be the basis of any ethic without begging the question.

People have rights based on the actual morally relevant qualities they possess, and species membership isnt morally relevant.


Originally posted by balrog666
So, if someone is starving and I have some food, does their "moral cause" lay an obligation upon me?
Definitely. You feeding your food to a starving person is small loss, and based on simple utilitarian arithematic the importance of relieving the suffering of a starving individual outweighs the costs of you losing your morning snack.

[balrog666]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Definitely. You feeding your food to a starving person is small loss, and based on simple utilitarian arithematic the importance of relieving the suffering of a starving individual outweighs the costs of you losing your morning snack.

I must disagree with your nonsensical and truly absurd opinion.

The same logic would allow anyone to lay a similar claim on my food, my money, my property, and any products of my labor. And that's a certain, and proven, recipe for no production at all.

Socialism doesn't work now and it never will. Property rights (in spite of the recent US Supreme Court opinion) are all the separate us from the leftist buffoons and utter economic misery for all.

[Skeptical Greg]

You are entitled to the rights you are able to secure for yourself and for others in your care..


If I remember correctly, there is a document that speaks of certain inalienable rights; including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe the first two have to be earned.
With regard to the third, I believe pursuit is the operative word.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by balrog666
I must disagree with your nonsensical and truly absurd opinion.

The same logic would allow anyone to lay a similar claim on my food, my money, my property, and any products of my labor. And that's a certain, and proven, recipe for no production at all.

Socialism doesn't work now and it never will. Property rights (in spite of the recent US Supreme Court opinion) are all the separate us from the leftist buffoons and utter economic misery for all.
I'm not going to validate your strawman by arguing it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by balrog666
I must disagree with your nonsensical and truly absurd opinion.

The same logic would allow anyone to lay a similar claim on my food, my money, my property, and any products of my labor. And that's a certain, and proven, recipe for no production at all.


So as to be fair, the way modern societies implement this idea of social obligation is to tax people in some (hopefully) vaguely progressive fashion and use the tax money to help the less fortunate. Because even if a poor person has a right in some sense to eat, it sucks if it's always you that has to feed them.


Socialism doesn't work now and it never will. Property rights (in spite of the recent US Supreme Court opinion) are all the separate us from the leftist buffoons and utter economic misery for all.

I think you misunderstand the word "socialism". Socialism refers to societies that (as mentioned above) use progressive taxation to fund social utility for everyone, and more-socialist countries like Sweden and Australia are much nicer places to live than ghetto-ridden hellholes like much of the less-socialist USA.

Communism, a more radical economic system based on "collective" (national) control of all resources, does turn out to be a fairly rotten system. It's as unfair as unbridled capitalism and less effective to boot.

To get back to the thread topic, "human rights" aren't something that exist in the world to be discovered by investigation. As written up in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are a laundry list of liberal entitlements that were seen by the thinkers of the time to be a necessary basis for happy and just societies. You can justify them entirely on utilitarian bases.

[balrog666]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I'm not going to validate your strawman by arguing it.


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

It was your "moral cause" argument, buffoon.

[balrog666]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I think you misunderstand the word "socialism". Socialism refers to societies that (as mentioned above) use progressive taxation to fund social utility for everyone, and more-socialist countries like Sweden and Australia are much nicer places to live than ghetto-ridden hellholes like much of the less-socialist USA.

Um, no, again I must disagree. So-called "progressive" taxation rates have nothing to do with a Capitalist/Socialist form of government. Lack of ownership, earnings, and inheritance rights are the hallmark of socialism, in fact, the definition of socialism.

Can Swedes own their own home? Can they earn and spend money by the sweat of their brow without homage to the state? Can they acquire goods and services for their children without regard to the dictates of the state? No, no, and no. They are slaves. Well kept slaves perhaps, but slaves nonetheless.

[c4ts]

The social contract would be that basis.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by balrog666
Um, no, again I must disagree. So-called "progressive" taxation rates have nothing to do with a Capitalist/Socialist form of government. Lack of ownership, earnings, and inheritance rights are the hallmark of socialism, in fact, the definition of socialism.


If you like you might take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#A_note_on_usage which discusses the issue in more detail than we need to. To cut a long story short your definition is not the definition of socialism, especially socialism when the word is used to refer to socialist movements within mainstream First World society.

This is actually mildly relevant to this thread because the first problem one encounters after agreeing on a human right, like for example the right to a public jury trial in criminal cases, is the problem of who is going to fund this idealistic idea. In one sense the basis for human rights is liberal philosophy, but in another very practical sense the basis for human rights is large amounts of cash spent on human rights.

The usual socialist answer to the funding problem is to tax people to pay for these idealistic social constructs, but to tax the rich more than the poor and tax unearned money (windfalls, inheritances, capital gains) more than earned money.


Can Swedes own their own home? Can they earn and spend money by the sweat of their brow without homage to the state? Can they acquire goods and services for their children without regard to the dictates of the state? No, no, and no. They are slaves. Well kept slaves perhaps, but slaves nonetheless.

You are being silly. You are not slaves if you have the collective power to renegotiate the terms of your "slavery" by means of a democratic process. The word you are looking for is "citizen".

[jay gw]

What do human rights have to do with the economic system?

Aren't rights independent of how you organize an economy?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by jay gw
Aren't rights independent of how you organize an economy?
You'll be surprised how many people dont actually think so. George Bush has defended his tax cuts on a moral basis, almost everybody who has disliked what the government does with its economy has argued that the governments actions are injustice.

Marx argued capitalism was a moral evil, Rand argued capitalism was a moral good. Quasi-socialist policies such as those giving aid to the poor are almost always defended with lines like "people dont deserve to starve".

Almost always, when people believe they have a good idea (including economic policies), they elevate their ideas on a moral highground.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by jay gw
What do human rights have to do with the economic system?

Aren't rights independent of how you organize an economy?

In an abstract sort of way, certainly.

Ensuring that human rights are observed, however, costs a society money. Someone has to organise public trials, provide public education, secure people's persons and property against criminals, organise a system of participatory government, provide social security, enforce limits on working hours, protect and provide for every child, enforce intellectual property laws that protect artists and inventors, and maintain the political and military organisations that facilitate an international order where these freedoms can be fully realised. None of that comes cheap.

[balrog666]

Allow me to suggest that the idea that an individually held right can put a burden on other people is simply an absurdity in any rational belief system.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by balrog666
Allow me to suggest that the idea that an individually held right can put a burden on other people is simply an absurdity in any rational belief system.
:confused: What rights dont burden other people?

Rights are almost always used as moral boundaries and restrictions on certain behaviors, and its impossible for these rights not to be burden on people who want perform morally impermissable behavior. Even if it sounds silly to suggest, defining a right to freedom is a burden on people who want to enslave others, a right to life is a burden to people who to kill, right to free expression and belief is a burden on censors and theocrats, right to free speech is a burden on people who are offended by the speech, etc.

If you want a world where no right is a burden on anyone, you can get that by essentially denying the existence of rights at all, then you're world is nihilism.

[balrog666]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Rights are almost always used as moral boundaries and restrictions on certain behaviors, and its impossible for these rights not to be burden on people who want perform morally impermissable behavior.

You are confused yet again, Mr. Buffoon. We are not discussing dissuading, prohibiting, or punishing criminal behavior here. Assume the obvious and ask for a hint if you need help.



So, try again. Demonstrate an individual right that you hold that puts an affirmative, actionable burden on me.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Jay, I voted "strongly disagree" in your poll because your questioned asked "There are rights to which people are entitled simply because they are human". The answer is "no", because being a member of the human species has no moral component at all, and could never be the basis of any ethic without begging the question.But Jay said nothing about any basis of the rights in morality. That was an addition you made. A right can just as easily be defined as "something to which one has a just claim" and morality never has to enter into it. Ethics, yes, but not morality. And ethics do not have to be based on morals.

People have rights based on the actual morally relevant qualities they possess, and species membership isnt morally relevant.What if the person's morally relevant qualities aren't observable? What rights does a newborn baby have, for instance?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by balrog666
You are confused yet again, Mr. Buffoon. We are not discussing dissuading, prohibiting, or punishing criminal behavior here. Assume the obvious and ask for a hint if you need help.
First, take a second to chill. You're a big boy on a forum for grown-ups, you dont need throw a tantrum and call people names.

Second, criminal behavior (at least some criminal behavior) has an obvious moral component, especially with respect to property rights.

So, try again. Demonstrate an individual right that you hold that puts an affirmative, actionable burden on me.
Something really simple, take parenting for example and the recognition of children's welfare rights. If you choose to become a parent, you have not only legal obligations, but moral burden to see that your children are safe, and of reasonable well-being.


Originally posted by Beleth
But Jay said nothing about any basis of the rights in morality. That was an addition you made. A right can just as easily be defined as "something to which one has a just claim" and morality never has to enter into it. Ethics, yes, but not morality. And ethics do not have to be based on morals.
Dumb question: how is ethics not based on morals?

What if the person's morally relevant qualities aren't observable? What rights does a newborn baby have, for instance?
I think the morally relevant qualities of a baby are obvious: they can suffer, and have certain interests. Lots of basic rights can come from that much alone, the most important ones being right to life and welfare.

[pmurray]

The problem is one of language - using the language of property and ownership. This can never be better than a metaphor, and often a bad one.

A right is not a "thing" that you "have". Rights are statments of how we ought to behave toward one another - both individually and as a society.

So the question becomes: are there ways in which we ought to treat each other? When we form societies, are we morally obliged to put social effort into making provision for people?

That answer is obviously "yes": "treating other people right" is almost the very definition of 'good', of 'ought'.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Dumb question: how is ethics not based on morals?They can be, but are not necessarily. The ethics I deal with the most are business ethics, which typically are not framed in moral terms.

I think the morally relevant qualities of a baby are obvious: they can suffer, and have certain interests. Lots of basic rights can come from that much alone, the most important ones being right to life and welfare. Then how do you justify your statement that "being a member of the human species has no moral component at all"? What is a newborn baby but a member of the human species, and pretty much nothing more than that?

Or is it your contention that there is nothing unique about being human, and that every living thing, not just humans, have equal moral components? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm genuinely confused as to what you mean by your "no moral component" statement.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Beleth
They can be, but are not necessarily. The ethics I deal with the most are business ethics, which typically are not framed in moral terms.
Gotcha :)

Then how do you justify your statement that "being a member of the human species has no moral component at all"? What is a newborn baby but a member of the human species, and pretty much nothing more than that?
Basically, I dont think being a member a particular species gives anyone any special moral status, its an arbitrary quality no more morally relevant than happening to be a member of a particular race or sex. Its a basic example of the naturalistic fallacy to say "such and such is a human being, therefore it has moral status and rights".

On the other hand, qualities such as (but not limited to) the capacity to suffer, feel satisfaction, feel pain, or feel pleasure are moral qualities, those are the qualities you should take into account when making an ethical consideration. (If it isnt obvious, I'm largely a utilitarian :) )

Or is it your contention that there is nothing unique about being human, and that every living thing, not just humans, have equal moral components?
To the first part, yes, there is nothing unique about humans. To the second part, no, not all living things have equal moral components*, because not all things have the same morally relevant capacities such as the ability to suffer.

* By "moral component", I mean something that is taken into account to affect the outcome an ethical decision.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by balrog666
Allow me to suggest that the idea that an individually held right can put a burden on other people is simply an absurdity in any rational belief system.

I guess you read Ayn Rand in the last month or so and haven't figured out yet that she was stupid.

"Human rights", as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) are not the kind of rights that can be fulfilled merely by other people's inaction. You actually have to go out of your way, as an individual or a society, to arrange for people to be able to enjoy those rights if you want it to happen.

If you don't like living in an interdependant society, the option of becoming a hermit in the wilderness is still open to you. On the other hand if you like living in a civilisation, then you should learn to relax about the idea of contributing to the upkeep and improvement of that civilisation.

[athon]

I suppose to understand 'human rights', you have to understand how they ultimately developed.

Moral behaviour is at its core the innate altruistic tendencies that a social group shows to one another. While it could argued that it is learned, I think since it seems to be in itself independent of cultural bias, moralistic behaviour is socially hard wired.

Humans have encountered a novel dilemma in 'recent' history, and that's the expansion of the social group into a much broader scale. No other animal has such a conflict, where the boundaries between social groups are blurred. We rely on the altruism of those who we do not personally know, are not genetically close to and have no personal association with. Morals never really extended past those who you personally had to negotiate with within a small community. Now, there is an adjustment that needs to be made.

So the question has to be addressed; is our global community (the whole of mankind) the same as the personal community humans once had to exist within? To survive, do we need to rely on the same system of morals reserved for those within our family groups?

This answer is damned tricky, complicated by a more complicated and interdependent society, but since morals are not an objective set of physical laws, it's all the more reason to maintain moralistic thinking. Morals allow for better anticipation of other members of society. It reduces fear and anxiety, decreasing the need for constant 'fight or flight' stress. Expanded to reflect a global community, this has to be considered important.

Without the ability to objectify morals, we cannot select which members of society can be exempt from them. As Human Rights are a detailed extension of morals, the same applies. They are not physical laws of nature; they are an extension of energy-saving behaviours learned when we survived in smaller family groups.

Athon

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by athon
Without the ability to objectify morals, we cannot select which members of society can be exempt from them. As Human Rights are a detailed extension of morals, the same applies. They are not physical laws of nature; they are an extension of energy-saving behaviours learned when we survived in smaller family groups.


I don't think this can be right. The tribal groups I know about are cooperative societies, but they don't have moral rules or customs that map on to human rights as we use the term today. The specific rules we refer to as human rights are a product of liberal philosophy, not of natural cooperative urges.

I also tend to think that cooperation would be just as smart even if we were naturally inclined to be uncooperative amongst ourselves.

I think you are right to the extent that our cooperative instincts are evidence that cooperation is an adaptive trait, but it would be an instance of the naturalistic fallacy to use this as a basis for claiming that cooperation is good. There are lots of better reasons to cooperate than that.

[Mercutio]

I am still waiting for someone to explain the concept of "rights" to me in any meaningful fashion. In every sense I have seen thus far, my only choice on this poll is "strongly disagree". This thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49209), while lengthy and apt to wander a bit from the topic, contains some of the more active debate on the concept of "rights" that I have seen on this forum. The short version--I agree with Earthborn, and disagree strongly with Shanek.

[Mercutio]

BTW, it genuinely surprises me that on a skeptic's board, option one is winning at all, let alone by such a margin.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I am still waiting for someone to explain the concept of "rights" to me in any meaningful fashion. In every sense I have seen thus far, my only choice on this poll is "strongly disagree".

Rights are just something you are or should be entitled to. The thorny question is how we form the belief that you are or should be entitled to something in difficult cases.

I have a right to drive my car on public roads because I paid the relevant fees. That's an easy case.

My suspicion is that most of the local skeptics are choosing "strongly agree" because that is the choice that best reflects a conviction that it is a really good idea on utilitarian grounds to afford everyone human rights, or that they strongly favour universal human rights on some kind of Rawlsian "what would I want if I didn't know who I would be" basis. As is often the case, the poll options don't give us all the nuances one might like.

[athon]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I don't think this can be right. The tribal groups I know about are cooperative societies, but they don't have moral rules or customs that map on to human rights as we use the term today.

I'm not sure how you justify that. Morality is a form of altruistic behaviour, which is further complicated in humans by an ability to empathise with others. If an action is made knowing it would cause undue suffering in others, without justification, it might be considered amoral. Give me an example where that happens in a present day tribal society (knowing it's otherwise near impossible to provide with a primitive society).

This is where the objectivity problem arises; one man's justification will not suit another's.

As to whether it progresses into our present version of human rights, I admit I can't provide strong evidence demonstrating a progression, I would find it hard to believe that morals in pre-civilization humanity would not have influenced a chain of laws and behaviours that have ultimately evolved into the crafting of detailed human rights.

I also tend to think that cooperation would be just as smart even if we were naturally inclined to be uncooperative amongst ourselves.

I think you are right to the extent that our cooperative instincts are evidence that cooperation is an adaptive trait, but it would be an instance of the naturalistic fallacy to use this as a basis for claiming that cooperation is good. There are lots of better reasons to cooperate than that.

I never claimed cooperation, or morals, are 'good'. I insinuated that they are beneficial in terms of energy efficiency in a social organism such as ourselves, and I can't see how else cooperation (or morals) could have arisen in a social context. They may vary in the details between cultures, but I can't think of a single example of a behaviour considered moralistic in any culture which would be non-beneficial in a small-society (tribal) context.

Athon

[balrog666]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

"Human rights", as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) are not the kind of rights that can be fulfilled merely by other people's inaction. You actually have to go out of your way, as an individual or a society, to arrange for people to be able to enjoy those rights if you want it to happen.

So these "individual rights" exist only to the extent that your government grants said privileges and is capable of, and willing to, enforce them?

Gosh, I better think about this again in light of the original question asked at the start of the thread.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Rights are just something you are or should be entitled to. The thorny question is how we form the belief that you are or should be entitled to something in difficult cases.

I have a right to drive my car on public roads because I paid the relevant fees. That's an easy case.
In such a case, a "right" is something you buy? I understand the example, and understand that it applies to, say, property "rights of way", which are negotiated and contracted among relevant parties...but quite obviously, these are not rights that are yours from birth, simply from being human.

My suspicion is that most of the local skeptics are choosing "strongly agree" because that is the choice that best reflects a conviction that it is a really good idea on utilitarian grounds to afford everyone human rights, or that they strongly favour universal human rights on some kind of Rawlsian "what would I want if I didn't know who I would be" basis. As is often the case, the poll options don't give us all the nuances one might like. So...wait. Are people voting for what they wish were true? Or what is? And is it not more important what rights are recognized by others, rather than what rights are claimed by oneself? Your claimed right to life is only meaningful if the guy with the gun recognises it. His right to bear arms is only meaningful if it can be successfully defended. It makes no sense to me to claim that these things are yours from birth in any but the most trivial sense.

On the other hand, I am interpreting things perhaps differently. To me, if rights are a social contract, they are not something one is necessarily born with. If rights are yours because you are human, it can make no difference what country or what century you are born in. If rights vary across time and nation...they are not yours just for being human.

[Typhon]

Looks like a three way tie between Locke, Hobbes, and Bentham.
How about this: A "right" is not something you have, but rather something you grant to someone else?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Basically, I dont think being a member a particular species gives anyone any special moral status, its an arbitrary quality no more morally relevant than happening to be a member of a particular race or sex. Its a basic example of the naturalistic fallacy to say "such and such is a human being, therefore it has moral status and rights".But it is also the case that there are certain traits that are unique to humans, or at least unique in combination to humans, and those traits could have rights associated with them, and it could be argued that that gives humans a special moral status based on their humanness.

The right to the pursuit of happiness, for instance. I know of no other species which is capable of pursuing happiness. (Experiencing happiness, perhaps, but not pursuing it.) Or, on a more physical level, the right for humans to use their thumbs. This is a rather silly-sounding right, granted, and I don't want to argue this down at the example-of-a-right level, but it shows that there are rights that we could have because and only because we are human... at least theoretically.

To the first part, yes, there is nothing unique about humans. To the second part, no, not all living things have equal moral components*, because not all things have the same morally relevant capacities such as the ability to suffer.I agree with your reasoning of the second part but not of the first. There are unique things about being human, and because there are, there are (at least in theory) unique rights associated with those unique things.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Beleth

...snip...

The right to the pursuit of happiness, for instance. I know of no other species which is capable of pursuing happiness. (Experiencing happiness, perhaps, but not pursuing it.)

...snip...

Just on this point, I've had dogs and cats arrange things so that it appears from all outside observation to make them happy. For instance I have one cat who will pull metal coat hangers to the floor and then scratch himself on the hook, he then starts to purr. That to me is him pursuing happiness.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Mercutio
In such a case, a "right" is something you buy? I understand the example, and understand that it applies to, say, property "rights of way", which are negotiated and contracted among relevant parties...but quite obviously, these are not rights that are yours from birth, simply from being human.


Sure, I was using it as an example of a right the basis for which is clear.


So...wait. Are people voting for what they wish were true? Or what is?


My speculation was that they were probably voting for the option that was closest to what they believe would be moral. As such it's closer to a wish than a reality, although it is not quite either.


And is it not more important what rights are recognized by others, rather than what rights are claimed by oneself? Your claimed right to life is only meaningful if the guy with the gun recognises it. His right to bear arms is only meaningful if it can be successfully defended. It makes no sense to me to claim that these things are yours from birth in any but the most trivial sense.


I don't think talking of rights as anything other than a shorthand for utilitarian or Rawlsian moral judgements that would take longer to spell out in those terms ever makes sense, no.


On the other hand, I am interpreting things perhaps differently. To me, if rights are a social contract, they are not something one is necessarily born with. If rights are yours because you are human, it can make no difference what country or what century you are born in. If rights vary across time and nation...they are not yours just for being human.

Indeed. Frankly, rights are a bit of a dead end in terms of intelligent moral discussion. You need to unpack them into some claim like "X would be best", "X is minimally decent conduct for a society in our position", "I would want all people to have right X if I was unbiased" or something like that before you can talk about them usefully.

For some reason right appeal to people, though. People get a lot more exited about "human rights" or "taking away our rights" than they do about injustice or disenfranchisement. I don't know why.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by balrog666
So these "individual rights" exist only to the extent that your government grants said privileges and is capable of, and willing to, enforce them?

Almost exactly correct. A "right" is something you claim and can, personally or by proxy, enforce. If you can't enforce it, you can't enjoy it. The proxy is almost always takes the form of the posse (government). Either way, the right isn't free because it must be enforced and enforcement requires resources; in the case of personal enforcement, diligence, in the case of proxy inforcement, taxes.

[balrog666]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Almost exactly correct. A "right" is something you claim and can, personally or by proxy, enforce. If you can't enforce it, you can't enjoy it. The proxy is almost always takes the form of the posse (government). Either way, the right isn't free because it must be enforced and enforcement requires resources; in the case of personal enforcement, diligence, in the case of proxy inforcement, taxes.

If the government enforces such rights, no such personal claim is necessary and government can arbitrarily assign such "rights" to those people incapable of excerising them.

Or to horses, cats, chickens, and endangered newts.

Or even rescind them from specific groups of people such as convicted criminals, the mentally deficient, or, looking at past history, the irish, blacks, or jews.

So, none of these rights necessarily derive from simply being born human.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by balrog666
If the government enforces such rights, no such personal claim is necessary and government can arbitrarily assign such "rights" to those people incapable of excerising them.

Or to horses, cats, chickens, and endangered newts.

Or even rescind them from specific groups of people such as convicted criminals, the mentally deficient, or, looking at past history, the irish, blacks, or jews.

So, none of these rights necessarily derive from simply being born human.

Yep. And Nope.

Yep in that the government, being the least common intellectual denominator of the majority of the people (in the case of a democracy) will never perfectly satisfy the desire of everyone. Compromise abounds.

Nope in that individual diligence on the part of a single person can persuade the majority to persuade the government to alter the rights in different directions. Horses, cats, chicken and endangered newts cannot.

A good example is that of certain extreme classes of convicted criminals. In some states the right to life extends to them and in other states they are excluded from the right to life. Less extreme cases may exclude them from the right of freedom of movement (jail/probation), freedom of association, freedom to vote, freedom to possess firearms, etc.

[Just thinking]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
... Nope in that individual diligence on the part of a single person can persuade the majority to persuade the government to alter the rights in different directions. Horses, cats, chicken and endangered newts cannot ...

I do not believe that balrog666 was claiming that horses, cats, etc. persuade the government in granting them rights, but that through the actions of people the government can be persuaded to legislate certain rights to non-human (and even non-living) examples.

To me it seems that ultimately whatever rights we have (or think we have) decend down from "The Powers That Be" either directly or indirectly. And there seems to be no example of a right where at least one person won't disagree with your ability to posess it.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Just thinking
I do not believe that balrog666 was claiming that horses, cats, etc. persuade the government in granting them rights, but that through the actions of people the government can be persuaded to legislate certain rights to non-human examples.

I understand that. I was attempting to demonstrate that non-humans can be granted these rights if humans pursuade the government to do so. Perhaps I failed in my attempt. I could give several examples of that as well, however. I could talk about the rights of pets, cattle and other ranch/farm produce, endangered species, etc. Not currently exactly the same as our rights, or at least not the protections, but rights nonetheless. Being identical to our rights is only a somewhat sustained whim of the majority away.

The problem is that non-humans can't take personal responsibility for those rights (they devote no resources) and they can't overtly attempt to secure those rights (they have conception of protest and lobbying).

Edit to add: now let's change scenes to their turf and level the playing field. Put yourself naked in some african grassy plain. Lovely anteope running by and ignoring you. Butterflies wisping about your head. A full grown pride of lions just behind you waking from their long afternoon nap. They appear hungry. They notice you. They consider, as only a pride of lions can, their rights. You, as a lone naked human in front of a pride of lions, consider yours.

[Just thinking]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
The problem is that non-humans can't take personal responsibility for those rights (they devote no resources) and they can't overtly attempt to secure those rights (they have conception of protest and lobbying).

Well that I'm sure we'll all agree on.

And to give my answer to this thread's title question, I feel that we are the basis for any and all rights (human or otherwise) that exist. We, as a people, define how we wish to live, both individually and collectively.

[FreeChile]

Every one has a right to be fed. Nature has provided us with bounty.

I don't know what kind of right this is.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I understand that. I was attempting to demonstrate that non-humans can be granted these rights if humans pursuade the government to do so. Perhaps I failed in my attempt. I could give several examples of that as well, however. I could talk about the rights of pets, cattle and other ranch/farm produce, endangered species, etc. Not currently exactly the same as our rights, or at least not the protections, but rights nonetheless. Being identical to our rights is only a somewhat sustained whim of the majority away.
By chance, did you vote "strongly disagree" in the poll?

It doesnt look like you are saying anything about humans having rights based on their humanness, but humans having rights based on what people in power give them.

The problem is that non-humans can't take personal responsibility for those rights (they devote no resources) and they can't overtly attempt to secure those rights (they have conception of protest and lobbying).
Now I'm sure this denies rights based on humanness, because children, infants, mentally handicapped, and a number of others are excluded because they cant take responsibility or secure rights granted.

So far, is this correct?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Yahweh
By chance, did you vote "strongly disagree" in the poll?

It doesnt look like you are saying anything about humans having rights based on their humanness, but humans having rights based on what people in power give them.


Now I'm sure this denies rights based on humanness, because children, infants, mentally handicapped, and a number of others are excluded because they cant take responsibility or secure rights granted.

So far, is this correct?

Why yes, by chance, I did vote "strongly disagree". How else could I vote given the question and options?

But no, also by chance, I do not wholeheartedly agree with your strict assertion that "people in power" grant rights unless you are willing to concede that each person, and perhaps even each creature, can be very influential in the aspect of the collective. No examples are necessary; we all recognize the examples from history. Most human. Some not.

And yes, this denies rights based strictly on humanness and at the same time guarantees rights based not so strictly humanness. We kill unborn babies with impunity. We jail the bastard that murders our dog. We place upon a pedestal those that have done us the greatest harm. We crucify upon a cross those that have done us the most good. Because we're human, we have logic. Having it doesn't me we always use it.

You have the right to stand and fight or to run. That's it. There's nothing more to a right than that.