Do we really have rights?
Offline George Carlin on the issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E (starts on 4:20)
I've always believed that we all have certain, inalienable rights that transcend what governments decide to allow us to have or what governments say is legal and illegal. But at the same time I am an atheist and I don't believe in the supernatural and I have trouble rationalizing these two concepts. Where do these rights come from? They certainly don't come from nature. Nature's laws are non-judgmental but quite draconian. Given how easily governments can oppress these rights by easily out numbering, out gunning, and beating the crap out of us, do we really have rights? George Carlin gives the example of the internment of the Japanese where the only rights American citizens of Japanese decent had was "right this way" and what rights they had before disappeared the moment they became inconvenient for the government, when they were needed most. Rights are certainly nice to have and humanity certainly greatly benefits from having its rights consistently protected but they really do seem to be more matters of opinion than any kind of magical property that we as humans seem to have.
How do you rationalize having rights when there is no supernatural force out there to grant them.
- Login to post comments
Strictly speaking, you don't. If you're born into an oppressive totalitarian society, no amount of philosophy will get you out of digging ditches for the state. On the other hand, the concept of society itself is dependent on certain elements. If people are not allowed to live long enough to breed, the society dies, for example. It's not just a flippant observation to note that every society that has ever existed has had a concept of justice. What, exactly, justice entails is a different matter, but if you live in a society, there will be a justice system.
The concept of "rights" is a lot like the concept of morality. It's damn hard to define because everybody thinks that people have rights the same way that plants have green. It's just not so. If people are born into a society that accords its members rights, then they have rights. Otherwise, they have a philosophy that encourages governments to grant rights.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The concept of rights comes about from the very human desire to impose an ethical standard on society that militates against abuse and exploitation, whether these rights are defined as god-given or in purely humanistic terms. Many societies have in different ways enshrined basic rights in their political constitutions, and as a fundament from which laws can be derived they operate in this sense as a purely legal construct, even if that construct has included religious overtones in its expression in some cases.
I would seriously doubt in fact that human rights, since the concept was first proposed, were ever truly considered to be of divine origin, even despite the terminology sometimes employed. The process of establishing them took so long and the struggle pitted human against human with no apparent support from a deity on either side along the way, that they have always been rightly considered, in my view, socio-political and nothing else.
There is a whole other argument concerning whether human rights are rights at all, but that argument pertains whether they are perceived as of divine origin or not. Most of us accept the term at face value and regard their inclusion (explicitly or implicitly) in constitutions and other legally fundamental charters as sufficient grounds to recognise their very real ethical and moral force even though we understand them to be simply conditions placed consensually upon social interaction in order to protect us from each other.
The word "consensually" is very important there since you began by saying that you have always believed that we all have inalienable rights regardless of what governments might say. In fact if it is a right that only you recognise then it is not much of a right at all. Without sufficient consensus it is purely an aspiration on your part. I also don't believe that "governments" are the right people ever to decide the issue of rights - their track record globally on the issue is pretty abysmal. The definition of commonly accepted rights has invariably occurred through a much more complex process than governmental decree, and a process moreover that has nearly always involved repeated transgression of that right before humanitarian values could eventually be imposed with authority to stop it.
But that said, one could argue (and I would too) that humanity's invention of the concept of basic rights and its proven ability to enforce their application is probably one of the best evidences that morality is not a preserve of the religious mindset and that society can function with supreme ethical standards without religion at all. Even better actually.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I think of all relationships as contracts. So you have no rights with any other entities unless you have a contract with them. No one else has a moral obligation to you unless you have a contract. Many contracts are unspoken or unwritten. So when you speak of inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, these are really just core elements of any contract that civilized people need to have with each other and their governments. So it's a contract you get these rights in exchange for submitting to the authority of the government. If the government denies these rights, you have no moral obligations to their right to rule.
What are contracts? They are a fair trade between parties where each member give something and each member receives something. Each member agrees voluntarily to the agreement. So their is a net benefit to all parties. So relationships between entities always need to be give and take, that's simple how life works. Except we have religion and other irrational thinking corrupting this basic concept.
To me rights and morals are both concepts poisoned by religion, so they've turned into BS concepts.
To say I have rights is often used to say in a deceptive manner "I should receive something for nothing."
To say others should have moral obligations is often used to say in a deceptive manner "You should give me something for nothing."
So religion pushes these BS concepts by telling us God will punish us if we don't along with the BS someone is selling.
To say one has rights means one must have a contract under which they can demand rights, to say others are morally obligated to do something means you must have a contract with them. The concept of living under the rule of laws and contracts needs to be the guiding principle for an atheist/post religious society.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I'd think that the source of the "inalienable" rights is from deep in the human consciousness, so the ultimate source then is probably just evolution.
Legal rights are the combination of the subset of "inalienable" rights that the government finds convenient and the "rights" it makes up to favor certain subpopulations of society.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
To things, one it doesn't mean they are enforced by every country, the universal declaration of human rights states the following:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Now the should part is important, because as we have seen, it doesn't exactly mean that you have to, but you can if you like, many people opt not to.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Now with this, we also know that the current US goverment doesn't believe in this one, ask those in Guatanamo bay if their rights are being enforced here, as per the universal human rights declaration, and the declaration of the US Constitution, oh wait the last one doesn't count because the US goverment does not view these people as humans.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Unless you are born into an oppressive regime or you become the leader of an oppressive regime.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Yeah they forgot to tell this one to the various slave traders in Africa and the middle east. Sudan many are looking your way as well.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. USA, Israel, Syria, Columbia, Iran, Iraq, aww hell the practically the entire Middle East, many African countries, shit many Islamic countries and a few south american and the chinese don't follow this one.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Unless you are against the US then apparently you are not human.
ll are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Again unless you are against the US, or any current oppressive regime, Russia, Iran, China, and many many more.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Unless your country has decided that you are not worthy or a human being.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. again US, we are looking at you, as well as many other countries in the world.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. US doesn't follow this one all the time.
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
and for the rest of them please go here: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html as stated they are ideas, they are not inalienable rights per se, they can be revoked at a whim really. However the idea that a society does follow these rules and is willing to enforced them is what counts, however there are many societies/governments in the world that do not follow these rights and do not enforced these rights because it does not benefit them. I personally believe in these rights and do try to help make sure that they are enforced, and would like to think that many in the world do agree with these rights.
I completely agree, qbg. If you look at those basic rights you can readily associate them without too much effort with the notion of species survival.
Thomas Paine wote "The Rights of Man" before evolutionary theory was understood but in no way contradicted its application to human behaviour when he justified his philosophy with the absolute need, in his view, to realise the interdependency humans have with each other and how any social structure that by its nature threatens this balance threatens humanity itself. To Paine (and most of us, I assume) the solution to that problem was the political assertion of basic rights. Once honoured and upheld politically they would act as a safeguard against tyranny.
Incidentally Paine himself noted that his treatise, directed as it was against tryanny (which to Paine in his day was embodied in the person of a monarch and exemplified by that monarch's autocratic and unrepresentative rule), attacked much more than the notion of kingship and bad government. Any doctrine that conspired to deprive people of representation in how they were governed was equally to blame and he could see that religion played a huge role in that regard. He shied away from attacking religion per se, but he did note the irony implicit in deism that allied itself to the political machine and functioned as a political enabler for what he considered "bad" government.
The humour of the passage has probably not survived through time, but his wry and sardonic comment "as to what are called national religions, we may, with as much propriety, talk of national Gods. It is either political craft or the remains of the Pagan system, when every nation had its separate and particular deity" invoked the fury of almost every christian authority in its day. Paine had put his finger on one aspect to religion that is still something its adherents find difficult to explain away and generally avoid discussing at all - the fact that god is open to interpretation, is constantly reinterpreted, and with uncanny frequency is presented by officialdom as a supreme being with that particular nation's interests at heart and who is invariably on the same team as the power-wielders. When you throw into the equation that some of these nations harbour minorities or subgroups who in turn have a different version of the same god who's batting for their interests then you can see where Paine's thinking was going, even if he stopped short of saying it. God is man-made and political, and a completely unhelpful element when attempting to establish a truly egalitarian and fair society.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy