Hi all, this is my first post here, I hope its in the right forum.
Anyway the question or debate that I want to start is on the nature of rights, in particular ones that we consider “Basic human rights”.
Rights are at the core of modern politcal systems, in particular the American system where they are considered so important that they are made law, so to speak.
What interests me is where do we get these rights from, how are they derived, and does it make sense to consider them as a “given constant” or necessary. (By necessary I dont mean needed, rather uncontingent).
Initially I looked at the USAs Bill of rights, which from my understanding was an attempt to codify what they saw as “God Given rights” of all individuals.
My first thought was that rights come from basic human needs, ie the need for food, shelter from the elements, possibly access to education of some kind (if you believe it is a human need to learn). But these things dont really coinside with the USA’s Bill of rights.. Instead the USAs BoR seems to provide laws that, in a sense, protect the individual from being abused by the system of government. So if these “God given rights” are contingent upon, or required for protection from the current system of government how can they be trancendental as they are often claimed to be. If governmental systems change doesnt it follow then the “rights” of the individual can also change?
Also for something to be a given constant, then it should apply with equal effectiveness and make sense in all environments. But the right to “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.” doesnt make much sense in the context of a pre-European Aboriginal Australian community.
So if the BoR doesnt apply to all civilisation how3 can it be considered “God Given”.
Anyway Im going to dig up the UN BoR and see how that fits in the picture.