|
The Question of Rights
|
By Punkerslut
[Hits: 2067]
|
|
The Question of Rights
By Punkerslut
When it comes to the question of rights, it seems that thereare a variety of diversed opinions on the matter. As you go fromsocial issue to social issue, encompassing the political andethical implications, one will find that there are differentdispositions, each holding to the idea that their idea of rightsis the correct one. For example, in the case of Pro-Life andPro-Choice, on the issue of abortion. Pro-Life believes that theunborn fetus has the right to life, whereas Pro-Choice believesthat the woman has the right to choose. In some cases of thePro-Choice movement, there are those who believe in limitedrights of women to abortion. They believe that a woman has theright to abortion only in cases of incest and rape, or that awoman has the right to abortion only up to the late secondtrimester. When understanding the ideology of Conservative andLiberal political parties, we find that the former more stronglybelieve in the right to private property than the others.Conservatives are opposed to welfare and social programs, inthat these are supported by taxation, which appropriates some ofthe wealth of everyone, and they oppose these programs becauseit violates what they believe is the right to property.Liberals, on the other hand, are supportive of such wealthappropriation, because they believe that every person who laborsis entitled to some of the profits of the land. In theseexamples, as many others, we find that it is the question ofrights that the parties are arguing over. It is in this piecethat I will delve deeper into this question.
When looking at rights, there is an infinite plethora of themthat we could apply. We could argue that people have the rightto dress like the other sex, to make sexual advances towardsanyone at any time, to poke others, to borrow without paying forsomething (steal), among many other things. Of course, thisshort list of rights I provided was absurd and ridiculous. It'smostly because when we think of rights, we tend to think of theright to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of religion,right to elect our own government officials and expel them uponmisconduct, among many other rights. The right to political andlabor association. These are all rights that we commonly thinkabout when we think of rights, or they are rights we appeal towhen arguing for or against a certain issue. Someone may opposethe government supplying tax fund to churches because itviolates the freedom of religion; another person may oppose thegovernment censoring books on sexuality because it violates theright to freedom of speech. So we find, that these smallerissues, these matters that are brought to us today, are opposedor supported based on what we believe the rights of the peopleare. However, when comparing these often thought about rights,such as freedom of speech, with those absurd rights that Imentioned, such as the right to poke anyone at any time, one maytry to find a fundamental difference, to justify one and villifythe other. Of course, there is no difference, except thefoundation or justification beneath whatever right it is.
So, if someone were to support the cause for war, they mayargue that it is because a nation's people have the right to ownthe property of the other nation; if someone were to oppose thecause for war, they may argue that it is because a nation'speople have the right to security and their own homeland. We seethen that the current issue is decided upon based primarily onthe idea of preconceived rights. What, then are the reasons thatjustify or villify a right?
To answer this question, I am going to draw a scenario, bywhich we can judge why we believe that one party has the rightsor the other party has the rights. Then, once we decide whichparty has the rights, we can poke and prod our own lifestylesand philosophies until we find some sort of balance inconsistency. Consider the situation of a Nudist and anon-Nudist. The first believes that if he or anyone else mustcover up their bodies, that he will suffer and be in misery. Thesecond believes the opposite, that if he or anyone else hastheir bodies not covered up, that he will suffer and be inmisery. We have an opposition of interests in this situation.Who's right prevails? That of the Nudist or that of thenon-Nudist? If we recognize the right of the Nudist, then thenon-Nudist suffers; if we accept the right of the non-Nudist,then the Nudist suffers. Of course, this example is perhaps themost believable, because any cultured person understands thatNudists generally feel trapped when forced to wear clothes, andfeel the same for others -- and, as the common meme of theWestern Civilization goes, not wearing clothing in public isconsidered taboo, if not outrightly illegal. Consider anotherexample, using the absurd rights that I talked about before.What if someone felt a great misery, a great suffering and painin their heart, if they couldn't punch everyone they met? Itseems absurd and ridiculous, considering that human nature hasnever demonstrated this before in history, but consider that inone human they did manifest this. Now, this person and a normalperson. In the same scenario, one feels the need to punch theother, otherwise they suffer; the other feels the right not tobe punched, otherwise they suffer.
It may very well be true that in this case, there is nojustification for one person's right, or the other person'sright -- at least, no justification that we can find. In thenormal political turmoil, between the rights that one groupasserts we have and those of another group, there is usuallysome reason, if not absolute, that would allow us to straytowards supporting one right over another. Revisiting the caseof abortion, one may argue that an unborn infant has no right tolife, since it is not conscious -- but when it does becomeconscious, it gains that right to life. In the question oftax-funded welfare and social programs, one may make a case forthem in arguing that the common people are responsible forproducing all the wealth of society, and therefore are entitledto part of the dividend. When supporting such broad and basicfreedoms, such as that of religion or speech or life, it seemsthat there needs to be no argument, in that the greater part ofthe population desires these freedoms, and even those who don'tsupport these rights, they have some desire of a limited freedomfor them. We can reason, in some way or regard, to support oneright over another, when they contradict each other. Revisitingthe scenario of the Nudist again, one may argue that all animalsare born nude, and therefore, the Nudist shouldn't be blamed forwhat his natural disposition is. But, what makes this scenarioso perfect for our observation, is that no matter what argumentswe present, both side will suffer some pain unless their rightis recognized. We can reason to the non-Nudist all that we likethat it is natural to be nude, or we can reason to the Nudistall that we like that it is part of the non-Nudist's culture. Wecan expend all the words of human language, use every argumentknown to man, but no matter what we reason, they will stillsuffer unless their right (and not the other right) to be isrecognized. This is the one fact that nothing can override,except possibly a deeper explanation to the justification ofrights.
To anyone who have studied the depths of the field of ethics,they will know that there are other approaches to this subject.For example, the Utilitarians argue that there are, in fact, nosuch things as right, but that an act is judged as moral orimmoral based on how much happiness or misery it creates;though, I find certain flaws in such a system. Particularly, Ifind that there are particular inductive reasoning falacies inthe philosophers of this system. For example, it may very wellbe a good act to save a child's life, but I cannot conceive ofany reasoning that would render someone immoral for not doingso. Or, for example, if one man is killed, and his organs savethe lives of ten people, does that mean the murder was just?According to a Utilitarian, yes, but as I argued before, I donot believe that there is any reason to believe that a person isimmoral to not sacrificing to the greater good. I believe in asystem of rights.
There are other systems which deal with morality and explainingright from wrong acts, or differentiating them. The idea ofkarma, for example, disables people from the ability to changeanything, and renders them subject to a system of justiceincorporated into the natural world. It argues that good thingshappen to good people and that bad things happen to bad people.Thus, if a man is going to have surgery, the doctor's abilitymeans nothing -- since the man will survive if he is good, butwill die if he is bad. That would be an entire violation of themechanics of the natural; besides, there are few who argue thatgood things don't happen to bad people -- at least, in the worldin which we live in.
Or, instead of a non-rights based systems of ethics, there arethose systems which are based on rights, but presents a methodin deciding what those rights are. The most common of theseethical systems are those of religion. The Bible, for example,denies people the right to murder, to covet, among other things,which we can be found in the Ten Commandments. The ethics ofBuddhism deny a person the right to use drugs or alcohol. Islamdenies the right to eating pork but allows them the right tohave many wives. All in all, the religious systems of ethics areunfounded, in that there has yet to be an iota of evidence onbehalf of any spiritual beings. Even so, if a spiritual beingwere to declare the validity of one right, is that even anauthority? There is no reason to believe that it is more of anauthority than any mortal man. Besides, if a god had argued forman's right to rape women, would it be just? Or what of theright to theft and murder? What if there were two gods withcontradictory moral systems? Whatever the case may be there,there is no evidence for god, and furthermore, religious ethicalsystems are dictated without the slightest bit of authority orproof.
There is, plainly, no answer to who has a justified right. Ineither case, someone suffers. Unfortunately, I have not beenable to, in all my theorizing and research, been able to come upwith a justifiable reason why one's right is more just than theother. One may argue that the person who deserves the right isthe one who would suffer more, but in that case, the rights tolife, property, and the various liberties all are able to befaultered, once society has been convinced that it wantssomething more than another thing. It may very well be true thatthere is no just answer to this dilemma, and our thinking on theissue needs to expand to more open-minded thinking whencompromising. Whatever the case, I have written out what I havediscovered thus far on the question of rights.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut
|
|
|
|
