Your Right to Have Rights
 

It seems like the word "right" is thrown around quite a bit. People often claim that they have the right to do this or that, yet the curious thing is that they never cite where that right is defined. This is further confused by the fact that there seem to be a few classifications of what constitutes a person's rights. There are those rights established in the American Bill of Rights (and similar documents in other countries, where applicable). Then there are those writes that are supposed to have a wider application, such as that every POW has the right to be treated in a humane manner. These tend to be grouped under basic human rights, though to my knowledge there isn't a central document that defines those rights (rather, a conglomeration of documents, such as the Geneva Convention, various UN resolutions, John Locke, etc).

Lastly, however, there is a general ameba like category of rights that, while oft cited, never seem to have been defined or expounded upon; these rights just seem to have grown out of assumptions based on other rights. For example, a woman's right to abortion might better be termed a woman's right to control her own reproductive capabilities (thus including her right to birth control), yet while as reasonable as this right is, to my knowledge it was never argued for, it was never defined.

Why do I bring this up? Well let me offer a case study.

As some of you may or may not know, their is an election coming up in California and one of the articles in question, Proposition 73, is somewhat curious in that it, if passed, will require abortion clinics to obtain parental consent for patients under 18.

Apart from national disgraces concerning water poisoning, CSU Chico also publishes a fairly well respected newspaper (well respected in university newspaper circles that is) called The Orion. This last week, in the opinion column, one of the paper's writers called for a boycott of certain businesses since they support Prop 73. You may find the appropriate article here. I offer it since, when combined with the comments, the article seems to be a nice representation of various people's opinions on the subject.

Notably, however, is that the comments brought up the question of rights in opposition to each other. Prop 73 pits a parents right to raise their child in a manner they see fit against a woman's (or in this case, a girl's) right to control her own reproductivity. Neither of these rights have been systematically defined (again, to my knowledge), yet both are fairly widely accepted (but not totally). Since they are pitted against each other, one will have to come out on top.

Now I do not mean this to be a discussion about abortion, I merely used that as an example of two undefined rights in conflict.

So let me again propose the question, what makes a "right" a right? Must it be defined before it can be used? And if not, how should we, as a society, deal with conflicts when two rights are in opposition to each other? Also, consider how many undefined rights exist; same-sex marriage hinges on marriage itself being considered a right rather than a privilege, or a nation's right to protect itself (and who that right might come into conflict with another nation's right of sovereignty), etc.

While discussion this particular case of abortion, or the general topic of such, is acceptable, please try to focus on its implications for rights in general (rather than turning this into a thread on that topic).

Just a questionable,

Thought

Of course, rights by definition must be granted, which means that they can also be taken away. While we discern to rights to be more concrete, they are in all honesty no more than a state of belief in what we deserve. Sometimes we unfortunately find that these rights do not actually protect us, but make us feel better.

Legally and morally, we have a right to live. However, merely having that right in no way protects us. That right does not stop anyone from bringing a gun to where you live and shoot you dead, but merely ensures that the person who does so will be punished for violating it.

Well, Thought, there's quite a bit of conflict in judicial circles about just how rights should be interpreted. It's not a very cut and dry matter. Roe v. Wade, for example, inferred a lot of rights in the Constitution that were not explicitly stated, and it squashed some rights that were explicitly stated. I suppose for something to be a right someone, somewhere, must find that right to exist, and this must be generally accepted. For example, there is no specifically outlined right for me to walk the street if I see fit. However, I certainly thing we'd all agree that my ability to go out for a walk is not just a priviledge allowed to me, or a courtesy on the part of the state, but is, on some level, a right. Where it derives its legitimate authority from I have only scant notions, but I imagine it would bear full legal status.

So, here's my very general answer to your very difficult question, a right must be something deriving from some form of authority, either traditional or legal, and be generally accepted by the people.

I think that's an all-too-simple way to look at it, personally. It's not just a legal thing, for me. I won't pretend to hold my "rights" as this symbolic holy entity, but I will say that they are not purley legal.

I think the distinction I make is, the legality of rights is a derivation of the thought, not the other way around.

Obviously, like any vague set of 'common sense rules,' we can't avoid creating some rational guidelines, I think. We can't avoid it; indeed, we must agree on a language to speak in, a place to go meet, a right to have, etc. I think making it too concrete (ie, law) bastardises it, but the general concept is surely not negative.

Maybe "rights" are just like the metric system in that they are an arbitrary system--but a convenient one, neh?

Certainly, as Bitememan indicated, not every action can be a right, such as walking across the street. Maybe, then, a right is guaranteeing the right to do something that can, in theory, be limited. For a government to prevent all of its citizens from walking in the streets would be nigh (if not totally) impossible, whereas it is quite possible to squash those individuals who choose to speak out in a way the government doesn't like.

If we may agree on that, then a right inherently references something that could be controlled. As such, a person doesn't really have a right to an opinion, but rather the right to express that opinion (a fine distinction, to be sure).

A right seems to need to be defined, even given the above classification. Those rights assured to Americans by the Constitution still have limits. Not all religions are accepted by the American government, for example (and thus their institutions are not eligible for tax-exempt status). A person must register to vote before they are allowed to vote (even those the vote is assured to every citizen). Thus, if we agree to this then it only makes sense that true rights must also have limits. Returning to the original source, prop 73, it would then seem that by setting limits on who can and cannot have total freedom in terms of abortion is actually making a woman's "right" to an abortion more legally acceptable (rather than the often claimed less).

I find the entire issue to be so interesting since, not too terribly long ago, men were able to construct entire careers around the discussion of what is the role of government in relation to its citizens, yet in modern times the word "right" has become so common as to have lost a great deal of its emotional value.

~Just a long winded,

Thought

Actually that's the very antithesis of a right. At least as according to the philosophical foundation of the Republic, a right is "inalienable", and as such cannot be taken, abrogated, or surrendered.

I've got to disagree with the idea that rights are defined by limits imposed on them. I have to say part of the reasoning to that effect is still unclear to me.

I think that rights can be rationally determinated, and don't have to depend on a legal authority or popular opinion. On the contrary, to subject the determination of the rights to these might render them meaningless in effect. The outcome of the conflict between several rights could be influenced by these or other factors, however, as the result can vary.

Define legally acceptable?

It is my belief that rights are what are granted to us naturally.

Example:

Its is natural for me to formulate an opinion. Now under a heavy controlling government, they may not consider that to be a right. Now lets say that the people agree with this. Would you agree that it is no longer a person's right to formulate an opinion?

Order and higher intelligence tend to intrude on the natural order of things, thus why we have to define everything. That is why I believe that things granted by nature defines our "rights".

Now there are several arguements that can be made against that belief, the main one that surfaces in my mind being that of someone who's natural inclination is to kill. In a world run by higher intelligence and the order that comes with it, this is wrong and should not be considered a right although it was granted naturally. However in the natural world, would you deprive a predator of its natural urge to kill?

Archbio, what I meant by limits is that there is a point where people agree that a particular right "ends." One might term this a responsible limit; a point where to continue expressing your "right" would inhibit or degrade the rights and liberties of others. My old History Teacher termed it "my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins." Under such a situation, your face is the limit of my right.

It may be appropriate to define the term in two ways, one legal and the other philosophical. Philosophically, rights are defined as a positive: you can say what you want, you can vote, you can protect yourself and your family, etc. A legal definition might assume that the philosophical definition exists but, so that Judges may use these rights to determine court cases, they must be defined, in part, in the negative (that is, what they are not). Thus, legally an individual has the right to say whatever they want... as long as it is not false slander, or as long as it is not yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.

A right would then be allowed but only in a manner conducive to society. As Locke argued, some rights are given up when a person enters into a social grouping, like a nation (specifically, those rights that are counterproductive for that society).

As for what I mean about legally acceptable... legal matters deal with exacts. It is impossible to reasonably and successfully argue in a courtroom based on ambiguity. Example: "Is it not true that on the night of October 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or maybe the 7th, you and other individuals of uncertain number and plausibility did in fact enter one 7-11 store on the corner of Main Street and Ivy... or maybe it was Main and 2nd, the same sort of store that one Ran Domguy was shot three, four, or five times?! And did you not enter the store at or within the same hour of the murder?"

Returning to my point, currently abortion is ambiguous; it is primarily constructed from trends established by court rulings. Because it is ambiguous people are often afraid that one group or another will get it outlawed. In the particular case, Prop 73 would pass a law (not just a court ruling) recognizing abortion as a right even as it restricts that right. If it passes, then we have a much firmer foundation to base other rulings off of; a judge ruling on a case in which the two rights are at odds will no longer be ruling based on interpretation and opinion (to which counter arguments may be made) but rather based off of citable law. To overturn the ruling would then essentially require removing the law as well. Legally, people would have less need to worry about sudden change. Conversely, if one were to pass a law specifically stating that those under 18 did not need a parental consent for an abortion, then a limit is still placed (the limit of "it is not acceptable to limit abortion for children").

Until the limits of a right are defined the nature of that right is debatable and it may shift depending on popular opinion. If a right can shift depending on popular perception, then it is hardly an "inalienable right."

That is what I mean by “legally acceptable,” the shift from a debatable right to an inalienable one. Of course, not all laws that are passed are inherently good. With good intentions a law may be passed that, in a year or two, we (as a society) realize is horrid. The law is revoked and a better one is often put in its place (the law of slavery was revoked, for example, only to be replaced by a law specifically granting freedom to those who had been held in such bondage). If a law is passed, then at least if one desires to argue for the opposite one will no longer be forced to rely on counter factual arguments and hypothetical situations. One can then point to the factual flaws of the law.

DruidoftheDead, you reminded me of one of those curious matters that the Declaration of Independence always brings to mind. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal…” Technically, no one is equal to anyone else. One person is stronger, another faster, yet another smarter. One may be kinder, another more competitive, etc. If one applies the theories of Evolution to humanity, then those who survive and propagate themselves are the most successful and thus displayed the most appropriate behavior (for the situation). If this means that rights must be trampled upon, then that is right and proper. It is only when people assume some abstract idea of equality that rights may be defended. It seems that if one is going to talk about universal rights then one inherently is talking in somewhat religious terms. People are physically in-equal, but metaphysically they are. Rights almost demand that one assume that there is a creator, as it were, for “all men [to be] created equal.”

~Just a "did I already say I am long winded? well I am"

Thought

To be honest I'm not of the belief that everyone is created equally in any form. People are stronger, faster, smarter, etc... some of us (myself included in many forms) just aren't quite at the top of the totem pole, which sadly stands vertically not horizontally. But that's getting off topic.

To me, philisophically, rights are an unspoken agreement amongst the beings they affect.

On the legal or even just social side of it, we take that unspoken agreement and determine which parts we do and do not wish to adhere to, thus the predator no longer has the right to kill, etc....