From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:36:59 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <=vln5!#.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
 
I said:
>    >Hold on a minute! Libertarianism is the home of the
>    >inalienable rights crowd! It's really too bad that the
>    >concept is totally indefensible. No matter how you slice it,
>    >human rights are a societal construct. How else can we (as
>    >society) take away the freedom and/or life of a serial
>    >killer, unless human rights are indeed "alienable?" Hmmm?
>
>How about, hold on an hour!
>You assert "human rights are a societal construct".
>I assert that human rights are an absolute and exist by the virtue that
>man exists.

I can show that human rights are cultural.  What evidence is there
that they are transcendent?

>
>Now, since I doubt you can "prove" your position (i.e., you are merely
>making an assertion), and we shall assume (falsely) that neither can I,
>then, we are left with the simple case of, well, which is better to hold
>as a tenet? Or even dogma?
>

Better by what standard?   Can it be a *cultural one?*   Oh, get
thee behind me Satan!  (8-)   But I will answer that question at the end.

I think it is fairly obvious that *legal* rights are a societal
construct; after all, if you are a woman living in Iran you will have
quite a different set of rights than a woman living in Burbank.  
The question really is:  Is there a higher law than the written law,
and if there is, what does it consist of?

I happen to think that there *is* a "higher law" (at least in ethical
communities), but that it is based on the 
interaction of the consciences of all the members of the community. 
It is through this interaction that we are able to come to agreement
on what written laws are "bad" and need to be changed, and what
"rights" do consist of.  But there is no question that
the higher law of Iran is quite different than the higher law of
the West.  Is there an "even higher law" that transcends culture and
time, that exists by virtue of the existence of a human being?
Asking that question is like asking whether God exists--it is completely a
matter of faith.

But, getting back to the "human conscience," what is it all about?  
I surely dont know, but I presume that it is kind of a 
product of both nature and nurture.  We basically
learn a sense of rightness and wrongness from our parents which we carry
into adulthood.  Using this sense of right and wrong, we come to
agreements on what we consider "higher law" to be.  Within that "higher law" 
we form our concept of "human rights."  Clearly, this is greatly
influenced by culture, although biology enters into it.

I think it is safe to say that even Phil Ronzone learned his 
concept of human rights from some part of this culture, as did we all.

>
>Yes, there are rights. Sure, they are infringed upon, but they are rights
>nonetheless.

Based on your and my concept of human beings this is true.  Based on the
Aztec concept (just for instance) it is not true.

>
>There is one right which can not be interfered with.
>The Pursuit Of Happiness. You can pursue happiness shackled in a jail
>cell (indeed, martyrs often prefer it that way!).
>

But in some cultures, happiness is not even part of the vocabulary.
It is hard to imagine that this as a transcendent right.  And I would
disagree that being shackled in a jail was not interfering with
my pursuit of happiness.

>    >Arguing over whether rights are inalienable or are
>    >established by personal power is barking up the wrong tree.
>    >*Rights are confirmed by society.* Political debate boils
>    >down to a disagreement over what are the currently accepted
>    >set of human rights.
>
>Nope. By casting away the central issue (are human rights absolutes or
>not) you subvert the argument.

Absurd!  By holding that human rights are absolute and that *your* version 
is the correct one, *you* effectively close all discussion.

Look.  There is widespread ongoing debate in
our society over what basic human rights consist of, down to the level of
the zygote.  There are even animal rights advocates.
The problem is that so many of the participants seem to feel that their
position is divinely inspired, or absolute.  By arguing that
rights X, Y and Z are absolutes, you get nowhere, because there
are these others who think that rights A, B and C are absolute, 
and there is no way to resolve such differences.

What you end up with is a bunch of "liberated" barnyard animals
running around on the freeway released by the Animal Liberation Front,
or a shoving match in front
of Planned Parenthood or The US Civil War.  There is no way to
resolve disputes over absolute truth other than by force.  This
is one of the major lessons of history.

The way to find common ground for peaceful discussion is to agree that animal
and human rights are whatever we agree that they are, and that 
they should be established because they work best, for reasons
that we can agree on (like the desire to not see animals suffer
needlessly).

In answer to your question from earlier on,
we both agree that limited govt is "a good thing."  The difference between
us is that you think it is an immutable part of an absolute truth which 
you perceive and which others dont, whereas I think
that it works best for utilitarian reasons that most if not all
people might embrace and buy into.

Which concept has a better chance of ultimate success?


--Al Date