What are "rights"?
Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
Too often these days, people use the language of "rights" loosely. A "right" is something that one morally deserves, and it ought to be provided or at least not violated by Other people. We all have a natural right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A natural right is something you deserve by nature, and nobody else can take away from you. Most fundamentally, we have a right to life, which implies you own your life (private property), which implies liberty, and if you own yourself you own your mind and your labor, and the value you produce (more private property), and the right to life implies your right to defend your life (and property), and the right to equip yourself for this self-defense. These rights are natural for all living human beings, and inalienable.
In some sense, the term "right" merely refers to a moral obligation or debt in general. If you agree to pay me $150 to play the organ for a ceremony, and I do it, then I have a "right" to demand $150 from you. But this is a very general usage, distinct from the concept of natural rights. Some rights we agree to (eg, trade), others we have by our nature as living humans.
Unfortunately, some people recognize the authority and security and prestige of the term "natural rights," and they want that positive association for other things they want, so they have tried to borrow (hijack?) this language. So they say we have a "right" to a job (and a certain wage), or a phone or TV or other standard of living and recreation, or a house, or free healthcare, or free education, or X (the growing list is potentially endless). But there is a big difference: to say a product or service is owed (like natural rights to life, etc) is to say that someone somewhere is obligated to do the work to provide them. Progressives are not merely talking about the right to pursue these things. The politicians and people demanding these "rights" are saying they must be provided to them even when they are unable or unwilling to provide them for themselves. That implies that someone "owes" them these "rights." Someone, somewhere, must be responsible to produce the value to supply these "rights." So the person who demands a free X is putting an Other person under obligation to work for person is a violation of his liberty. When John Doe demands the "right" to be provided with a good or service by Jane Roe, he is violating her natural rights.
The term "right" is rightly used for natural rights, rights we have in virtue of our nature, of being alive. Unfortunately the term "rights" is increasingly used not for what people earn, but what they deserve in spite of (or even because of) their inability to earn it. Their inability or unwillingness to produce what they want becomes a claim on the rest of us, an ever increasing mortgage on all those who do produce excess value.
Take the example of the "right to a house." (I don't know if anyone is actually claiming this is a "right," it is just an example for the sake of discussion.) Everyone, including John Doe, deserves their own house by "right," even for free if John can't pay for it and even if John is not responsible to maintain it (perhaps just because John is unable or unwilling to buy it or maintain it); if it is conditioned on John's ability to pay (maintain, etc), then it is not really like natural rights, it is just another thing that must be earned and should use different terminology. Where does John's house come from? Someone (eg, Jane Roe) has to provide it by building it or paying for it to be built. This means Jane or Other people somewhere, real people, are obligated to work for this John's "right to a house." This implicitly makes Jane and Others the slave of John, to some degree.
But this violates the natural rights of Jane and all the Other people now obligated to work for the John's house. The natural rights to life and liberty imply that I own myself (private property), and my mind and my labor and the fruit of my labor (private property), and nobody else has the "right" to violate my natural rights. Yet this is exactly what the "right to a house" (and any other good or service) does.
People like to use the language of natural rights because people hold them in high regard (natural, unalienable, etc). Ironically, by claiming the "right for John to be provided X by Other people," they are destroying the natural rights of those Other people, and so they are destroying the high doctrine of natural rights that caused them to want to use the term in the first place. A "right" to violate someone else's natural rights is a contradiction in terms.
In some sense, the term "right" merely refers to a moral obligation or debt in general. If you agree to pay me $150 to play the organ for a ceremony, and I do it, then I have a "right" to demand $150 from you. But this is a very general usage, distinct from the concept of natural rights. Some rights we agree to (eg, trade), others we have by our nature as living humans.
Unfortunately, some people recognize the authority and security and prestige of the term "natural rights," and they want that positive association for other things they want, so they have tried to borrow (hijack?) this language. So they say we have a "right" to a job (and a certain wage), or a phone or TV or other standard of living and recreation, or a house, or free healthcare, or free education, or X (the growing list is potentially endless). But there is a big difference: to say a product or service is owed (like natural rights to life, etc) is to say that someone somewhere is obligated to do the work to provide them. Progressives are not merely talking about the right to pursue these things. The politicians and people demanding these "rights" are saying they must be provided to them even when they are unable or unwilling to provide them for themselves. That implies that someone "owes" them these "rights." Someone, somewhere, must be responsible to produce the value to supply these "rights." So the person who demands a free X is putting an Other person under obligation to work for person is a violation of his liberty. When John Doe demands the "right" to be provided with a good or service by Jane Roe, he is violating her natural rights.
The term "right" is rightly used for natural rights, rights we have in virtue of our nature, of being alive. Unfortunately the term "rights" is increasingly used not for what people earn, but what they deserve in spite of (or even because of) their inability to earn it. Their inability or unwillingness to produce what they want becomes a claim on the rest of us, an ever increasing mortgage on all those who do produce excess value.
Take the example of the "right to a house." (I don't know if anyone is actually claiming this is a "right," it is just an example for the sake of discussion.) Everyone, including John Doe, deserves their own house by "right," even for free if John can't pay for it and even if John is not responsible to maintain it (perhaps just because John is unable or unwilling to buy it or maintain it); if it is conditioned on John's ability to pay (maintain, etc), then it is not really like natural rights, it is just another thing that must be earned and should use different terminology. Where does John's house come from? Someone (eg, Jane Roe) has to provide it by building it or paying for it to be built. This means Jane or Other people somewhere, real people, are obligated to work for this John's "right to a house." This implicitly makes Jane and Others the slave of John, to some degree.
But this violates the natural rights of Jane and all the Other people now obligated to work for the John's house. The natural rights to life and liberty imply that I own myself (private property), and my mind and my labor and the fruit of my labor (private property), and nobody else has the "right" to violate my natural rights. Yet this is exactly what the "right to a house" (and any other good or service) does.
People like to use the language of natural rights because people hold them in high regard (natural, unalienable, etc). Ironically, by claiming the "right for John to be provided X by Other people," they are destroying the natural rights of those Other people, and so they are destroying the high doctrine of natural rights that caused them to want to use the term in the first place. A "right" to violate someone else's natural rights is a contradiction in terms.
