Rights Rationality and Reasonableness

In a recent Pit thread we have several posters insulting and being extremely rude to a poster who, in turn, is being pretty polite. The argument put forth to justify the insults and rude behavior is that the person deserves it because of the position they are arguing, and the attitudes it reveals.

The specifics here are not important.

I consider this to be poor justification and to represent a fallacy. It is though a common fallacy. What it goes to is the concept of rights. Most people, I think, have the concept completely wrong.

When you think of a right, what do you think of? How do use the term?

People think “I have the right to life.” “I have God given rights.” “There are basic human rights that all people have.” People thing of a right as something to which they are entitled to, something they own, something they have.

In fact a right is no such thing.

Does the bear that rips your ass off recognize your right to life? Is it proof against bear attacks? Does the universe or the law of nature recognize or enforce your rights? Since everybody dies, the right to life seems kind of obviously flawed, does it not?

What are you really saying when you say you have a right? What is this thing, a right, anyway.

In all cases, a right is something that somebody else extends to you or enforces on your behalf. You don’t actually have it, somebody gives it to you.

They are rules that people respect in regards to yourself. If they do not you count on other people to help you enforce these rules.

Let’s lookl at a hypothetical court case. A bigger, stronger, smarter, richer person with more connections than you, does you wrong. You go to court.

You beleive that you have the right to equal treatment under law with this other person. The person however, has better lawyers, has thought up a better story, has more money to spend in court, and is poker buddies with the judge’s brother.

Even though you have been wronged, you lose the case. You lose all the appeals, and that’s it. You argue that your right to equal treatment has been violated.

This right of yours was taken away or violated, you feel. In fact you never had this right. What was actually at work and failed on your behalf was a set of rules regarding all the other parties in the case, which they did not follow. It wasn’t something that you had, it was something they were supposed to do… or not do. They did not come through. You lost. You have no recourse.

All rights work this way. Your “rights” don’t apply to you. They apply to everybody else with respect to you.

Similarly other people’s rights are really things that you are supposed to do or not do with respect to them. Fred’s rights don’t apply to Fred. They apply to you when you deal with Fred.

Now, most people would like to be considered and rational people. Sometimes they are not, because they feel the other person doesn’t deserve it.

I submit to you that it’s really not a question of them, their deservedness, they really don’t matter in this thing. If you are a reasonable person, you reason. If you fly off with invective at another person, they did not make you do it. You did. That’s you doing it.

If you’re rational it has nothing to do with the person you are addressing. You are either rational… or you are not. You are either reasonable… or you are not.

The other person has nothing to do with it.

Source: http://dictionary.law.com

No one gives me my right to my freedoms. They are inherent to me as a being on this planet, and especially within the political entity known as the USA. Government protects my inherent rights.

Karl Popper has quite a bit to say about rationalism, reasonableness and argument in the second volume of his ‘Open Society’ (‘The Open Society and its Enemies: The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath’).

'[R]ationalism is an attitude of readiness to listen to critical arguments and to learn from experience. It is fundamentally an attitude of admitting that “I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth”.’ (p 225)

‘[W]e not only owe our reason to others, but we can never excel others in our reasonableness in a way that would establish a claim to authority; authoritarianism and rationalism in our sense cannot be reconciled, since argument, which includes criticism, and the art of listening to criticism, is the basis of reasonableness.’ (p 226)

But we must not expect too much from reason; for ‘argument rarely settles a question, although it is the only means for learning – not to see clearly, but to see more clearly than before.’ (p 227)

I think we can assume that going off the deep end with the person you’re discussing things with is not consistent with a reasonable approach in Popper’s terms.

Interestingly, Popper also bolsters the place of intuition in science, aka the fight against ignornace, albeit an intuition ‘checked by reasonableness’, arguing that there is an irrational or intuitive element in every creative thought, including scientific thought. ‘Rational thought is not non-intuitive; it is, rather, intuition submitted to tests and checks (as opposed to intuition run wild).’ (p 361, Note 58 to Chapter 24). He talks of the importance of having, like Socrates, an intuition checked by reasonableness.

Mr. Jefferson and his colleagues would like to have a word with you.

Scylla, your OP isn’t “reason,” it’s dogma. You give a definition of what the concept of a “right” is, and people say that that definition is incorrect, and they’re told that they’re being unreasonable.

No, you are born with a set of unalienable rights, and someone else enforces them on your behalf, or denies them to you.

“In fact” or “in your opinion?” I say that the person in that case had the right to equal treatment under the law. He was born with it, even before the law explicitly guaranteed that the government would enforce that right. When his case was not treated equally, his right to equal treatment under the law was violated.

How is it being unreasonable to say that this is the “fact” of the situation?

Meaning what, exactly?

Hypothetical situation. Suppose the Constitution was amended to declare that everybody has the right to a free vacuum cleaner whenever they wanted. Suppose that the American public accepts this, and almost everybody firmly believes in the bottom of their heart that there is a right to a free vacuum cleaner. But no free vacuum cleaners are ever provided. People may ask for this constitutionally guaranteed vacuum cleaner, but when they do they don’t get anything.

So, in this situation does the right to a free vacuum cleaner actually exist? Obviously not.

And the same is true for any other right. You may say that it exists, the Constitution may say that it exists, everyone may believe that it exists, but it doesn’t actually exist unless the people in control of a particular region enforce the rules that create its existence.

I haven’t called anybody unreasonably for disagreeing with me here, have I? I have to admit, now that I think about it, you are being unreasonable to accuse me of something I haven’t done.

Yeah, I’ve heard that. You are born with them, or God gives them to you. I’ve tried to figure out a way to put that to the test.

How much does a right weigh? If it’s something you’re born with, can it be cut off, like a circumcision? Can you show me a right? Is it a physical thing?

Were people who were born before civilization and governments to enforce rights existed also born with rights? seems less useful than a vermiform appendix.

If you as a time traveller travel back to caveman times, do you still have the rights you were born with? Is the caveman supposed to protect your right to free assembly.

If you go somewhere where a government cannot enforce your rights, do you still have them?

It’s clearly not something you carry with you. It’s not a part of you, and if I was born with a right I had better damn well be born with the ability to enforce it. If I am not, I got to tell you, I don’t have that right in any sense of the word “have.”
But just explain this to me:

If I go somewhere where the government cannot protect my rights, and I am incapable of protecting them myself than in what sense do I still have them??

Certainly, I agree that nobody else on the planet is responsible for my behaviour but myself. By extension, this also means that if I behave, or conduct myself, appalingly towards another human being (regardless of whether I believe I can justify it or not) the fact remains that nobody forced me to behave that way, and ultimately it’s dreadful behavior - regardless of how much I try to rationalise it.

Without wishing to get personal, I’ve known more than few people over the years who thrive on “playing the victim” in an arguemet. They drag up old grievances time and time again to justify their position - and more often than not, to also justify their bad behavior. I call this sort of behaviour “double dipping” because when you see it happening, what the person is doing is searching for a reason to justify their appalling behaviour, and they often reuse old grievances to fill out their desire to play the victim.

And why do people enjoy playing the victim? Well, I’m no expert, but I suspect it has to do with empowering one’s self to get a reaction - or to also get attention. However, the reaction/attention is rarely a healthy one. Often, when you’re in the presence of people who enjoy playing the victim, you’re also in the presence of people who suffer from dreadfully “manipulative behaviour” too. It’s very hard to change such people. Most often, I’ve found it easier simply to walk away and avoid them. This makes them angry, but it also spares me further grief too.

So yes, it might not be my right to be treated with respect or courtesy. At best, it’s a right which is bestowed upon me by someone else. Equally true however is that it’s not my right to treat someone appallingly - regardless of how much I try to justify it - because in the final analysis, appalling behaviour is appaling behaviour - no exceptions.

By definiton, anything that is inalienable cannot be surrendered so your sentence is contradictory.

While it is a nice thought that we as humans are born with natural rights, we are not. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are things that everyone should be entitled to but that some people are not is automatic proof that they are, in fact, alienable.

So you’re saying nobody has any rights whatsoever? All good things come from and through the permission of someone with power? What if you decided the person in power is a tyrant? Do you have any “right” to do anything about it? What if someone tries to take what is yours? Do you have a “right” to stop him? How about a blood crazed axe murderer? Since he has the axe and you don’t he has more power. Do you have any right to run away or fight? I know these are extreme what ifs, but if no one is entitled to anything, then I guess the only option is to live in a cave (unless permission is denied).

You reference another thread as being the impetus for this thread, and you say that a claim made in that thread is unreasonable and is based on a fallacy. Saying that this thread has nothing to do with that thread is fatuous.

So is this what qualifies as a valid and reasonable debate point now? All right, then. You say that a right is something that someone grants to you or extends on your behalf. I happen to know that you are married. Presumably, someone granted you this right. Please show it to me. How much does it weigh? What color is it? Does it make a sound? See, you’ll have to describe it to me, because apparently I ain’t got one and never had it.

Wheee! Meaningful debate is fun.

I dunno, the caveman can choose whether or not he wants to protect my right to free assembly, or stall the issue by debating semantics and insisting that I’m being unreasonable. It’s up to him.

But I’ve still got the right to free assembly. I was born with it by virtue of being a human being and understanding how a free, equal, and just society works. I can choose to exercise that right and let the other cavemen decide how to respond.

Indeed. And because you know you have them, you ask why the government cannot enforce those rights, and you work to change the government.

You still have them in the sense that you recognize them as being worthwhile and something worth fighting for. You still have them in the sense that you don’t let endless attempts at arguing over semantics make you believe that you never had them and don’t deserve them. You still have them in the sense that you value their importance so much that you don’t accept it when people tell you that they might consider letting you have something that’s almost like it but not quite as long as you quiet down and don’t make too much of a fuss.

And when you’re in a society where you see that the government is in fact capable of protecting the rights of everyone else, and does so every day, but just not you, you ask what the hell is the matter here?

No, they are unalienable in that they can never be taken away from you. When someone refuses to acknowledge that right, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have the right or that you never had it. This is not just “a nice thought.” This is the only way that the world can work.

People can refuse to acknowledge your right, they can try to suppress your right, but they cannot take it away. There are no people who are not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are only people who aren’t getting it, because the system isn’t working for them.

Close enough. I see your point. Allow me to clarify. I made that statement as a general example of what I am talking about and meant no specific charge of unreasonableness to any particular person.

I’m really sure that I didn’t say that.

Several entities in fact. The Government for one, they made me and my wife take a blood test before they would give us permission. The church we got married in was another. The priest that married us was a third.

I’m not going to photocopy my marriage certificate and post it on the internet. You’ll just have to take my word that I have it.

[/quote]
How much does it weigh?
[/quote]

The weight of an average piece of paper.

White with blue trim.

If you were to crumple it or swish it around it would. Mostly it just sits there in a frame.

I’m sorry to here you couldn’t pass the syphilis test (I’m kidding. I’m kidding.)

That’s my point. If it’s up to him. It’s his. It ain’t yours.

Not if they don’t let you. You’ll have a hard time exercising the right if they bop you over the head with a club.

Right. So if I don’t have them. I try to get them to give them to me.

I can recognize porsches as being worthwile and something worth fighting over, but that doesn’t mean I have one, does it?

True. You can choose denial

This doesn’t parse. If they’re not letting you have it… than you don’t have it. Do you?

Well I agree with that!

I don’t quite understand what you are getting at here - rights, as I understand the term, is something that exists in relation to human beings. A right to life, for example, doesn’t mean that by claiming such a right a bear or the universe, for that matter, will capitulate and recognizes it as such. What it does, however, is to indicate to other human beings that my existence is just as important as other people’s existence. Now, you may disagree and claim I have no right to life. But what you going to about it? :slight_smile:

The above makes no sense. By your definition, you are implicitly accepting something that exists for yourself - that is, a right you believe to possess. Or else how can you extend this right to me or enforce it on my behalf?

A right isn’t a thing - rather it’s the recognition that others (like ourselves) require certain things in order for us to life our lives. This recognition, of course, can either be implicit (in our day-to-day dealings with other human beings); or explicit, in the codifying of this recognition into law (which is nothing more than written-down rules that help govern our day-to-day dealings).

If you were born into a society were there were no laws at all, would you have more rights or fewer rights?

While I will grant you that the pursuit of happiness can never be taken from you insofar as no one’s existance is entirely bleak, I find it odd that you would think life and liberty cannot be denied when abortion and imprisonment are both entirely legal methods of denying them.

Those rights are given to you by the US government and, as such, can be taken away.

If by that, you mean that is the only way human society can work as a functioning whole, then I agree but, otherwise, no. Do you think the rights we have today were also enjoyed by Australopithecine? Homo Habilis? Homo Erectus? The Neanderthal? Or, more to the point, humans before the current era?

While I fully believe everyone should have these rights, to believe that they are innate or inborn just isn’t true. They are an invention of the Age of Enlightenment and a constant work in progress, both for good and bad.

Tricky, tricky, tricky question.

I guess that would depend on the people in the society, and what rights they granted by custom, convenience or what have you.

That is evidence that the government acknowledged your right to marry. That is not the right. I could just as easily claim that my birth certificate with the words “United States of America” on it is my right to marry.

And my point is that I’ve still mine whether he chooses to do anything about it or not. His right to free assembly is just that: his right to free assembly. Nothing I do or say takes away that right; worst I can do is work to keep him from expressing it.

Yes, exercising your rights can be difficult. I’ve kind of discovered that over the past few months.

I’d suggest all WASPs try living in America for 33 years and then suddenly acknowledge that they belong to a minority. It’s a real eye-opener.

No, you have them. You try to get them to acknowledge that you have them and stop getting all up in your business trying to take it away.

You have the right to buy one. You’ve had it either since you were born or since the first Porsche was made available for sale, whichever came first.

Sure. You can choose to be curt and coy and flippant and evasive as well. Or you can choose reason, and actually listen to a debate and try to understand the other side.

I have it. People are telling me that I don’t have it, but they’ll let me have something like it. They are wrong. I still have it, and I’m going to fight for it.

Parse yet?

The notion of “inalienable” rights that exists in the Founding documents is, BS aside, a religious notion. I think the OP is on the right track, although there are several derailings along the way.

First, again on a religious or spiritual level, I believe that there is an inalterable moral code based on the ultimate principles of pattern. The law of karma, if you will. Hence, any rules and laws in effect within a polity are to some degree in harmony or discord with the ultimate moral law.

“That which is right,” as opposed to “legal rights.”

As the OP suggests (says directly?), rights are artificial; that is, they are written by people in a particular language and in particular wording, promulgated in some manner (as by a constitution or even orally), and enforced or protected by certain concrete means (as by brute force or people willingly participating in preserving them).

Personally, I think it is “right” (good, correct) that we have the “right” to free speech in the US, and it were wrong did we not have it. I say this based on my understanding of the ultimate moral code. But I don’t know if it is “right” or not for me to have the “right” to bear arms; it’s a much more complicate and murky area.

But as for the notion of God, by some spiritual means, attaching certain “inalienable rights” to all persons, well, that pretty much belongs in the realm of myth and bull.

I think people misunderstand the relationship of rights between individuals and the government. If you interpret the Constitution as giving rights to individuals it opens a can of worms. But I think the intent of the Constitution was to deny rights - specifically to deny rights to the government.

First Amendment - The government does not have the right to prohibit religion, to abridge the freedom of speech or the press, or to interfere with the freedom to peaceably assemble or petition.

Second Amendment - The government does not have the right to infringe on the freedom to own firearms.

Third Amendment - The government does not have the right to quarter troops.

Fourth Amendment - The government does not have the right to search or seize property or persons without a warrant.

Fifth Amendment - The government does not have the right to try people without an indictment, to try a person twice for the same crime, to compel a person to testify against themselves, to punish a person without due process, or to take property without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment - The government does not have the right to try a person without a fair, speedy, and public trial; without that person being informed of the charges, having an opportunity to call and confront witnesses, and to have counsel present.

Seventh Amendment - The government does not have the right to try people without a jury.

Eighth Amendment - The government does not have the right to impose excessive fines or cruel or unusual punishments.

These versions of the Bill of Right amendments would clear up some of the confusion that exists over people’s rights. People would no longer, for example, question why their boss can tell them not to wear a political t-shirt at work.

But the issue of rights between individuals is not addressed. And realistically it can’t be. There have been too many times when two individuals are arguing and each is claiming they are only invoking their own “rights”. The problem arises because hardly any right can be practiced without infringing on some other right held by another person. Your right to play the tuba at 3:00 am infringes on your roommate’s right to be able to sleep in quiet. Your right to open a business in your house infringes on your neighbor’s right to live on a quiet residential street. Your right to marry a person of the same sex interferes with someone else’s right to think that’s wrong. And because everyone is speaking of their inalienable rights rather than their strongly held opinions there’s no room for compromise.