Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Geoff332 · Nov 16, 2003, 06:27 pm

I'm very short on time, but I'll try and get some answers in here.

Firstly, anyone who is actually interested in this topic should read the links I posted -- they give you a very strong background and cover several different points of view. The rest of my points are a flying summary, that probably misses as much as it includes. I won't have time to respond, so if you disagree with me or want clarification, read the articles.

Secondly, the UN Declaration of Human Rights argues that rights are basic moral guarantees that are due to people simply because they are people. Rights are tied to individuals, not to societies or cultures. Rights are mandatory, not discretionary. They are often thought of as being the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life.

Thirdly, there is a strong distinction between natural rights and legal rights. Natural rights are the rights that are a direct consequence of existing and being human; legal rights are a consequence of being a member of a society which has a legal system. Natural rights can be used as a standard to judge legal rights; any claim of universal rights is talking about natural rights.

Fourthly, there are several arguments about the origin of natural rights.

Locke is the most common (and the most influential today). He argued that natural rights originated from natural law, which originated from God. This natural law produced three natural rights (life, liberty and property -- property is included as the means to ensure self-preservation). These have subsequently been enshrined in the US constitution and other rights documents -- and the moral argument for these rights rests solely on the (assumed) 'fact' that human beings were created by God.

Kant is next. He started with the idea that human beings were morally autonomous and equal. He argued that any moral argument must be universally applicable to all people, rather than based on the pursuit of individual self-interest. This is the categorical imperative -- which is one of the trickest notions in moral theory to get your head around. Kant himself provided three different formulations of it. From the ideals of autonomy and equality, one can derive moral rights without reference to anything outside of humanity.

Will theories of human rights tend to fall on either Locke or Kant. They basically argue that the most important aspect of being human is the "capacity for freedom". Rights are derived from this capacity.

Interests theories argue that individuals possess basic interests. All of our rights are based on our individual interests, to the extent that they don't conflict with the interests of others. The problem is, self-interest does not provide a basis for universal rights of any kind.

There are other views. Nietzsche, for example, argued that all notions of 'rights' were false constructions (usually based on power). In his view, there are no universal rights. Ayn Rand makes an attempt to 'rationally' justify Locke's idea of rights (which are necessary for her to maintain her political agenda) that basically trips over its own assumptions.

Fifthly, there is a distinction between 'claim rights' and 'liberty rights'. Claim rights are linked to duties in others. If I have a right to life, others have a duty to respect my life. Liberty rights are the generally defined as the absence of duties to act in any given way. It does not mean the capacity to meet that liberty. We all have an equal liberty right to take a vacation in the South Pacific. We have different capacities to actually take up that right and no-one is morally obligated to help us.

Sixthly, there are a bunch of criticisms of human rights.

Moral relativism argues that rights are not universal, but tied to a particular context. As such, the notion of universal rights is a non-sense. Forcing universal standards will be at best a waste of time; at worst, actively harmful to some cultures. In practice, most of these notions focus on the individualistic nature of most theories of human rights, which are far more consonant with individualistic cultures than more collectivist cultures.

Hume (and others more recently) have argued that there is no rational defense of rights (or any other universal moral principle), instead these rights are grounded in human sentimenality. Rorty picks up on Hume and tells us that all arguments for rights are ultimately grounded in emotion rather than reason (but he also argues that they are a good thing for us to have).

Nov 16, 2003, 06:27 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I'm very short on time, but I'll try and get some answers in here. Firstly, anyone who is actually interested in this topic should read the links I posted -- they give you a very strong background and cover several different points of view. The rest of my points are a flying summary, that probably misses as much as it includes. I won't have time to respond, so if you disagree with me or want clarification, read the articles. Secondly, the UN Declaration of Human Rights argues that rights are basic moral guarantees that are due to people simply because they are people. Rights are tied to individuals, not to societies or cultures. Rights are mandatory, not discretionary. They are often thought of as being the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life. Thirdly, there is a strong distinction between natural rights and legal rights. Natural rights are the rights that are a direct consequence of existing and being human; legal rights are a consequence of being a member of a society which has a legal system. Natural rights can be used as a standard to judge legal rights; any claim of universal rights is talking about natural rights. Fourthly, there are several arguments about the origin of natural rights. Locke is the most common (and the most influential today). He argued that natural rights originated from natural law, which originated from God. This natural law produced three natural rights (life, liberty and property -- property is included as the means to ensure self-preservation). These have subsequently been enshrined in the US constitution and other rights documents -- and the moral argument for these rights rests solely on the (assumed) 'fact' that human beings were created by God. Kant is next. He started with the idea that human beings were morally autonomous and equal. He argued that any moral argument must be universally applicable to all people, rather than based on the pursuit of individual self-interest. This is the categorical imperative -- which is one of the trickest notions in moral theory to get your head around. Kant himself provided three different formulations of it. From the ideals of autonomy and equality, one can derive moral rights without reference to anything outside of humanity. Will theories of human rights tend to fall on either Locke or Kant. They basically argue that the most important aspect of being human is the "capacity for freedom". Rights are derived from this capacity. Interests theories argue that individuals possess basic interests. All of our rights are based on our individual interests, to the extent that they don't conflict with the interests of others. The problem is, self-interest does not provide a basis for universal rights of any kind. There are other views. Nietzsche, for example, argued that all notions of 'rights' were false constructions (usually based on power). In his view, there are no universal rights. Ayn Rand makes an attempt to 'rationally' justify Locke's idea of rights (which are necessary for her to maintain her political agenda) that basically trips over its own assumptions. Fifthly, there is a distinction between 'claim rights' and 'liberty rights'. Claim rights are linked to duties in others. If I have a right to life, others have a duty to respect my life. Liberty rights are the generally defined as the absence of duties to act in any given way. It does not mean the capacity to meet that liberty. We all have an equal liberty right to take a vacation in the South Pacific. We have different capacities to actually take up that right and no-one is morally obligated to help us. Sixthly, there are a bunch of criticisms of human rights. Moral relativism argues that rights are not universal, but tied to a particular context. As such, the notion of universal rights is a non-sense. Forcing universal standards will be at best a waste of time; at worst, actively harmful to some cultures. In practice, most of these notions focus on the individualistic nature of most theories of human rights, which are far more consonant with individualistic cultures than more collectivist cultures. Hume (and others more recently) have argued that there is no rational defense of rights (or any other universal moral principle), instead these rights are grounded in human sentimenality. Rorty picks up on Hume and tells us that all arguments for rights are ultimately grounded in emotion rather than reason (but he also argues that they are a good thing for us to have).