structure for 'Social Practice'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

25. Social Practice / C. Rights / 1. Basis of Rights

[what can justify giving or withholding rights]

43 ideas
Sound laws achieve the happiness of those who observe them [Plato]
     Full Idea: Sound laws achieve the happiness of those who observe them.
     From: Plato (The Laws [c.348 BCE], 631b)
Law is intelligence without appetite [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Law is intelligence without appetite.
     From: Aristotle (Politics [c.332 BCE], 1287a31)
     A reaction: Neat, but no laws would be needed if there were no appetites. The idea has a nice Kantian feeling to it, though - of rising into the space of pure reason.
It is not a law if not endorsed by the public [Hooker,R]
     Full Idea: Laws they are not which public approbation hath not made so.
     From: Richard Hooker (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity [1593], I s.10), quoted by John Locke - Second Treatise of Government 134 n1
     A reaction: Margaret Thatcher's Poll Tax, rejected by public rebellion, illustrates the point.
Spinoza wanted democracy based on individual rights, and is thus the first modern political philosopher [Stewart,M on Spinoza]
     Full Idea: Spinoza's advocacy of democracy on the basis of individual rights was extraordinarily bold for its time, and it qualifies him as the first truly modern political philosopher.
     From: comment on Baruch de Spinoza (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus [1670]) by Matthew Stewart - The Courtier and the Heretic Ch. 6
     A reaction: Sounds right. Hobbes may have been the 'first modern man', but his politics was fairly medieval. John Lilburne and co. may have campaigned for rights and democracy, but they weren't really philosophers.
The sovereignty has absolute power over citizens [Spinoza]
     Full Idea: No offence can be committed against subjects by sovereigns, since they are of right permitted to do all things., and therefore offences occur only between private persons obliged by law not to harm one another.
     From: Baruch de Spinoza (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus [1670], 16.14)
     A reaction: This slightly alarming remark is the consequence of Spinoza's denial of natural rights. Nowadays we have international law to appeal to. Locke thinks revolution could be justified, but this implies the Spinoza does not?
The loss of perfect rights causes misery, but the loss of imperfect rights reduces social good [Hutcheson]
     Full Idea: Perfect rights are necessary to the public good, and it makes those miserable whose rights are thus violated; …imperfect rights tend to the improvement and increase of good in a society, but are not necessary to prevent universal misery.
     From: Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §VII.VI)
     A reaction: This is a very utilitarian streak in Hutcheson, converting natural law into its tangible outcome in actual happiness or misery. The distinction here is interesting (taken up by Mill), but there is a very blurred borderline.
There are two kinds of right - to power, and to property [Hume]
     Full Idea: Right is of two kinds: right to power and right to property.
     From: David Hume (Of the First Principles of Government [1750], p.25)
     A reaction: These seem to be positive rights. No mention of the right not be to unjustly abused. It is hard to find any sort of radical political thinking in Hume. His empirical scepticism extends to his politics. He approves of modern consitutional monarchy.
There is now a growing universal community, and violations of rights are felt everywhere [Kant]
     Full Idea: The peoples of the earth have entered in varying degrees into a universal community, and it has developed to the point where a violation of rights in one part of the world is felt everywhere.
     From: Immanuel Kant (Perpetual Peace [1795], 'Third')
     A reaction: I hope slavery was at the forefront of his mind when he wrote that. It is only in very recent times (since about 1960?) that major violations of rights are felt to matter to the whole human race. A long way to go, though.
There are political and inter-national rights, but also universal cosmopolitan rights [Kant]
     Full Idea: The idea of a cosmopolitan right is not fantastic and overstrained; it is a necessary complement to the unwritten code of political and international right, transforming it into a universal right of humanity.
     From: Immanuel Kant (Perpetual Peace [1795], 'Third')
     A reaction: The interesting thought is that there are no 'natural rights', but there can be universal rights insofar as there exists a universal community. See the UN Declaration of Human Rights c.1948.
Only laws can produce real rights; rights from 'law of nature' are imaginary [Bentham]
     Full Idea: Right, the substantive right, is the child of law; from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from 'law of nature' can come only imaginary rights.
     From: Jeremy Bentham (Anarchical Fallacies: on the Declaration of Rights [1796], II.523), quoted by Amartya Sen - The Idea of Justice 17 'Ethics'
     A reaction: I am coming to agree with this. What are called 'natural rights' are just self-evident good reasons why someone should be allowed a right. A right can, of course, come from an informal agreement. The question is: why award that particular legal right?
To get duties from people without rights, you must pay them well [Goethe]
     Full Idea: If you demand duties from people and will not concede them rights, you have to pay them well.
     From: Wolfgang von Goethe (Maxims and Reflections [1825], 180)
     A reaction: [from 'Art and Antiquity']. ...or have great power over them. Goethe gives the optimistic liberal view, rather than the Marxist view.
The absolute right is the right to have rights [Hegel]
     Full Idea: The absolute right is the right to have rights.
     From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on the Philosophy of Right [1819], p.127), quoted by Stephen Houlgate - An Introduction to Hegel 08 'Rights'
     A reaction: What a beautifully succinct and important idea! Does a foetus, or a dog, or a person in a vegetative state, or a slave, qualify?
Rights imply duties, and duties imply rights [Hegel]
     Full Idea: A human being has rights in so far as he has duties, and duties in so far as he has rights.
     From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Elements of the Philosophy of Right [1821], 155)
     A reaction: I would express this as 'why we should we be loyal to the state if the state is not loyal to us'. The state must not only provide us with nominal rights, but must also enforce them. Without that the citizens are alienated, and the sense of duty fades.
A right is a valid claim to society's protection [Mill]
     Full Idea: When we call anything a person's right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it.
     From: John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism [1861], Ch.5)
Marxists say liberal rights are confrontational, and liberal equality is a sham [Marx, by Wolff,J]
     Full Idea: For Marx liberal rights are egoistic rights of separation: they encourage each individual to view others as limitations to his or her freedom. ....Liberals set up a sham community of 'equal' citizens.
     From: report of Karl Marx (On the Jewish Question [1844]) by Jonathan Wolff - An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) 4 'Marxist'
     A reaction: The point is that equality in law does not ensure equal treatment in daily life. I suppose a liberal right can be seen as an opt-out clause for some aspect of society.
Rights arise out of contracts, which need a balance of power [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: Rights originate only where there are contracts; but for there to be contracts, a certain balance of power must exist.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Writings from Late Notebooks [1887], 05[82])
     A reaction: It is a notorious problem with contractual ethics that the weak have nothing to bargain with. Nietzsche's view would make the concept of animal rights almost incoherent, but we understand them, even if he would not have done.
Rights were originally legal, and broadened to include other things [Ross]
     Full Idea: A 'right' does not stand for a purely moral notion; it began, I suppose, by standing for a legal notion, and its usage has broadened out so as to include certain things that cannot be claimed at law, but it is not yet correlative to duty.
     From: W. David Ross (The Right and the Good [1930], §II App I)
     A reaction: Presumably 'natural rights' are those which ought to be legal rights - or they are so obvious that there is no point in discussing legal rights until the natural rights are granted. Don't we make laws because we perceive rights?
Rights are asserted contentiously, and need the backing of force [Weil]
     Full Idea: Rights are always asserted in a tone of contention; and when this tone is adopted, it must rely upon force in the background, or else it will be laughed at.
     From: Simone Weil (Human Personality [1943], p.81)
     A reaction: This is the sort of observation which leads on to Foucault's account of all-pervasive power. Her observation may not be so sinister. It is obvious that introductions of new rights go against the grain of a conservative society - and so need a push.
Giving centrality to rights stifles all impulses of charity [Weil]
     Full Idea: To place the notion of rights at the centre of social conflicts is to inhibit any possible impulse of charity on both sides.
     From: Simone Weil (Human Personality [1943], p.83)
     A reaction: I think she exaggerates. To place personal charity at the centre of social conflicts strikes me as extremely conservative, and unlikely to improve the situation very much. I'm unsure how to reconcile this with Idea 23750. What sort of charity?
People have duties, and only have rights because of the obligations of others to them [Weil]
     Full Idea: A right is effectual only in relation to its corresponding obligation, springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from others who consider themselves under an obligation to him. In isolation a man only has duties, and only others have rights.
     From: Simone Weil (The Need for Roots [1943], I 'Needs')
     A reaction: This seems correct, and obviously refutes the idea that people have intrinsic natural rights. However, it may be our sense of what nature requires which gives rise to the obligations we feel towards others.
Hart (against Bentham) says human rights are what motivate legal rights [Hart,HLA, by Sen]
     Full Idea: Whereas Bentham saw rights as a 'child of law', Herbert Hart's view takes the form of seeing human rights as, in effect, 'parents of law'; they motivate specific legislations.
     From: report of H.L.A. Hart (The Concept of Law [1961]) by Amartya Sen - The Idea of Justice 17 'Ethics'
     A reaction: [He cites Hart 1955 'Are there any natural rights?'] I agree with Hart. It is clearer if the parents of law are not referred to as 'rights'. You can demand a right, but it is only a right when it is awarded to you.
The right of non-interference (with a 'negative duty'), and the right to goods/services ('positive') [Foot]
     Full Idea: There are rights to non-interference (and their corresponding "negative duties"), and the rights to goods and services (with corresponding "positive duties"). Interference usually needs more justification than withholding goods.
     From: Philippa Foot (Killing and Letting Die [1985], p.82)
     A reaction: This invites the question of which is the stronger, and whether paternalism can overrule non-interference, or an expectation of self-sufficiency overrule the positive rights.
A right is not just a rule, but also asserts certain ideas of moral worth [Taylor,C]
     Full Idea: Asserting a right is more than issuing an injunction. It has an essential conceptual background, in some notion of the moral worth of certain properties or capacities, without which it would not make.
     From: Charles Taylor (Atomism [1979], p.33)
     A reaction: A simple right may arise from a contract, which could be quite trivial, and of no moral importance. The winner of the egg and spoon race has a right to the prize, which is an ice cream. I think he means legal rights in a state.
For most people the primacy of rights mainly concerns freedom [Taylor,C]
     Full Idea: Most of those who want to affirm the primacy of rights are more interested in asserting the right of freedom, and in a sense which can only be attributed to humans.
     From: Charles Taylor (Atomism [1979], p.40)
     A reaction: This is probably more pronounced in North America than in Europe. It may be that without freedom a lot of the other rights are impossible.
A morality of rights is very minimal, leaving a lot of human life without restrictions or duties [Nagel]
     Full Idea: The morality of rights tends to be a limited, even minimal, morality. It leaves a great deal of human life ungoverned by moral restrictions or requirements.
     From: Thomas Nagel (Equality [1977], §5)
If whole states possess rights, there can be social relations between states [Walzer]
     Full Idea: If states possess rights more or less as individuals do, then it is possible to imagine a society among them more or less like the individuals.
     From: Michael Walzer (Just and Unjust Wars [1977], 04)
     A reaction: The state's rights must derive from the people. Plots of land don't have rights. In some states the people are in conflict. It can't just be the government which represents the rights of the state.
If a right entails having the relevant desire, many creatures might have no right to life [Singer]
     Full Idea: If to have a right one must have the ability to desire that to which one has a right, then to have a right to life one must be able to desire one's own continued existence.
     From: Peter Singer (Practical Ethics [1979], 07)
     A reaction: The unborn, small infants, and persons in comas may well lack the relevant desire (at least consciously - arguably even a plant has a non-conscious 'desire' or drive for life). The idea that a right entails a conscious desire seems daft.
Fans of natural rights or laws can't agree on what the actual rights or laws are [MacIntyre]
     Full Idea: It is notorious that adherents of theories about natural rights or natural laws offer lists of rights or laws which differ in substance from each other.
     From: Alasdair MacIntyre (A Short History of Ethics [1967], Ch.17)
     A reaction: There seems to have been a consensus early on that self-defence was a natural right, but divergence presumably occurs when you get bolder and more complex. There is a lot of divergence over which is Shakespeare's best play.
Political and civil rights are not separate from economic and social rights [Nussbaum]
     Full Idea: My approach rejects the distinction, common in the human rights movement, between 'first-generation rights' (political and civil) and 'second-generation rights' (economic and social). The second group are preconditions of the first group.
     From: Martha Nussbaum (Creating Capabilities [2011], 3)
     A reaction: [last sentence compressed] This sounds like the sort of point Marx argued for. Nowadays it is feminists who make this point most strongly.
The Lockean view of freedom depends on whether you had a right to what is restricted [Kymlicka]
     Full Idea: The Lockean camp defines freedom in terms of the exercise of our rights. Whether or not a restriction decreases our freedom depends on whether or not we had a right to do the restricted thing.
     From: Will Kymlicka (Contemporary Political Philosophy (1st edn) [1990], 2.4.a.iii)
     A reaction: My first instinct is to be sympathetic to this, since a detached and general notion of 'freedom' strikes me as suspect. He offers the rival 'Spenserian' view of freedom as just having the choice.
Rights are a part of nation-building, to build a common national identity and culture [Kymlicka]
     Full Idea: Extending citizenship to include common social rights was a tool of nation-building, intended in part to construct and consolidate a sense of common national identity and culture.
     From: Will Kymlicka (Contemporary Political Philosophy (2nd edn) [2002], 8)
     A reaction: Kymlicka explains a lot of politics and society in terms of the desire of governments to 'build' their nation. You have to make people who are essentially powerless feel that they are at least in some way involved, and benefiting.
Rights derived from group membership are opposed to the idea of state citizenship [Kymlicka]
     Full Idea: The organisation of society on the basis of rights or claims that derive from group membership is sharply opposed to the concept of society based on citizenship.
     From: Will Kymlicka (Contemporary Political Philosophy (2nd edn) [2002], 8)
     A reaction: [from John Porter 1987] Does this imply that you might have rights as part of a group which you don't have as a state citizen? Positive discrimination, for example. Differential rights sounds like potential trouble.
A right is a power which is enforced in the name of justice [Scruton]
     Full Idea: Rights are enforced in the name of justice, whereas power is enforced come what may.
     From: Roger Scruton (Short History of Modern Philosophy [1981], Ch.14)
     A reaction: Presumably rights can be claimed as well as enforced, and the notion of a natural right is at least a discussable concept, as in the 'right' of self-defence. Scruton offers us a very right-wing definition of rights.
Rights are moral significance, or liberty, or right not to be restrained, or entitlement [Mawson]
     Full Idea: A 'right' can mean 'x counts morally', or 'x is permitted to do this' (liberty), or 'x can't be stopped from doing this' (negative right), or 'someone should provide this for x'.
     From: Tim Mawson (Animal Rights talk [2003]), quoted by PG - lecture notes
     A reaction: A useful analysis. It is a useful preliminary to considering whether any of these are natural rights. Personally I am sympathetic to that concept. You cannot deny a person's right to self-defence, even when you are sitting on them. Persons have rights.
If natural rights are axiomatic, there is then no way we can defend them [Wolff,J]
     Full Idea: The theory of basic natural rights is problematic, because although the theory is rigorous and principled, the disadvantage is that we are left with nothing more fundamental to say in defence of these rights.
     From: Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 4 'Liberty')
     A reaction: This is a nice point about anything which is treated as axiomatic - even Euclid's geometry. Presumably rights can only be justified by the needs of our shared human nature.
Standard rights: life, free speech, assembly, movement, vote, stand (plus shelter, food, health?) [Wolff,J]
     Full Idea: The normal liberal basic rights are right to life, free speech, free assembly and freedom of movement, plus the rights to vote and stand for office. Some theorists add the right to a decent living standard (shelter, food and health care).
     From: Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 4 'Liberty')
     A reaction: I think he has forgotten to add education. In Britain Beatrice Webb seems to have single-handedly added the living standard group to the list.
If rights are natural, rather than inferred, how do we know which rights we have? [Wolff,J]
     Full Idea: If natural rights have a fundamental status, and so are not arrived at on the basis of some other argument, how do we know what rights we have?
     From: Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 4 'Liberty')
     A reaction: He cites Bentham as using this point. Utilitarianism at least provides a grounding for the identification of possible basic rights. Start from what we want, or what we more objectively need? Human needs, or needs in our present culture?
Freedom from torture or terrorist attacks is independent of citizenship [Sen]
     Full Idea: The human right of a person not to be tortured or subjected to terrorist attacks is affirmed independently of the country of which this person is a citizen.
     From: Amartya Sen (The Idea of Justice [2009], 06 'Exclusionary')
     A reaction: If rights can only be enshrined in a legal system, then I presume all systems of legal rights should ensure rights like these, irrespective of their nation. A universal charter of rights for tourists and alien residents?
Liberty Rights are permissions, and Claim Rights are freedom from intervention [McMahan]
     Full Idea: There are two types of right. A Liberty right is merely a permission, meaning it is not wrong to do it. But a Claim right is a right against intervention, meaning no one has a liberty right to prevent it.
     From: Jeff McMahan (Killing in War [2009], 2.3)
     A reaction: There must also be a third type of right, which requires other people to perform actions on your behalf. If you pay for a book in a shop, you must then be given the book.
Some rights are 'claims' that other people should act in a certain way [Tuckness/Wolf]
     Full Idea: A 'claim right' is one in which the person asserting the right makes a claim on others to act or not act in a certain way.
     From: Tuckness,A/Wolf,C (This is Political Philosophy [2017], 5 'Claim')
     A reaction: There seems to be a crucial distinction between rights which entail obligations on some individual or institution, and those which don't. Contracts (including employment contracts) generate duties on the parties.
Choice theory says protecting individual autonomy is basic (but needs to cover infants and animals) [Tuckness/Wolf]
     Full Idea: Choice theorists hold that rights protect our rights to make autonomous judgements, because our basic right to autonomy must be protected, The theory has a problem with people unable to exercise autonomy (such as infants and animals).
     From: Tuckness,A/Wolf,C (This is Political Philosophy [2017], 5 'Interest')
     A reaction: The problem of infants and animals looks like a decisive objection to me. We obviously don't protect dangerous or hostile autonomous judgements, and it is not clear why protecting stupid autonomy should be basic.
One theory (fairly utilitarian) says rights protect interests (but it needs to cover trivial interests) [Tuckness/Wolf]
     Full Idea: Interest theorists hold that rights serve to protect people's important interests. This is closely allied with utilitarian values. The theory has difficulty accounting for relatively trivial interests (like owning a lemonade you bought).
     From: Tuckness,A/Wolf,C (This is Political Philosophy [2017], 5 'Interest')
     A reaction: This sounds more plausible than choice theory (Idea 20604). It is obvious that infants must have rights. The lemonade problem seems to demand some sort of rule utilitarianism. Sidgwick looks promising. Rights can also be moral claims.
Having a right does not entail further rights needed to implement it [Tuckness/Wolf]
     Full Idea: Possession of a right (such as self-defence) does not always imply that one has additional rights to whatever they need (such as a handgun) in order to exercise the first right.
     From: Tuckness,A/Wolf,C (This is Political Philosophy [2017], 5 'Is there')
     A reaction: The right to life entails a right to food (but not to a banquet), so it is a stronger right than self-defence. I have no obligation to let you defend yourself against me, but I may have an obligation to feed you if you are starving. (Distinction here?)