Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Do individual rights exist?

Historical experience shows us that the social contract can be modified in just such repugnant ways. Just one example is the fate of a good many new England "witches."

Were there now a sufficient Evangelical Christian majority, I would imagine that our non-heterosexual citizenry could have legitimate fear for their rights and safety... And I have no doubt that the crusade would be lead by demagogues self-righteously spouting the rhetoric of rights and natural law.... I mean, all those brave anti gay soldiers in the Military, they conceive themselves and their actions as defending the highest standards of our nation, correct? And should they achieve a majority, they would be stopped by who? And no doubt you would have a similarly facile explanation of how capital punishment does not really deprive one of life

Then absent an external standard - the "inaleinable right" - one is more or less reduced to appealing to the better angels of the mob, isn't s/he? Something like the so-called "critical studies" people at the Harvard School of Law who argue that the law should be "socialized" - i. e., it should reflect what a majority of people think it ought to be.

And why do you think I'd suggest that? Dead is dead, the ultimate separation of life from liberty. Incarceration or other imposed servitude separates one from the ability to exercise some or even most of his/her liberties, but it does not do so immutably and irreversibly.

So where, other than the mind of man, do inalienable rights come from?

Well, from the point of view of Rousseau, Hobbes and Bentham, they derive from a continuous social contract; I believe a couple of people have argued that in this thread. If you argue specifically from Hobbes, then you argue that historically we have made an irrevocable trust wherein we have for all time transferred our original rights to the state in exchange for its efforts, no matter how arbitrary, to spare us from a life that was considered short, nasty and brutish.

If you are a Marxist, then I believe that you argue that your rights - or the lack thereof - derive from your membership in an economic group.

If you argue from the Jeffersonian point of view, then our rights are endowments from the Creator - in whatever form(s) one chooses to conceive of [him | her | it].

If you argue from the strictly materialistic point of view - a Darwinian view - then you might have to appeal to the existence of and the phenotypic expression of what Richard Dawkins has called the "selfish gene" or possibly follow Sam Hariis on his quest for a neurological basis of faith.

If you want to consider it as a trivial matter, then all basis for our rights come from our minds, but from different causes.

Ron,
the problems of the system are obvious. We agree that a social contract based system of rights is subject to corruption.

Where it seems that we may disagree is the following. You appear to believe that it is possible to set up a immutable standard that does not have the above defect.

I do not believe that is possible. First of all, simply naming it as as immutable standard does not change the fact that citizens/government leaders can change the standard at will.

I would imagine you tp respond that this is the reason why we have to have a fixed standard that cannot be changed.

And I would respond that as long as there are leaders (Like George Bush) there will always be the very real risk that such a leader will simply ignore any "fixed" standard.

Further, our government is designed to respond to the will of the people. The result is that any madness of the crowd can and will be translated into corruption of the standard. War/attack are typical and unavoidable examples.

The immutable standard will always have exceptional cases (IE death penalty) where the standard does not apply. And IMO that is always a vulnerability of the standard that can be expanded. So if you have the death penalty for massmurders, then a situation will come along where someone will say that it is also terrible to have a traitor against the nation and so that should have the death penalty also.

Finally, it is is well and good to say we "need" to have an immutable standard. But simply naming the standard as immutable does not change it's fundamental character. No matter which words you use to describe that immutable standard, the fact remains that it is a political/social agreement that has established the standard. And being a political social agreement... the standard is inherently subject to the potential corruptions inherent built into it's fundamental nature.

We may observe a pet fish and say that we no not want to name it a shark because sharks are aggressive killers. Naming a shark a "white fish" does not change it's nature. Naming rights as immutable reflections of natural law does not change the nature of their origin.

sorry to add to this ardy, but you did miss out one very pertinent question, one of the most important.

Who or what decides what this "immutable standard" will be?

Well, I guess we could take your statement to its logical conclusion and “contend” that without the human mind there is nothing of humankind at all. Kind of obvious. Or, if we inject a bit of quantum theory into the mix, I guess we would have to accept that without the “human mind”, there would be no observer upon whom probability waves could collapse, thus remaining forever infinite, unbroken, and paradoxically, non-existent (i.e., nothingness as we would perceive the meaning of the word). Or, perhaps we could contend that “rights” are in the implicate order and need only move to the explicate?

In short, without the human mind, we would not be having this discussion. So, for the sake of discussion, rather than enfold permanently back into the implicate order, let us agree that Man is the source of all human thought and the source of all that is produced from that thought. Let us also agree that when I write “Man”, “human kind”, or “human mind”, I am referring to individuals who make up those groups.

If agreed, then I would not use the word “invention”, given its negative connotations, so might I suggest instead “…the product of the human mind” or better still, “…integral to the human mind?” This would mean that your “contention” would be that all “rights” are produced by the human mind, whereas my “contention” would be that rights are integral to the human mind. Your view is that ‘rights’ are arbitrary and rest solely on agreement among individuals who make up various groups or societies. My view is that rights are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them. Would this be a valid starting point for contention?


Actually, rights remain with one until one dies. Ones ability to exercise one’s rights may be restricted either through due process, as in your criminal example, or through unprovoked aggression by another, but your rights, integral to you by virtue of the nature of Man, are inalienable.
Yours,
Issodhos

yes I more or less understand your expressed opinion. I do not dispute your right to have that opinion... even though IMO it strains credulity.

At this moment, I have two fundamental difficulties with what you have said. The first and primary issue is that I cannot understand exactly what is the fundamental character of a right. If you (or we) agree that we can, in some circumstances, abridge some portion of another person's inalienable rights, then those rights do not seem inalienable. To me, your explanation of this process seems like a bit a clever sophistry.... wishing to have the cake and eat it also.

My second question would be as to your reference to "the nature of Man" which you apparently cite as the origin of these inalienable rights. Is there any scientific basis for your reference? And if not, why would anyone consider the reference as anything other than a convenient device to "prove" your contentions by assuming the conclusions at the outset of the discussion?

I have to agree with Ardy's starting surmise that "rights" are a creation of human ingenuity. I also happen to agree with Ron's construction that rights are "inalienable" but may be restricted by the action of authority. They are, as Reality posits, a creation of "the people" as is the government itself, which (at least in our case) is charged with protection and enforcing those rights (present administration excepted, apparently).

My feeling is that Jefferson's construction of "inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" and that "all men are created equal" were intended to be aspirational in nature - or a philosophical expression of the concept, as opposed to a proof. (Interestingly, his original was "we hold these truths to be sacred.") Note also that the phrase is inclusive, not exclusive - "among these." It was an expression of a standard, really, and not an exposition of a postulate, which is why it can be self-contradictory as well as being "true." The evocations of "sacred" and "creator" were to imply that these were not man-created rights and therefore above the authority of the state, which was a philosophical and historical construct that was somewhat unique to the time - in other words, just as monarchs had previously held their titles and authority "by divine right," Jefferson was restructuring the precept to indicate that the "divine rights" were in individuals, and not a product of a "grant" from the State. Quite, quite a radical claim for the time (and apparently in our time as well, at least as far as construed by the current administration).