"Rights"
Politics
| May 14, 2007
| Tim
In many people's minds, marriage is now a "right". (So does the government thus have an obligation to provide homely and/or ill-tempered people with spouses?) As is food, healthcare, education, employment, happiness, etc.
"Dalrymple", an atheist I admire, observes:
I am astonished at how quickly the doctrine of rights has colonised minds, like bacteria on a Petri dish. Not long ago, I asked a young patient what she was going to do with her life (I am sufficiently interested in my patients to ask such things). She said she wanted to study law. Any particular branch, I asked, thinking she might want to do criminal law, which is the most interesting, if least lucrative, branch?
“I want to go into human rights,” she said, with that semi-beatified smile with which a girl of her age might once have claimed to have a vocation.
“Oh yes,” I said, “and where do human rights come from?”
“What do you mean?” she asked.
“I mean, are they just there, like America, waiting to be discovered by someone going out and looking for them, or are they conferred by mere human agency, in which case they can be repealed at the drop of a law?”
She looked appalled, as if I were a deeply wicked man who had suggested that, for example, racial discrimination was just the thing.
“You can’t ask that,” she said.
And thus the problem presents itself. If "rights" do not spring from a divine source, one that mere humans cannot question, then what makes them "rights" at all? If they are merely privliges that society at large has deemed fit to bestow then there is nothing inherently special about "rights" at all. At that point what, then, could not be annexed as a "right" by whichever group has the power to take it and force society to accept it? In fact, if you think about it, if "rights" are simply arbitrary and up for grabs by whatever group of people with the influence needed to do so, then there is nothing inherently good about rights, they are simply another form of anarchy and/or mob rule.
Secularism is, in some ways, both the cause of this obsession with creating "rights" out of thin air, and an effect of it.
You are so, so right, Troy. As a friend of mine points out, the obvious consequence of the secular view is nihlism. So secularists delude themselves by borrowing words and ideas -- nonsensically -- from religion.
Thus we have "rights" (which always carried the notion of being "endowed" by a sentient creator) but they're created from, as you've said, thin air. And lost just as easily.
“You can’t ask that,” she said.
Of course not. We'd be stealing your nice warm and fuzzy vibe which you're constitutionally entitled to feel.
Thus we have "rights" (which always carried the notion of being "endowed" by a sentient creator)
I'm not sure that "natural rights" are the same as "legal rights." One is derived from God, the other from legal fiat (which may be derived from God). I assume atheists could believe in law as a system of precedence applied equally to all people as a method of resolving disputes, akin to the Harvard Negotiation project's system of "Principled Negotiation" without believing in God outright. As Tim has noted elsewhere, this certainly isn't mandatory for all flavors of atheism, and the majority of atheists (Marxists, postmodernists, etc.) might oppose or undermine traditional concepts of law.
I agree with "Dalrymple"'s assessment of the absurdity of many positive "rights" ie. those which require one person to provide a service for another, since they imply obligations which often have unjust complications. There are some exceptions to that. I'd assert a legal and even natural "right" to education in the US if a nation could provide it, as a replacement for the traditional English commons, an extension of the religious mandate of tithing as a form of "workfare", and also because our Democratic and economic system benefits from it. I'm fine with the notion that this is inheritance from God.
At that point what, then, could not be annexed as a "right" by whichever group has the power to take it and force society to accept it?
Great question. If I understand it correctly, it means; "what consistent ethical structure underlies 'rights' that limits the recognition of new rights, particularly in the eyes of those who assert that marriage is some kind of a 'right'. Without commenting on the legitimacy of this particular matter, I assume part of the rationale behind "marriage as a right" is that those asserting it wish to make it include same sex unions. They note, first, the establishment of marriage via the legal system. One of my friends from college who is an atheist got married, so it's not strictly a religious practice and it has secular legal implications, though it may be borrowed from religion. Marriage confers a number of legal rights not obtainable through contract. Advocates might then note the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination based on sex.
Marriage is currently a 'legal right' for many people, in that the law recognizes it and it confers benefits even if there are some limits in terms of marrying relatives.
The underlying rationale of at least some people asserting that marriage is a 'right' for all people might then be based on the moral concept of egalitarianism and the legal (in other words, secular as well as religious) existance of the institution.
Let's not turn this into a whole debate about same sex relationships and the validity of same sex "marriage". I wasn't even actually thinking about any specific scenario when I was writing that statement though I suppose it fits. The question being if same sex unions as a "right" can be forced upon a society then what is to stop the pedophile voting block, assuming it was powerful enough to do so, from forcing our society to "recognize" pedophiliac relationships? You may say its an extreme example, and I agree, but slippery slopes aren't exactly just some kind of antiquated notion of the past. Its quite a real phenomonon. That is why its important to answer the question I proposed. Eventually some group is going to be fighting for some preconcieved notion that they're particular cause should be declared a right and its going to be something you or someone like you is going to be adamantly opposed to. Eventually we are going to have to decide how arbitrary "rights" should be, and the more we water down the notion of rights, legal or natural, the less they are going to mean to our children.
As for same sex unions, this sums it all for me.
""I assume part of the rationale behind "marriage as a right" is that those asserting it wish to make it include same sex unions.""
The original sense of the word marriage was a union of opposites, of "heteroes" if you will. The bottom line is that to attain their goal and make "same sex marriage" a right, these people are having to literally attemp to change the very foundation of the term marriage. A man cannot MARRY another man any more cow can bark or lay an egg. That is what 90% of people opposed to this whole thing are against. Its not the idea of same sex couples being in long-term monogamous relationships that carry with it certain inherent legal rights. Hell, thats a lot like marriage only with two people of the same sex; and no one really has a problem with marriage, so why would they have a problem with something LIKE marriage but for homosexual couples? They don't. What people have a problem with and the reason they so adamantly oppose this lobby is the blatant and unapologetic attempt to undermine a societal institution that goes back as far as civilization itself and the audacity of thinking that they can just declare that a word has a new meaning and expect everyone to accept it and what it means for said institution. There was almost no one in this country who would have been opposed to the idea of legal same sex unions 10 years ago, but then they had to go and try to co-op the word marriage, change its meaning, and shove it down our collective throats. Americans hate that. Thats just who we are as a people. We each have our own way of saying it, but if you demand that we go right, we're going to take a left. Why? Because screw you, thats why. The homosexual union lobby's biggest mistake was fighting us instead of appealing to us; thinking they could overpower America's will and force us to submit. They can't, we just don't do that. So instead of pretty much everyone going along with "same sex unions" now you have Constitutional ammendments in 1/3 or more of the States outlawing them.
Sorry, I said I didn't want to turn this into a same sex union debate and then I go off on a rant about it. I guess it just gets to me that people can't see the forest for the trees on this issue. Anyway, my original point goes back to the nature of rights and without the proper foundation in mind they can just become another form of mob rule. Where rights come from is a very important question, honestly its the very foundation of a free society which is probably why some very wise men almost 250 years ago decided that it was best if they did in fact spring from a divine source.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Mind-Blowing Ignorance on the Hill |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Sanyo Katana Cell Phone »
|
And thus the problem presents itself. If "rights" do not spring from a divine source, one that mere humans cannot question, then what makes them "rights" at all? If they are merely privliges that society at large has deemed fit to bestow then there is nothing inherently special about "rights" at all. At that point what, then, could not be annexed as a "right" by whichever group has the power to take it and force society to accept it? In fact, if you think about it, if "rights" are simply arbitrary and up for grabs by whatever group of people with the influence needed to do so, then there is nothing inherently good about rights, they are simply another form of anarchy and/or mob rule.
Secularism is, in some ways, both the cause of this obsession with creating "rights" out of thin air, and an effect of it.
Posted by: Troy on May 14, 2007 10:49 PM