What is the basis of "rights"? How do we define "rights", and for whose benefit? Do you, for example, believe in inalienable human rights?
YaY, A question about "rights." I love talking about rights, where they come from, on what basis they function, who they serve and why they're important.
For me "Rights" are a form of social morality. That is to say, rights have to do with limiting the power of the community in favor of the individual.
Rights exist because they can be recognized both rationally and universally. Consider John Rawls argument, that rights are the product of rational agents who create the rules for society from behind a veil of ignorance, that is to say, the rules ought to serve the common interests not those of any one group or person; unless those rules might create a more fair social game, because the equal access to the common rights is apriori to the rights themselves.
Rights do not exist without a society, because they are based on a social contract, between rational individuals. But what this really means, is that I agree to fairly recognize the interests of others if they agree to recognize mine, ie reciprocity. and so that all parties may be assured that the rights will be enforced, a third entity is created, a government. Ideally this government would serve the interest of all groups in the society equally, of course this never happens, which is why "Meta-rights" are created, such as the 14th amendment which assures equal access to the common rights.
Having pondered this a bit, will try to put down some responsive thoughts though unable to verify the cohesiveness of any remarks made here....
When you say "rights", it automatically makes me think of laws created to protect those rights. In other words, our social pressures nor own consciousness prevent us from abusing the rights of others in our own pursuits. Hence we'd come to rely upon our governments to spell out what should be protected that simply isn't safe by using common sense.
You might see a philosophy in life as "live and let live" which doesn't necessarily mean to support or further the growth of other people, especially distant strangers. Denying people access to drinking water seems inherently wrong because of it being a very basic necessity. If you say that a person's property shouldn't be violated by trespass; then if people cross or go onto it for pure, fresh water then the "right of way" is ignored when denying the access to the water source. A person certainly wouldn't want a massive pilgrimage across fertile soils to where the ground is churned up during a growing season. So what should a person do? Pay for crops? If they had the money for the bottled water then they might not need to have crossed it at all. And if a person carried however much limited amounts of water into a majour desert then with the appearance of people asking for water it becomes an issue of self-preservation at some point. Meaning your rights are equal to theirs for the available necessity. Dividing it with more and more could be called equitable except the early comers may have gotten another day's worth of liquids then it becomes exceptionally hard to call anything truly fair and equitable with all. Then there is the expense of having carried it into a very dry area, be it manual labour, fuels used or actual money spent.
The air we breathe isn't something that is "owned" as water can be. The other necessity is food. Again, a person having the deed to however much land doesn't desire to have strangers upon it for the purposes of hunting or gathering when the "owner" had put however much effort in maintaining the wildlife and fauna. They would consider it poaching, especially if they were raising animal herds expressly for feeding themselves directly and as a financial operation. We get into the breakdown of the haves vs. have nots where those without the means to afford buying their food and water are not given any kind of due respects, courtesies or considerations. Back in the days of the Wild West, anyone killing one of someone else's cattle was considered a rustler. If the person doing it had homesteaded a nearby sect and it happened to have been used previously for grazing that very animal, the "owner" doesn't see it as having benefited from another person's property before it came into their control. And often they felt they had just as much right to use it or more since the come-lately had lesser need. Funny how they do not see the "need" as applying to all involved.
Some people feel that providing for the necessities of people end up making them lazy, content creatures more than willing to survive off of the efforts of others for their continued sustenance. Yet the very absence of other things from the hierarchial pyramid of Maslow means that they do expend effort in order to gain them. While it is quite easy to urinate/defecate where ever a person might be, gaining another basic item like sex really brings into question as to what "rights" a person has in seeking fulfillment. Since it is very unlike many to directly ask for what they need in that regard, human behaviour ranges from the meek to outright obnoxiously rude. With those having demonstrated great lengths of celibacy, we could argue that sex is not a basic need while it has often been touted that human touch is both nurturing and healing in babies and even toddlers. Do we really grow out of wanting the touch of others? If not, what rights do we have to make contact with others and where to draw the line in respecting another's personal space? Outright violations of a person's "right to choose" a lover or sex partner are easy to see in many cases. Yet most people do not really want to consider the motivations/reasons behind it.
The presence of others can be annoying. This is moreso true if the person doesn't measure up somehow after initial impressions. We make a decision not to get to know that person better based upon whatever prejudices we've observed. So the near proximately of the unsightly or poorer individuals sleeping so close to our families or possessions make us uncomfortable. Overpasses have often provided cover for the homeless seeking shelter during times of no others being available. No one wants to take them in and no one wants them around. If I should one day be homeless, it doesn't make me any different that from who I was previously except in that regard. If public facilities are not provided, shared or offered then personal aromas become quite offense and yet gives another reason for shunning someone. A person's body odor usually becomes noticeable from simple camping trips in more primitive, remote areas. Even then, the basic distrusts we have toward other people as having been jaded by experience means we prefer them a specific distance away if we hadn't communicated on some level.
No one wants to work to provide things to other people. This is multiplied by the fact that they may be foreigners in the sense that they are from another state or another country (hence usage of "refugees") which qualifies for the people from Lousiana that migrated to other states after Hurricane Katrina. Surrounding state services were taxed far greater than normal with the new influx of dependents. If a person knocked upon your front door, was a total stranger and spoke with a slightly different accent would you be willing to fetch them a glass of water after their asking for one?? Or would you feel safer in observing their behaviour for a time before letting them inside your home or turning your back upon them? We all would probably prefer that, though a person's intentions doesn't always manifest foreboding from their actions. Do we fix them a sandwich even if we aren't asked for one though we can guess or judge them to be hungry? Or do we call the police and report them as "trespassers"? Do we want them searched for valuables that they've possibly taken? And if we or the companies we work for can't afford to hire them and they have no source of income nor receive any kind of social assistance, do we fault them for not having things or cash?? Maybe the reason is that in their community, local businesses and homes are destroyed by hurricane. Then is it really the person's fault for the tragic events that took away all their possessions and they'd had to use up whatever wealth they'd accrued???
When a person feels wronged, they probably feel their rights had been violated. And very rarely would we consider it until it happened directly to us. Instead of being sideline observers that are touched indirectly by events, we want to distance ourselves from the bad luck or distasteful results as if it would actually stop the same things from happening to us... be it tornado, hurricane, volcano, nuclear meltdown, etc., etc. My problem is that people will often disrepect others rights and then feel they are more deserving in having their own rights protected. Or with the fact that those empowered to protect those rights chose to ignore applying it equally with all parties involved based upon character judgments, financial or community standing, previous knowledge with person(s) and so forth.
In some countries, the right to express a person's views is forbidden to some degree. It may be targeting those that speak out against the specific religion within a region or against local/national government. Officials within church or state do not want to be questioned by common folk and even less so by transients. A homeless person from the French Quarter is just as homeless as a person having been one most of their adult life. And if they fill out a resume, how many are going to get a job based upon their past work experience or no home address?? So some ignorantly blame the homeless for being lazy/unmotivated/unwilling to work to earn their keep. And those that might have been fortunate enough to earn a little through manual labour will have to settle for sub-standard wages because their "rights" simply do not exist in that they can't pursue justice as required by hiring a lawyer or getting audience with the appropriate authorities.
This is a great topic and something we all take for granted until we feel our rights haven't been observed. Then we wish to raise a ruckus (hick-speak for "hades") only to have it fall upon deaf ears that are more focused on their own lives/rights and pursuits. To me, having plenty of water and denying a man dying of thirst is almost as bad as outright killing that person (i.e. committing murder). And if it were a lowly animal suffering from injury then in some cases it can be "humanely" put down. Quite an opposing stance of what "rights" any animal has.. and with the homo sapiens being a genus & species of the animal kingdom.
