The way you’re using it, ‘right’ simply means ‘backed up by physical coercion’. I don’t think you can deny that most people don’t tend to use the word that way.
“…a sense of surety…”
Since when? Surely, one can fight to assert rights that exist but are unjustly denied? Hell, I’ve seen it done, pretty sure about that one.
I don’t know about that…how do you think people use that word? The way that the US Constitution defines rights are as things that the government can’t take away from you…not things the government must give to you. And there is a huge, huge difference…as Bricker and Lemur have pointed out…how CAN there be a right to receive something, without there being someone to make sure you get it? Even if it is through force, coercion, or whatever? Without that assurance, the word really doesn’t mean much.
I think the most common use of ‘right’ (in the moral sense) is to assert moral obligations. If I say “I have a right to life” what I mean is that you have a moral obligation not to kill me. I don’t mean that it’s illegal to kill me, or that the state will punish you for killing me, or that I have the means to physically prevent you from killing me. I mean that you ought not kill me.
If the sine qua non of rights is just enforceability, then dictators with a firm grip on power have a right to oppress their subjects. Depending on the extent to which they’ve perverted their country’s legal system, they might well have a legal right to oppress their subjects, but it would be a rare person who would grant they have a moral right to do so.
But we are talking about rights that apply to all people, not rights that are taken by a few. If you want to say that everyone has the right to pursue food unimpeded, then I would say, yes, everyone has that right. But the right to actually have food means that there has to be someone to provide it for you if you can’t provide it for yourself. I would certainly agree that we have an ethical responsibility to do so, but I don’t consider it a right.
I have said nothing pertaining to what (if any) rights exist. All I’m doing is saying that the moral right sense of right is a perfectly meaningful concept, and that Bricker’s usual outright dismissal of anyone using it is ungrounded. You yourself have just used ‘right’ in the moral sense, not the legal sense. Most assuredly not everyone does have a legal right to pursue food unimpeded.
For the record, I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a moral right. Lots of people do, though, and they can’t be dismissed by waving your hands and demanding enforceability.
Even if you posit that there are moral rights, outside of society and its boundaries, you are still faced with the cold hard fact that the Universe doesn’t care. Without some agency (call it a government) to enforce and guarantee these rights, they are amphigory.
Situation: Our government is founded on principles that are based on these “rights.”
Problem: What would you have us do about starving people in Somalia? Invade?
The OP is talking about the UN’s assertion that the world community is in violation of ensuring the right to all people to have food. So, my question is, what does the UN (or anyone who agrees with this assertion), think should be done that isn’t being done? How are THEY defining this “right” to food, that we are in violation of? It seems to me that they mean that we, the world community, must find a way to be sure that everyone has food. This takes the definition of “rights” beyond what you are calling “moral” rights, meaning that everyone should have access to food. At some level, they are holding us all culpable for the fact that not everyone has adequate food. So, by implication, they are saying that the right to food means that someone must provide it for you.
Yes. At the restaurant I work at, you could buy dinner for 75.
Almost. You can say there is a right to anything you want, but without an enforcement mechanism, it’s completely meaningless. And the only way to get that enforcement mechanism is thru government. Now, there are many forms of government, so democracy isn’t the only way to secure those rights, but it seems to be the best way we’ve found so far.
But tell me how your system would work. Let’s say you claim there is a right to food. What happens next? How is that right made to be something more than an idea you have in your mind? How does saying there is a right put food in a hungry child’s mouth?
What’s so bad about the UN declaring that any country that doesn’t feed its people, blocking or repurposing food aid, is de facto not a government because it has utterly failed its people, and that any neighboring country or collection of neighboring countries that wish to may annex it, so long as they feed the people living there once they take over?
I like the idea a lot myself. For example, as far as I’m concerned, there is no government of Sudan. Oh, they call themselves a government but they are just psychopaths with power. The world would be a lot better off without them.
Unless, of course, you are committed to creating that mechanism. And if you initiate successful actions to that end…say, a revolution against a colonial oppressor, just to grab one out of the air…then, you say, the right now exists, when apparently it didn’t before! Were we fighting for a place-holder, then? Fighting for something that doesn’t exist and won’t unless we win? A bit like Shroeder’s Cat, don’t you think?
Black people had the right to vote in certain places during Reconstruction. And the mechanism existed, apparently. And then they didn’t. So…what happened to their right? Poof? Gone? And when they regained their suffrage, did it magicly return? Or was it always there, but unjustly witheld?
It is entirely correct to point out that “rights” are an abstraction, and has no direct physical, measureable existence. But if an abstraction has the capacity to affect the physical plane by way of people who act in accordance with that abstraction, I would be willing to say such abstraction exists, in a meaningful way. Math is an abstraction, so is probability. Both very, very real.
Me? Po’ po’ pitiful me? The existence of rights depends on an Ancient of Daze producing a fool proof plan for World Liberation? Why me, Lord? I mean, John. Does it have to be me, would it be ok if somebody else has one? And does it have to pass your rigorous inspection and critique, or it doesn’t exist again? Or it doesn’t exist now but it will once my plan passes examination?
Too many for me, I fold.
No, they fought for the ideas they held against people who did not hold those ideas. No need to invoke Schrödinger’s cat.
What happened? It ceased to exist when the state refused to uphold it. If the tax rate is changed from 40% to 30%, what happened to the 40% tax? It’s gone. If it gets voted back in, then it’s there again.
But math is based on certain assumptions and definitions. Change those assumptions or definition, and you change the outcome. Same with rights. If you say there is a right to food, and I don’t agree, how do we reconcile that? How do you prove to me that you are right and I am wrong?
Why you? Because you made an assertion in GD. You say there is a right to food. If it’s just a opinion, then that’s fine. Rights are opinions. That’s not really different from what I said.
Can you make a list of such rights? Is it just feeding it’s people, or are there any other rights that might be secured by neighboring states if a given state does not secure them for its people?
Sure. A right not to be tortured. A right not to be enslaved. A right to shelter from the elements, at the very least. Along with that right to eat. Because if you don’t have those rights, you don’t really have an existence, you’re just trying to secure those things as best you can.
Familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, John?
If that’s the case, then as far as I’m concerned, I had the right to have Helen Hunt date me when I was single.
Yet the bitch never called me ONCE.
Is that a complete list?
Yes. And…?
It is a relief to see that a refreshingly large sample here are not blinded by ‘uman rites’.
Rights are a social construct, they are part of a contract.
Sadly, nowadays, jerks are trying to turn ‘rites’ into some sort of all encompassing religion.
We would be a lot better off losing the word ‘rights’ and substituting ‘rules’.
But of course, you don’t seriously think that. And even by rights-based views of moral theory, not all obligations need be derived directly from rights.
I’m not clear on where you stand personally on this issue, but you seem to be able to speak for those who think that rights are more than just a social construct… So, when and how did these rights come into existence?
elucidator: I could agree with you that rights are somehow inherent in human nature, but IIRC, you refuse to accept that “human nature” exists. If there are no commonly held essential aspects of being “human”, how can there be universal, comonly held human rights?