Some more discussion
What Are Human Rights?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/what_are_human_rights.html
Thanks
@IsailedawayfromFR. Based on a couple of quick reads of the link, it looks like the so-called "experts" *don't* agree on what rights are, or where they come from, or whether everyone has the same rights. I'll concede it can be difficult to sort out in a particular situation whether one man's rights should prevail over another's, but I didn't realize that the leading lights of
One World Tolerance and Diversity are this confused.
I think all of us here would probably agree that rights come from God and that everyone has the same rights. However it might be very difficult for us to agree on a definition of "right" or even a list of examples, and it is likely even more difficult to sort out which right of one individual should take precedence over which right of some other individual, or over an authority of government, in a given situation.
I'll boldly take a stab at a definition here :
a "right" is the social recognition that an individual or group should not be impeded.
Social recognition? What does that mean? I say it's a
social recognition because it isn't feasible for individuals to declare unilaterally their own rights. Whether or not something is a right is not for us to decide, neither unilaterally for ourselves nor by consensus for others, since rights come from God; but we must achieve a
consensus recognition of a right, a shared philosophical, social, political agreement that something
is a right, in order to treat it properly as a right. Achieving that shared consensus recognition is the hard part. I don't think God endows us with rights today that he did not endow to earlier generations before us; the question is whether our recognition of His endowment is becoming more trustworthy or more deluded.
One question raised in the article is whether or not rights might vary from one culture to another. My opinion is that the
recognition of a right might vary from one culture to another, because the expectations men have of themselves, their families, and their institutions do differ across cultures; but the
fact of a right will not vary from one culture to another because all men are equal before God. And I note
@IsailedawayfromFR that this leads directly back to your appeal for respect for the distinct Judeo-Christian culture which was the intellectual and social foundation of the country. We should not refrain from asserting, even through government and law, that our ability to discern rights is perhaps *the* key distinction of our culture, and people all over the world regularly demonstrate their assent by immigrating here, within or without the very law that encodes our, yes
superior, recognition of rights.
Individual or group? What is the importance of the
individual, or the
group, in this proposed definition? Do only individuals have rights, or do groups have rights? Again, when we recognize that different cultures pay greater or lesser respect to individuality, the interaction between individual and group certainly is very important, particularly in the ability to *recognize* a right. But for our discussion here the important application is probably the
individual in comparison to government. Government is the entity we all live with which is authorized to use force against us - our employers, churches, or families cannot - so how we as individuals interact with government is the critical scenario for understanding rights. I say intentionally that government is
authorized to use force against us - individuals have
rights, government has
authority. When a right is recognized as such, it functions as a check on government authority.
Many of us on this board remain staunch believers in the federal system created in 1787. I maintain my belief in that system, although I think it's practically on its last legs; still, a federal system sheds additional light on this question of individuals, groups, and government. There used to be a position in this country which favored "States Rights." Although my own ancestors brought the term into disrepute because of the context in which they asserted it, I'll argue that a right which is abused does not therefore cease to exist. In the case of the federal system, a State does have rights which should check the authority of the Federal Government. So while the application of rights to individuals is, I think, the most fundamental case and the best case for creating a definition, it's not the only meaningful application of these concepts. The key point I think is that a right *functions as* a check on authority; while I believe it *is* an endowment of God to
individuals, a group of those individuals might have some aggregate of the rights of the individuals themselves. However different groups have different natures - the high school chess club is a group, and the state of Texas is a group. The latter is authorized to use force against its citizens, the former obviously not. How does that change whether the individual rights of the members accrue to the group? Of course that's an extreme case, but extremes help us define.
Should not be impeded. This part certainly gets difficult, and comes down to specific cases. Impeded by whom, and for what purpose? Again thinking about individuals and government, an individual might be impeded by some other individual or group of individuals, or by government. Remember that government alone is authorized to use force, and will also interact with the second individual or group which would propose to impede the first individual.
What authority does government have to impede an individual? I think it's basically the authority to prevent harm. If an individual acts in a way that causes harm, government has the authority to impede that behavior. Sometimes government can impede before the behavior, sometimes it punishes after the behavior, but I'm calling both "impede."
Can individuals legitimately impede other individuals? It seems to me there are three scenarios where an individual, or group of individuals, might impede another individual or group - where a contract exists providing that authority, where property or property rights are being protected, and where life is at stake. I don't find the first scenario particularly relevant to my thinking and I think the second is normally pretty clear. However recent cases argued extensively on this forum depend on how we interpret these specific scenarios. The third case is self-defense or perhaps defense of one's family or some other person in an urgent situation. I think it's clear that the person taking another's life in this circumstance is doing so in order to protect the unalienable life and liberty of others.
Whether or not something should be protected from impediment will usually be a matter of specific circumstances, but can we find some limiting cases? Is there an absolute, inviolate *right* that can never be impeded, by anyone for any reason?
I think there is one such truly absolute right, and that is the right to think. Not to say what we think, and not to act on what we think, but to think. No individual and no government, no earthly power, has the authority to regulate thought. We answer for our thoughts to Almighty God alone. I would place this as the "greater than unalienable" right.
Next would be the unalienable rights, and I have suggested up-thread those rights can only be impeded by government through due process, and cannot be impeded by individuals or groups of individuals other than for self-defense when lives are threatened.
Then would come the "alienable" rights, which can be impeded by individuals to protect property, and impeded by government with no requirement of due process. These "alienable" rights would be where the vast majority of problematic cases would reside. While they can't be listed or considered here, I think a concept of harm is necessary to guide clear thinking, and I don't have that thinking in place yet. There can be no right to live free of being offended; harm should not include limitations on speech or on routine and expected use of one's property which are materially irrelevant.
I have beaten this thread up with several very lengthy posts. I hope anyone reading them will have gained some helpful ideas.