For my blog post on the French Revolution, I am going to propose a theory on the proper foundations for “universal human rights.” I will try to articulate my thoughts clearly, but it is a thoroughly soggy topic for a necessarily short post.
The prompt for this post states that there are “really just two contenders for foundations -- either “nature” or “nature’s God.” I think that both of these conditions fit into Bentham’s
“nonsense on stilts” category, to me the idea of “nature” and “nature’s God” are interchangeable, both implying some omnipotent force which has, among other things, the ability to invest the collection of conveniently formed atoms that is mankind with an undefined set of inalienable rights. I suggest therefore, that there are no inalienable rights.
The idea of “inalienable” rights that cannot be taken away from a human is preposterous, there are things that ought not be taken away, but rights are taken away from humans at every turn. Ask Olaudah Equiano who’s right to freedom was alienated. Ask Ai Weiwei who’s right to free expression has been alienated. Ask the families of the fifty-thousand people who have died during the current civil war in Mexico who’s right to not be killed in the street has been alienated. Sometimes this goes even goes to conflicts between my rights and your rights, if I interfere with your rights, the state can interfere with mine.
What if, when the French declaration says, “The law is the expression of the general will,”1 we substitute “rights are” for “the law is?” Rights are not determined by any mysterious force of nature or by someone’s invisible friend or deity, rather they are agreed upon by society, by the general will.
For an example of the general will evolving and searching for what rights humans are entitled, we can look at this week in the news of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Are the rights awarded to humans in California that are in a long term, committed relationships with other humans dependent on their sexual orientation? Unless there is empirical evidence that granting these rights will harm society or other humans, I see no reason to draw a line. And no, apocryphal tales of ancient lands attributed to someone’s invisible friend are not empirical evidence.
Since there are no natural inalienable rights, are there things that are absolute rights that
every human has? I say yes, things like freedom of expression, the right to resist tyranny and oppression, and so on, this is not the space for an exhaustive list and weighing of every possible right. From where then do these absolute rights arise? A trickier question. As humans, we are conscious of ourselves and our behaviors, since we know what we are doing, we ought to strive to do right. We ought to strive for universally humane behavior, others deserve the same treatment we feel we deserve. The simple chore of looking at oneself in the mirror every day and coming to terms with our actions and facing our conscience is the foundation of absolute rights.
1 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, in Lynn Hunt, ed., The French Revolution and Human
Rights: A Brief Documentary History, trans. Lynn Hunt (Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press,
1996), pg. #78.
Nathanial,
ReplyDeleteWhat interesting remarks you made. I really enjoyed reading what you wrote. This is a topic that is extremely hard to debate and discuss since the ideas of “natural rights” that come from “nature” or “nature’s God” are so intertwined with society. It was interesting that you said there is no such thing as “inalienable” rights but then you later on explained that there are “absolute” rights, such as the right to resist tyranny. I have a hard time understanding the difference since it appears there are certain “things” (whatever we call them) that people feel they are entitled to. In my post I mentioned my 4 year old daughter who questions my decision making and sometimes revolts if she feels it is unfair to what she wants. If people naturally rise up (and even from a young age) and feel that can fight for something that is intangible but vital to their happiness, such as their space, time, belongings and own welfare then maybe it does in fact exist? The idea of “natural law” as defined by Diderot, proved powerful in its ability to spark the ideas of Revolution that occurred later on.[1] Again, if people are willing to fight and die for something so basic, maybe it does exist?
1. Denis Diderot, “Natural Law” as defined by the Encyclopedia (1755) in Lynn Hunt ed., The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History, (Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston/New York, 1996),pg. 35-37.
Thank you for commenting on this, you hit on the paradox that bothers me as well. My issue with "inalienable" rights is that the word "inalienable" implies that the rights cannot be taken away, which is obviously false. I suggest "absolute" rights that can be taken away, but ought not to be.
ReplyDeleteAnother piece of the puzzle is who to include as human. The law (and by extension the "general will" or the "will of the people") does not count children until they are 18 as they lack the skills and the development of reason. Everything rebells against what it perceives as tyranny, you should see my dog who just had stitches and is wearing a cone, or the first time I saddle a colt, or a fish on a hook. They all have the desire to rebel, it is about survival.
Maybe then, that is the "natural right," the right or imperative to do what is necessary for the survival and propagation of the species. Since we have thumbs and screwdrivers, humans can then impose our biological drive on the world and, until we go extinct, keep our "natural rights" at the top of the heap.
This is certainly a question that can keep lots of people busy for a long time.
Nathaniel
Incidentally, I just reread what I have written here and I stand by all of it. I just realised however that it could sound like I am comparing your children to trout. I am not and I intend no offence. no one's children are like trout, trout make hardly any noise. The idea is good though and leads to another better idea, so I have kept it in the post.
There are inalienable rights, or right. You, for instance, have the right to think and act for yourself. Now that does not mean your actions are without consequence, as this is where the society or culture which you live within will have its own legal set of rights allotted you. Therefore, though you have the right to physically break the law, you dont have the legal right to do so. Maybe the only way to really put it, is to flip the question. What limitations can not be tied to you. So for instance, there is not power on earth that can effectively control your thought process. Therefore, you are born with the right to think. Wow... I just read through what I wrote, and I realize it probably does not make any sense.
ReplyDeleteRegards
Three days ago I agreed fully with what you are saying, article four and five in the French declaration - the bit about "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else." Today I really want to, I have always believed that it is a moral imperative for every human to fight tyranny and promote the rights of mankind. Something required the Tunisian vendor to set himself on fire and to spark the Arab spring, Apartheid has come to an end for a reason (I hope there is a reason).
ReplyDeleteHowever, without knowing from where these rights arise, I am not sold on their existence. I want them to exist and I think we can find the foundation if we really put our minds to it, if they don't exist it will seriously shake my foundations. Really, if they do exist, it is almost certain that someone else has found a satisfactory answer.
Where then do these rights have their foundation? That is the question which needs answered as far as I am concerned.
Once again, Mel Brooks has the solution to all of this jibber jabber . . .
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec
Very interesting post. I believe that the "natural rights" to happiness and entitlement are so abstract that once they are given concrete definitions - such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen there is always going to be a problem, as individuals experiment with just how far the right can go. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen had the potential to extend the right for women to vote if 18th century French society had allowed it. As Grafton mentioned, "The idea itself is embodied in some sort of text, but texts must be interpreted" (Grafton, 359). Once women contributed to the war effort after WWI and WWII, prejudices decreased and women were allowed to vote.
ReplyDeleteI think of rights as social constructions that evolve as society does, but what I find interesting about "natural" or "absolute" rights is that they are given artificial boundaries (laws). How then can they be natural? - in my opinion, "rights" are better defined as conditions. You can do "this" but it must not interfere with "that" as shown in Articles 10 and 11 (Hunt, Doc. 14). So, I do agree with you that any inalienable right can be taken away.
Your post prompted a question for me and I am curious about your opinion on it. The French Declaration of 1789 was influenced by the ideals of John Locke and his social contract theory. "In Locke's view government should be designed to protect these rights. If it did not, then it could be justifiably overthrown . . ." (Hunt, 5). Since any inalienable right can be taken away, is "rights" an illusion? Consequently, is government's duty to protect these "rights" also an illusion (Hunt, Doc. 14, Articles 12, 16).
Just curious what you thought, once again great job - very insightful post.
Another conundrum. I think a tyrannical government can be justly overthrown, just as there are conditions which allow for a "just war" (Thomas Aquinas thought about these conditions quite a bit). However, as you point out, if the concept of "universal human rights" doesn't have a firm foundation, and is instead an illusion, then there is no justification for rebellion.
ReplyDeleteI still think that there must be a satisfactory foundation somewhere for the idea of "rights"
Here is another question "ripped from the headlines." To whom or to what do we grant rights and why?
ReplyDelete"From understanding the internet as a life form that is in part human, it follows that the internet itself has rights."
The above quote is from the linked article by Nicolas Mendoza, "a scholar, artist and researcher in global media from The University of Melbourne."
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201228715322807.html
Don't be frightened by the source, it is a legitimate global news service.