What Are Rights Anyway?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the discussion of government and laws, it appears that our friends across borders and seas do not look at rights the same way as the American Founding Fathers would.  So, here is a little treatise.

First, let's start with the dictionary definition that is applicable.

Quote
  1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.
    "she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong"
    synonyms: goodness, righteousness, virtue, integrity, rectitude, propriety, morality, truth, honesty, honor, justice, fairness, equity;
       
  2. 2.
    a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
    "she had every right to be angry"
    synonyms: entitlement, prerogative, privilege, advantage, due, birthright, liberty, authority, power, license, permission, dispensation, leave, sanction, freedom; 
    historicaldroit
    "you have the right to say no"

Notice the difference between moral rights and legal rights.  Moral rights are endowed by our Creator.  Legal rights are drafted by the hand of man.  Natural/moral rights are defined by John Locke rather well as natural law

So, why government?

Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

D&C 134:  I could say that to quote the entire section would be warranted.  But I'll do my best to point out the more meaty portions.

Quote

1. We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

So, there is a pecking order.  God allows men to create earthly governments.  And he will hold accountable, those in power.

Quote

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

So, not only are laws required to be inviolate, but those laws must be framed to secure life, liberty, and property (as Locke said).  So, as Mormons, we should already be on board with this idea. But as Mormon Americans, we should be doubly aware that those laws which are there for the benefit of man to protect life, liberty, and property are just laws that we need to obey and keep inviolate.

In other words, legal rights are only just if they are based on the protection of natural rights.

Quote

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

So, there are punishments for any violation of another's rights.  This may include the depriving of the offender of certain of their rights.  But for this to be just it must be "according to the nature of the offense (the criminality and tendency to evil among men).

This is the very nature of crime and punishment.

Also good reading: The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson

https://www.latterdayconservative.com/files/ezra-taft-benson/Ezra-Taft-Benson-The-Proper-Role-of-Government-BEST.mp3

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to private property I respect others’ perception of a right to own; and I enjoy legal protection of the property my fellow citizens perceive me to “own”.  But I don't see private property as a so-called natural right--it seems more legal in every sense.  Personally in terms of my belief in God the concept of stewardship appeals more to me than the concept of ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mike said:

With regard to private property I respect others’ perception of a right to own; and I enjoy legal protection of the property my fellow citizens perceive me to “own”.  But I don't see private property as a so-called natural right--it seems more legal in every sense.  Personally in terms of my belief in God the concept of stewardship appeals more to me than the concept of ownership.

What you said is pretty much what the concept of the natural law of property rights means.

It is a matter of legality as to who owns what, when there is some contest.  But the concept that if I own property, I have the right to keep and control it in my own way is the natural right.  Neither another party nor the government has the right to unilaterally decide without basis in natural law to declare that I must give it up.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But the concept that if I own property, I have the right to keep and control it in my own way is the natural right.  Neither another party nor the government has the right to unilaterally decide without basis in natural law to declare that I must give it up.

I've yet to wrap my mind around the concept.

Maybe where I'm getting hung-up in my mind is that if I put myself in the shoes of an atheist then as a human being I'm part of the whole of nature. Therefore, everything I do--everything any human does--is natural. Moreover, a so-called legal right having come from humans is really merely natural, too. Therefore, why draw a distinction? Conversely, if I put myself in the shoes of a theist (Christian or otherwise) I observe this right of private property being delineated by certain humans and applying only to certain humans (conveniently) apart from all else in creation. Therefore, why call it natural particularly when the concept is clearly not universal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

I've yet to wrap my mind around the concept.

Maybe where I'm getting hung-up in my mind is that if I put myself in the shoes of an atheist then as a human being I'm part of the whole of nature. Therefore, everything I do--everything any human does--is natural. Moreover, a so-called legal right having come from humans is really merely natural, too. Therefore, why draw a distinction? Conversely, if I put myself in the shoes of a theist (Christian or otherwise) I observe this right of private property being delineated by certain humans and applying only to certain humans (conveniently) apart from all else in creation. Therefore, why call it natural particularly when the concept is clearly not universal?

The truth is that Locke's theory of natural law was based in faith in a sentient Creator.  Without one, we are looking at a completely different theory.

Other theories of natural law is based on human instinct.  It is human instinct to want to keep one's own stuff, just as much as self-preservation.  Even children have the concept of "mine" even before they can speak the word.  Then the only thing we need to temper that with is the Golden Rule.

But the very notion of rights from an atheist point of view is really pointless.  Without a higher power and a universal sense of right and wrong, there is no good or evil.  Therefore there are no such things as "rights".  And really, any concept of right and wrong has no basis in logic without a higher power.

ALL right and wrong has been based on either "Man wants X" or "God wants X".  Man is fickle.  So, if right and wrong continually change, is there really such a thing to begin with?  No, the only sense of right and wrong must come from an unchanging sense of Good and Evil.  And atheism simply doesn't have such a source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The truth is that Locke's theory of natural law was based in faith in a sentient Creator.  Without one, we are looking at a completely different theory.

Other theories of natural law is based on human instinct.  It is human instinct to want to keep one's own stuff, just as much as self-preservation.  Even children have the concept of "mine" even before they can speak the word.  Then the only thing we need to temper that with is the Golden Rule.

But the very notion of rights from an atheist point of view is really pointless.  Without a higher power and a universal sense of right and wrong, there is no good or evil.  Therefore there are no such things as "rights".  And really, any concept of right and wrong has no basis in logic without a higher power.

ALL right and wrong has been based on either "Man wants X" or "God wants X".  Man is fickle.  So, if right and wrong continually change, is there really such a thing to begin with?  No, the only sense of right and wrong must come from an unchanging sense of Good and Evil.  And atheism simply doesn't have such a source.

Well, right vs. wrong and whether or not the very notion of rights from an atheist viewpoint is pointless are probably topics for a different thread so I'll abandon them so as not to muddy the waters.  I think a discussion of human instinct is interesting, but since you place more stock in Locke's theory I think it only courteous that I focus upon natural rights from a standpoint of faith as Locke apparently did. 

So, like you I believe in God. Let's stipulate that we both have faith. I'm still prone to ask myself whether the notion of prizing private property came from God or from humans. I can't readily think of any divine injunction to motivate me toward owning a piece of that which God created--that is, owning it for ownership sake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

I can't readily think of any divine injunction to motivate me toward owning a piece of that which God created--that is, owning it for ownership sake. 

Why do you have to own it for ownership's sake?  Consider how well (or poorly) stewardship would work if there were no bounds and limits defining one's stewardship.  Consider how well or poorly you could increase your "talents" if you could not rely on possession (or ownership) of same (or of what you used to multiply them).  I think there are plenty of examples in scripture (and even the United Order) which show that defined / exclusive control over property is necessary in order to properly exercise stewardship.  (The same could be said in a slightly different manner about callings or any other form of stewardship.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zil said:

Why do you have to own it for ownership's sake?  Consider how well (or poorly) stewardship would work if there were no bounds and limits defining one's stewardship.  Consider how well or poorly you could increase your "talents" if you could not rely on possession (or ownership) of same (or of what you used to multiply them).  I think there are plenty of examples in scripture (and even the United Order) which show that defined / exclusive control over property is necessary in order to properly exercise stewardship.  (The same could be said in a slightly different manner about callings or any other form of stewardship.)

"For ownership sake" merely seemed like a reasonable phrase to use in terms of a natural right. I was thinking of other natural rights and that they might exist for their own sake.  It's interesting to me that your raised the United Order for consideration. I was thinking that it's purpose was to teach us to sort of divorce ourselves of the notion of ownership for the sake of giving it all up for Good (and to God) through the administration of the Church. In my mind that was a good reason for me to discount the idea of private property being a divinely appointed or "natural" right. In that context I have an even stronger disagreement with the word "natural" in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm still prone to ask myself whether the notion of prizing private property came from God or from humans. I can't readily think of any divine injunction to motivate me toward owning a piece of that which God created--that is, owning it for ownership sake. 

1

In my opinion, it doesn't particularly matter.  Neither is it important whether you believe your rights are natural or God-given.  They cover the broad spectrum with a foundation in life.  For example:

Do you believe, as an independent human, that you have a natural right to life and that your life is your own to do with as you please, and every other human has that same right?   If you do not believe that, then you have no right to your own life and anyone may enslave it or snuff it with no ding on morality.  At that point, we don't have the basis of a discussion.  

If you do believe it, then we agree that your life is yours, up until it intersects with another.  Therefore, the fruits of that life are also yours.  You are trading your life, or labor, for creation.  Those creations are a product of your life and are yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm still prone to ask myself whether the notion of prizing private property came from God or from humans. I can't readily think of any divine injunction to motivate me toward owning a piece of that which God created--that is, owning it for ownership sake. 

Well, I believe you are conflating two concepts here that, while certainly related, are not the same thing. 

I do believe God gave us this tendency.  Why?  Have you ever thought of property as a set of tools?  We tend to think of property or wealth as a means towards luxury.  Not to God.  Property is a tool.  We, too should look at property the same way.  And when He gives us stewardship over some of His stuff, when is it the right of another man to demand some of God's stuff from us?

Another way of looking at it is that property represents a portion of our life.  To take property is to take life.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

In my opinion, it doesn't particularly matter.  Neither is it important whether you believe your rights are natural or God-given.  They cover the broad spectrum with a foundation in life.  For example:

Do you believe, as an independent human, that you have a natural right to life and that your life is your own to do with as you please, and every other human has that same right?   If you do not believe that, then you have no right to your own life and anyone may enslave it or snuff it with no ding on morality.  At that point, we don't have the basis of a discussion.  

If you do believe it, then we agree that your life is yours, up until it intersects with another.  Therefore, the fruits of that life are also yours.  You are trading your life, or labor, for creation.  Those creations are a product of your life and are yours.

I agree with you that it doesn't particularly matter. My remarks have been only for my personal benefit trying to wrap my mind around the concept of natural rights, as I mentioned. It was only that natural rights in the context of private property or vice versa struck me as interesting when I saw the OP.  And also as I said I appreciate and honor the man-made legal laws related to it. I benefit temporally from them. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

I agree with you that it doesn't particularly matter. My remarks have been only for my personal benefit trying to wrap my mind around the concept of natural rights, as I mentioned. It was only that natural rights in the context of private property or vice versa struck me as interesting when I saw the OP.  And also as I said I appreciate and honor the man-made legal laws related to it. I benefit temporally from them. :)

 

I get that.  I was explaining how property rights are natural rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I believe you are conflating two concepts here that, while certainly related, are not the same thing. 

I do believe God gave us this tendency.  Why?  Have you ever thought of property as a set of tools?  We tend to think of property or wealth as a means towards luxury.  Not to God.  Property is a tool.  We, too should look at property the same way.  And when He gives us stewardship over some of His stuff, when is it the right of another man to demand some of God's stuff from us?

 

If I am conflating, then I'll try harder to see it, and I'll drop it. I have, actually, considered the set of tools idea. And you'll recall I mentioned stewardship at the outset. So, I agree with you there. I appreciate your indulgence so far. Hope you won't feel like I detracted from the intent of your OP. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I get that.  I was explaining how property rights are natural rights.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to overlook it. 

 

Quote

Do you believe, as an independent human, that you have a natural right to life and that your life is your own to do with as you please, and every other human has that same right?   If you do not believe that, then you have no right to your own life and anyone may enslave it or snuff it with no ding on morality.  At that point, we don't have the basis of a discussion.  

If you do believe it, then we agree that your life is yours, up until it intersects with another.  Therefore, the fruits of that life are also yours.  You are trading your life, or labor, for creation.  Those creations are a product of your life and are yours.

Well, I believe my life is my own to do with as I please--and of course it goes without saying to bring up the consequences. And yes I believe the same about others. I'm thinking the word "agency" kind of wraps that all up. And that's where I grow a little puzzled about why it's even useful to use terms like rights (and especially natural ones) in the first place. If God put us here to use agency and doesn't want us getting in each others way so to speak as far as that goes, then it seems more reasonable to think about it in those terms. 

Quote

You are trading your life, or labor, for creation.  Those creations are a product of your life and are yours.

Hmmm. Wait a second. Creation in the first sentence above seems to have a different meaning from creation in the second sentence. Care to elaborate for me so that I don't go off on a tangent that isn't what you meant? 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

"For ownership sake" merely seemed like a reasonable phrase to use in terms of a natural right. I was thinking of other natural rights and that they might exist for their own sake.  It's interesting to me that your raised the United Order for consideration. I was thinking that it's purpose was to teach us to sort of divorce ourselves of the notion of ownership for the sake of giving it all up for Good (and to God) through the administration of the Church. In my mind that was a good reason for me to discount the idea of private property being a divinely appointed or "natural" right. In that context I have an even stronger disagreement with the word "natural" in the first place. 

I have a natural right to live - but not for "living's" sake.  I'm expected to magnify the life God gave me.  That what we are given is given for more than the sake of having it does not negate the logic of it being a natural right.  (Instead of thinking "nature" when you see "natural", perhaps think "inherent", "God-given", or "inalienable".)

I think you should go study the United Order (or I should).  That we should not be selfish or obsessive about possessions does not negate the need for and value of ownership (aka stewardship).  My understanding is that a person was given some subset of the total property which the Church had, and given exclusive stewardship over it - no one else could just show up and claim it.  The Church might ask for it back (maybe), but that's not the same as just any old body coming and taking it as if he had as much right to it as you - or as if neither of you had any right to it at all.

Consider a calling.  God calls you to serve, for example, as the Elder's Quorum President.  You will be expected to accomplish certain things and held accountable for what you did in this calling.  Now imagine Joe Bloe shows up and claims he's the EQP and starts holding meetings with your counselors and making ministering assignments and trying to conduct Sunday meetings, telling you to sit down because he's doing this now.  It wouldn't work.  The only way you can exercise your stewardship is if there are bounds and limits which say the calling is yours - you own it - and no one else gets to do that calling so long as it is yours.

All of this relates, IMO, to the fact that God's house is a house of order.  In order to accomplish good things, there must be order, bounds, rules - and ownership is a bound and a rule which enables order to function.

Also, this:

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

property represents a portion of our life.  To take property is to take life.

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

the fruits of that life are also yours.  You are trading your life, or labor, for creation.  Those creations are a product of your life and are yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mike said:

Hmmm. Wait a second. Creation in the first sentence above seems to have a different meaning from creation in the second sentence. Care to elaborate for me so that I don't go off on a tangent that isn't what you meant? 

 

Same meaning, just poorly worded.  You are trading your life when you create something.  You devote time off your life to receiving something.  These things you receive are a result of giving up a portion of your life.  Therefore, they are your possessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grunt said:

Same meaning, just poorly worded.  You are trading your life when you create something.  You devote time off your life to receiving something.  These things you receive are a result of giving up a portion of your life.  Therefore, they are your possessions.

Well, I don't get to say that our respective wordings or perceptions are right or wrong, just different. I'm "trading my life" when I create. I "devote time off to receive something". And the act of creating is an experience that benefits my eternal progression, right? OK, I'm good with what you say. If I use different words maybe we both mean essentially the same thing. The only caveat for me is that possessions to me means what I can take with me when I die vs. what I can't, i.e. real estate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Those aren't possessions - those are attributes.

Right. But "possessions" was @Grunt's choice of word, so that's why I used it. 

P.S. the *only* thing I would split hairs about is "ownership (aka stewardship)". But it's not a problem as long as I perceive what you mean. And I think I do. So I won't (split hairs). :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike said:

Right. But "possessions" was @Grunt's choice of word, so that's why I used it. 

P.S. the *only* thing I would split hairs about is "ownership (aka stewardship)". But it's not a problem as long as I perceive what you mean. And I think I do. So I won't (split hairs). :D

 

I don't think we're even talking about the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike said:

P.S. the *only* thing I would split hairs about is "ownership (aka stewardship)". But it's not a problem as long as I perceive what you mean. And I think I do. So I won't (split hairs). :D

At the end of the day, none of us "owns" anything permanently - eventually, we all die and someone else takes ownership, and eventually, everyone dies and God takes back what is his.  Ownership is a rule defining who has temporary (mortal), exclusive stewardship over one of God's things.  In order for this to work (from a functional perspective), the governing body has to recognize and enforce this exclusive stewardship.  The current governing body is secular and doesn't understand that all things are God's and we just have stewardship, so they call it "property" or "ownership" instead, but functionally, it's the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, zil said:

At the end of the day, none of us "owns" anything permanently - eventually, we all die and someone else takes ownership, and eventually, everyone dies and God takes back what is his.  Ownership is a rule defining who has temporary (mortal), exclusive stewardship over one of God's things.  In order for this to work (from a functional perspective), the governing body has to recognize and enforce this exclusive stewardship.  The current governing body is secular and doesn't understand that all things are God's and we just have stewardship, so they call it "property" or "ownership" instead, but functionally, it's the same thing.

Hence my remark that "I think I do" perceive what you mean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/24/2018 at 6:40 PM, Mike said:

If I am conflating, then I'll try harder to see it, and I'll drop it. I have, actually, considered the set of tools idea. And you'll recall I mentioned stewardship at the outset. So, I agree with you there. I appreciate your indulgence so far. Hope you won't feel like I detracted from the intent of your OP. :)

I think you were beginning to see it.  So, I'll elaborate.  It is essentially expanding on the stewardship idea.

Have you heard the story:

Quote

There was an important job to be done. Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

It is important for people to have ownership of things to take care of them.  So, God gave us this notion.  But not in the way you're immediately thinking of.  I'm not talking about the "greed" aspect of it.  That's just man's poor interpretation of it.

First is a shared creation.  This is what Grunt was referring to.  God creates a tree. But man cuts it down and creates a house out of it.  Thus the forming it into something new was a creation of man.  The creation didn't come from nothing either.  We put our time and energy into it.  By trading our life (time and energy) we change the reality of something into a shape, and function that God never created.  When we do so, it is ours.

Second is that God gives us stewardship over some "stuff".  As such, we need to take ownership of it like a soldier takes ownership of his duties.  We treat it as if it were ours because that is our duty to care for it.

Because of both of these aspects, God gave us the commandment "Thou shalt not steal."  If God didn't intend for us to have the concept of "property" and take it seriously, why bother with such a commandment?  If there is no "property" that we can "own" then what is there to steal?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing topic slightly, I often notice "I have the right to do this" misused to mean "this is something I am empowered to do" as a kind of bait-and-switch tactic.

For example, I remember seeing a TV debate some years ago, about abuse of power by the police. A man who had been wrongly arrested for robbery was complaining that the police had held him for 24 hours before releasing him without charge (or indeed any further action) despite the fact that he had a beard, and all the witnesses had said that the robber was clean shaven. A senior police officer (who was also present on the show) replied in a patronizing tone: "The reason you were held for 24 hours was that the police had the right to hold you for that length of time".

No they didn't.

A child has a right to the stable home and an education. A criminal suspect has the right to a fair trial and legal representation. A person has the right to paint his/her kitchen whatever colour he/she wishes, or to walk the streets without molestation from criminals.

The police did not have the right to hold this man (or indeed any other man or woman) for 24 hours.

What they had was the power to hold him. That power was granted to them by the state, on the understanding that it would be used in an appropriate manner.

This man's complaint was that it had not been used in an appropriate manner.

There were many valid replies this officer could have given: he could have said: "I'm not familiar with this case, but perhaps there were more factors involved." "Perhaps there might have been a suggestion that there was ore than one perpetrator." "Maybe the witnesses had only a fleeting glance, and could have been mistaken." The list goes on...

But instead this senior officer - who ought to (and indeed probably did) know better - chose to stand on his "rights", explaining nothing while insulting everyone else's intelligence.

It makes me SO cross, that in the words of Mr. Angry I'm going to "throw the phone down!" ;)

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share