11. Human Rights: Natural, Endowed, Inalienable, Illusion?

  
Foundations for Human Rights:

Where do human rights come from and are they absolute or relative?

We have two views of human rights.

The Traditional Theistic View:

The US Declaration of Independence
“ … We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”

The Natural Rights View:

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Supposition:

If a person commits an act of any nature towards another, what is the response – positive or negative? If negative, we often say, they didn’t do “right” by you. Where does this feeling come from that things that happen to us by others is not “just life” but actually an offense against my person? If something happens and others did not intentionally commit the act then we can say, “that’s life.” One of the acts is defined as a crime, the other is "sorry, life happens".

If an injury is done to another by a person or state apparatus then we say that their rights were impinged upon or violated. As long as we have this feeling, we recognize a norm of relational conduct has been abrogated.

This is how we can understand the existence of rights and their value in the conduct of our life and relationships.

Are rights absolute? Do I have rights even though I do not recognize them? Do I have rights even if my government does not recognize them?

There are levels of rights. My rights as a citizen of one country may afford me different, greater or lesser rights than the citizen of another country; my rights as an executive or professor may allow me a wider range of rights than a line employee or student. These rights are relative to the position held.

We can say a person in an ancient society such as the Greek State of Athens has the rights associated with what that society recognizes as prudent, respectable human behavior, while the modern state of France would have all those same rights plus more. Socrates paid a heavy price for what a National Assembly member could do every day with impunity: express dissent. Does that mean that a citizen of France has more rights than a citizen of Athens? Yes and no. ......... What?

The relative rights of the immediate position: professor, student; boss, employee; citizen of Athens or France or the Congo changes. The absolute rights, from which those relative rights are derived, does not. We could say that “Human Rights” are the image and the “national rights” are the form. The form can be more or less encompassing of the image.

As we evolve in intellect we recognize the existence of the image more completely and are thus more able to avail ourselves of our “rights.”

Where does the “image” come from? According to your view, either from the creator God or the creator nature – it is inherent in the design. "Comes with the model." so to speak.

"For this reason, the success of a world government, or any government is directly relational to the percentage of the “image” of human rights that it puts into the “form” of law and practice." – LM Shea


Resources:

Philosophies of human rights"

“… Since by our (human) nature, we seek to maximize our well being, rights are prior to law, natural or institutional.” Thomas Hobbes

The theory of natural law (humankind's natural rights): a law set by nature and therefore is valid everywhere in nature. Natural law is the structure within which a rational human being seeks to survive, act and prosper.

A natural right is the concept of a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs, but the right of human beings to follow their nature as a natural right antedating and not bestowed by government.


More considerations:

What are the qualities of the “Noble One?”

Is it prudent to control freedom?

Where does freedom of expression end and licentiousness begin?
Where does good moral conduct end and lasciviousness begin?
Are either one wrong?

What is sin?
Is sin specific to God or a term that defines an act? Sin = crime?

Are either of these characters undesirable or not? Why?

Lust (Latin, luxuria) or chastity
Gluttony (Latin, gula) or abstinence
Greed (Latin, avaritia) or generosity
Sloth (Latin, acedia) or diligence
Wrath (Latin, ira) or patience
Envy (Latin, invidia) or kindness
Pride (Latin, superbia) or humility

What about teaching morality? Is it valuable or not?

justice
temperance
fortitude
prudence
faith
hope
love

What is the definition of Ethics?

Are the ethics the same in America and China and India and the Congo?
Is there an "image" and "form" dynamic in Ethics? If so, what are some examples of this?

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
See:
10. Human Rights: The Universal Declaration Universal Declaration of Human Rights