On the concept of "rights"

[Luís Henrique]

This keeps coming, especially in the context of the discussion of animal "rights".

On one hand, a completely emotional (mis)comprehension of what rights are: animals (or workers, or Blacks, or gay people) should have rights, because, oh, the poor things, they deserve compassion and respect;

On the other hand, both pro and con, comes the idea that rights are an idealistic and bourgeois concept.

So I am going to try to explain some things about the word "rights" and the proper way to use it.

Rights aren't an idealistic concept at all. Of course, they can be understood in an idealistic way - but, then, people in ancient times believed that the Sun was a god. Would we argue that, since gods don't exist, then the Sun must not exist, too?

Rights aren't natural or godgiven. Rights can only be discussed in the context of the organisation of society, and each specifical right under discussion must be related to the welfare of society.

Do we have a right to life? If you mean some kind of natural or praeternatural entitlement to remain alive, obviously not. What happens, however, if people are allowed to kill other people? Would we be able to maintain a functioning society? Clerly not. That's the reason we have a "right to life": each individual's life must be protected by society so that society itself can be protected against disruptive forces within it.

It is easy to see how this means that "right to life" does not extend to either fetuses or animals: no social disruption could come out from abortion or slaughter of animals.

Now what would happen if we, wrongly, attributed a "right to life" to fetuses or animals? Here we would have problems: in equating abortion to murder, for instance, we would open the way to equating miscarriages to manslaughter, or attempted abortion to attempted murder. It isn't difficult to understand that such would only be possible under a police State, and at expenses of many other rights people are acquainted to.

The same is valid in regard to animals. If we were to extend rights to animals, we would have to understand them as members of the same society we are members of. And, unless we wished to promote animals to a privileged class, we would have to attribute them duties correlatives with their rights. For instance, if animals had a right to life, they would have also the duty to abstain from killing other animals. What would we do to dogs who killed other dogs, or cats? Put them on trial?

The truth is that nature isn't a society; its requirements aren't, in any way, similar to the requirements of society. On the contrary, where a well functioning society requires that its members respect the life of each others, nature requires that its "members" effectively kill and eat each others, in order to avoid famine and superpopulation.

But this is just a consequence of something more basic: rights aren't idealistic constructions of a religious, emotional or metaphysical nature; of course, the concept can be clothed in such garments, but there is a very material core to the notion of rights, and a correct, and scientifical, knowledge of rights is important to our ability to live in common.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

This sums up my position on the concept of "rights":


Logically there are gaping holes in the theory of rights. Firstly there is no evidence that rights exist as part of a supposed natural order. Even if they did, to move from what actually is to what ought to be is not necessarily so (naturalistic fallacy if you want to know G.E Moore about it). For example it is natural for people to die of disease but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cure the sick. Secondly, rights accruing to certain groups have problems of demarcation. Do human rights extend to fetuses? Do animal rights extend to non-vertebrates? However to anarchists these are minor quibbles. Our objection to rights rests on their political content. Rights are only of use if they can be enforced. To which we must ask - who decides what rights there are and who will make sure they are put into effect? This cannot be simply side-stepped by more 'democratic' or anarchist forms of decision making. The idea of rights presupposes that there is a correct answer to be discovered and that makes it an issue for experts. Anarchists do not believe that there are factual answers to how people interact. It effects everyone in a community and everyone should participate in the decision making process. No one is greater expert on you than yourself. Of course if you want to build a house you would be foolish not to consult people with expertise in architecture or bricklaying but they have no greater knowledge than anyone else in the community as to whether a house needs to be built. These types of decision can be blurred on occasion but with rights we can see a definite difference. Rights are the product of a hierarchical society. If you are in dispute with someone over a clash of rights you must appeal to a higher authority. When decisions go against people in British courts they go to the European Court of Human Rights. Regardless of whether they win or lose they have surrendered control of their own lives to someone else. We are not saying that the idea of rights is a manipulative con by capitalism to divert rebellion into acceptable channels but it is a product of capitalist, individualistic and authoritarian thinking which cannot serve as the basis for a society of freedom and equality.

What can be done about this? Obviously we shouldn't give up what practical rights the bosses have conceded to us in the present. In fact they should get a hearty kicking for even thinking about taking away our rights to pensions, striking, free abortion etc. Unfortunately they've already done most of that if we ever had it anyway. We need somehow to gain power for ourselves that they can't take away. Without speculating overmuch on a future anarchist society we can see some key features of it emerging through the struggles of our own class in the here and now. One of these is the kind of arguments we use in settling points of controversy between us. Anarchism rejects opinions that rely for their justification on what is 'naturally' the case or on someone's judgment simply because of who they are. Instead we aim at a leadership of ideas that convince people because of their own merits. Real decisions about people's lives cannot be resolved fruitfully by recourse to abstract categories, however benign they may appear. To place our faith in rights is to abdicate responsibility for our own decisions and surrender to a tyranny subtler but more all embracing than the cosh.

Aspects of Anarchism (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/aspects.html)

[black magick hustla]

Rights are just a social construct. There isn't a way to objectively infer what we really deserve and what we don't.

[rioters bloc]

why is this in the secret forum? can we move it?

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by rioters bloc
why is this in the secret forum? can we move it?

Yeah, I agree we should, if LH doesn't mind. That on the concept of 'rights' is a very interesting discussion. It would be great to see as many participants and pow as possible.

I'll wait just a second before plunging into it myself though..

Too tired right now. :blush:

Edit: POV! Points of view.. Damn it I really must be tired. :lol:

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:50 AM
It would be great to see as many participants and pow as possible.
prisoners of war? ;)

hehe poor tired sentinel. okay i'll stop spamming now.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 11 2006, 10:26 PM
why is this in the secret forum? can we move it?
Yes, you are probably right. Move it, please... to theory?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Rights are just a social construct.

So is capital... which shows how very material the effects of a social construct can be.


There isn't a way to objectively infer what we really deserve and what we don't.

Rights aren't things that we deserve.

Luís Henrique

[Matty_UK]

The only thing that gives you the right to do something is force; your right to property depends entirely on your ability to keep control of that property, your right to life only exists so long as you can defend it.

Other prized rights, such as human rights, should not be seen to have a permanent existence. Human rights were fought for, but what makes them a "right" is that the proletariat have managed to ensure the state makes concessions to them, for example a break required every 4 hours of work. A "right" is something protected by the state and should not be seen as ancient law and the point of revolution is to abolish workers rights insofar as in the absence of an exploiting class they do not need the state to protect holy rights for them.

More importantly the idealistic notion of a "right" is something often used to equate the law created by the ruling class of the time with some sort of natural law. Today bourgeois morality tells us that "hard-work" gives the bourgeoisie the right to have priveledge at the expense of their workforce; they have the "right" to property, but in reality that "right" is ensured only because through the state they have the force to maintain control over their property. What defines a "right" is merely the law, which has a monopoly on force under bourgeoise society.

[hoopla]

Logically there are gaping holes in the theory of rights. Firstly there is no evidence that rights exist as part of a supposed natural order. Even if they did, to move from what actually is to what ought to be is not necessarily so (naturalistic fallacy if you want to know G.E Moore about it). For example it is natural for people to die of disease but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cure the sick.This quote really annoys me. I'm sure its wrong :angry:

If rights construed in a certain way (realist) exist as part of the natural order then proving their existence would be equivalent to proving we are obligated. By definition! If we prove that an real obligation exists that states that "x is obligated to...", then x is obligated to. I dunno, I think they could have done all sorts of things wrong, and it confuses me :( . Shrug. Maybe they presuppose non-naturalism is impossible.

I think that the problem they are trying to raise, that May might raise in Reconsidering Difference, is that it may be impossible to ever know that we are obligated - the myth of the given - a version of the naturalistic fallacy.

I do think however that the only way we can justify why we ought to be moral is if non-nauralism is true. Shrug. Though that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist.

[apathy maybe]

Rights do not of course exist any more then any other idea. They are a construct. As such they can only be applied by those who have power, and violated similarly by those same.

As leftists we think that all people should have the same rights, and that these include such things as freedom and a decent life.

When we bring about an anarchy (or communism if you wish), rights will not exist as they do now, because there will not exist people with the power to abuse violate people's 'rights' on a large scale. On a smaller scale, the community will decide what 'rights' exist, but the issue will generally only come up when something happens. There will not be a 'bill of rights'.

[apathy maybe]

I think that we should also apply rights to non-human animals. Speciesism is arrogant, especially when the differences are in complexity, not kind. There are more intelligent dolphins and chimpanzees then some humans, should those humans get any fewer rights? Perhaps they should lose the right to breed?

Really what makes humans special? Nothing really, generally humans might be more intelligent or rational or some other such thing (which cannot of coursed be tracked, except by using human values. Just like Australian Aboriginal people failed the white fellas IQ tests, but none of those 'intelligent' whites could have survived in the bush or desert where the Aboriginals thrived.).

Animals suffer pain, they suffer anguish, they can be happy. Any attempt to show that they do not will of course be flawed. We object to cruelty to non-human animals, not because it shows that the person is in someway psychotic, but because we attach some value to the non-suffering of the animal. We do not object to abortion, because the foetus has no capacity to feel pain or even pleasure.

Different rights and responsibilities to non-human animals as to human animals. This is why apes in Switzerland do not have to vote. For that matter, those humans who do not have the mental capacity to vote do not have to. Just because those retarded people do not have any real mental capacity does not mean that they do not have rights, so why then do you object to giving apes or dolphins rights?

[Quills]

There are more intelligent dolphins and chimpanzees then some humans

If there are, and I doubt it, then they are the minority case. And this depends very much on what you count as intelligent. They may be able to count to ten, or press a button to get a bannana, but they are not capable of rationality, they cannot understand things like people can, and they cannot contribute in any meaningful way to the day to day running of society.

Think about it, can you imagine a dolphin voting?


Really what makes humans special?

Rationality, self awareness, and human society


We object to cruelty to non-human animals, not because it shows that the person is in someway psychotic, but because we attach some value to the non-suffering of the animal.

I "object" to it because I feel it is unnecessary to torture an animal when there is nothing to gain from it. But when we can gain something from animals like cures for diseases, then we should whatever is needed to do it, because our only responsibility is to human society.


We do not object to abortion, because the foetus has no capacity to feel pain or even pleasure.

NO

That is not why we don't object to abortion. It's because the women has the complete autonomy over her body, as she is the member of society and the foetus is not. That is the only reason. Rights work to protect societal members. If anything the abortion comparison works against your arguments for animal rights. Oh and by the way, the foetus can feel pain, and it doesn't make any difference. Well. It might for you, because the fact that animals can suffer seems to be all your arguement is based on.


Just because those retarded people do not have any real mental capacity does not mean that they do not have rights, so why then do you object to giving apes or dolphins rights?

Because these people could be members of society, but they have a disability stopping them. I think I've seen it refferred to someone here as "potentiary" members. No animals could ever be. That's the difference.

[Invader Zim]

On the other hand, both pro and con, comes the idea that rights are an idealistic and bourgeois concept.

No they are not.

Rights are a uniformly human concept. Any society based on any ideology has its own collection 'rights', it has nothing to do with class as a concept. The distribution of rights however (as in who or what holds various rights) is a class based, among other factors, issue.

But it must be pointed out that rights are an utterly subjective human construct, the idea of rights can not be attributed, by any self proclaimed 'materialist', as an objective argument because rights are an idea not something which can be measured in by empirical standard.

[hoopla]

Yeah, and who says that empiricism is a good thing ;)

I can name a philosopher who is a materialist and bvelieves in objective rights. Apparently he's a but crap, mind.

:lol:

[Invader Zim]

Yeah, and who says that empiricism is a good thing

While I am reasonably well versed in the arguments of post-modernists and am aware that naive empiricism can be a problem in the academic world, we are all by and large materialistic in our nature as leftists, thus we place have to add a certain amount of importance on empirical evidence.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 17 2006, 04:26 PM

Yeah, and who says that empiricism is a good thing

While I am reasonably well versed in the arguments of post-modernists and am aware that naive empiricism can be a problem in the academic world, we are all by and large materialistic in our nature as leftists, thus we place have to add a certain amount of importance on empirical evidence.
Did Marx ascribe to Materialism=Empiricism?

I'm fairly sure its not solely a post modernist thing.

Problems in the academic world are problems the affect us, don't they (not just cos I'm a s* philosophy student).

Alot of Western Marxists rally against empiricism, along with positivism. Did Lenin have nothing to say on it :rolleyes: ;)

:wacko:

[hoopla]

Yeah, I used to think that people understand and interpret everyday conflicts of opinion in terms of rights and wrongs, so yeah, rights. But I am less sure, since reading some Heidegger I think that my subjectivism has been messed with.

:blink:

[Dean]

rights are a mean by which people designate how and where to place freedom.

they can change over time, as in the sense of transitional governments, and they can remain static.

I think there is a clear idealism to rights as well as a pragmatism. idealism simply defines the most desireable state of things which one could experience, so in this sense rights have a clear use for communists. pragmatically, however, if one considers that all people have a right to live, there can be made concessions such as in the case of a revolution. I do not think that anyone ever gives up their rights; only they can be the dictator of their fate, morally. Again, pragmatism points to certain reduction of rights in order to secure a more free future, if need be.