Explaining Rights to Libertarians (e.g. Bill Glod)

[Steve3007]

I've explained the basics of it a few times.

I don't recall seeing any of them. A topic about it would be interesting.

[Sculptor1]

Is this distinction the same as a right that is protected by law and backed up by the system; and a right that is given in an abstract document such as the UNDHR?

Above, I think you have put the age old distinction drawn between the followers of Bentham (utiliatarianism); and Kant(the duty of the categorical imperative); just that the words have been changes to consequentialism and deontologicalism.

Any document asserting specific human rights is rhetorical until those rights are guaranteed by law.

That's a yes, for part one.
What about the second question.
"
"Above, I think you have put the age old distinction drawn between the followers of Bentham (utiliatarianism); and Kant(the duty of the categorical imperative); just that the words have been changes to consequentialism and deontologicalism.""

[Marvin_Edwards]

Any document asserting specific human rights is rhetorical until those rights are guaranteed by law.

That's a yes, for part one.
What about the second question.
"
"Above, I think you have put the age old distinction drawn between the followers of Bentham (utiliatarianism); and Kant(the duty of the categorical imperative); just that the words have been changes to consequentialism and deontologicalism.""

I don't know Bentham or Kant well enough to comment. My notion of justice and rights came from Jefferson's statement in the 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Note that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is rhetorical, while "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted" is practical.

[Sculptor1]

That's a yes, for part one.
What about the second question.
"
"Above, I think you have put the age old distinction drawn between the followers of Bentham (utiliatarianism); and Kant(the duty of the categorical imperative); just that the words have been changes to consequentialism and deontologicalism.""

I don't know Bentham or Kant well enough to comment. My notion of justice and rights came from Jefferson's statement in the 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Note that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is rhetorical, while "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted" is practical.

LOL.
Just like an American to take his information secondhand and think it is original.

[Terrapin Station]

That's a yes, for part one.
What about the second question.
"
"Above, I think you have put the age old distinction drawn between the followers of Bentham (utiliatarianism); and Kant(the duty of the categorical imperative); just that the words have been changes to consequentialism and deontologicalism.""

I don't know Bentham or Kant well enough to comment. My notion of justice and rights came from Jefferson's statement in the 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Note that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is rhetorical, while "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted" is practical.

No rights are "self-evident." That just amounts to, "I feel this so strongly that I can't imagine things being otherwise."

But different people have different feelings when it comes to this stuff.

[h_k_s]

Bill Glod has a video called “The Nature of Rights” on the libertarianism.org website. He explores two views of rights.

The “consequentialist” view determines rights according to their consequences. If the consequence of racial slavery is egregious harm to black men, women, and children, then there should be no right of one race to enslave another.

The “deontological” view, on the other hand, relies upon the shared norms of the culture. For example, if racial slavery is the norm, as it was in the old South, then the deontological view would conserve the current norm. Bill points out that shared norms are embedded in the culture and result in “moralized emotions”, like resentment. And southern whites at that time truly resented having to sit near black people. And they closed down their schools rather than allow black children to sit beside their children in school. This was the morality they felt in their gut (see Colbert).

So which view does Bill recommend? Oddly, Bill favors the deontological view.

To be fair, Bill chose examples that he thought would support his view. He did not try to apply them to slavery in the old South. But let’s take a look at Bill’s examples.

In Bill’s first scenario, Kenny is a healthy young man with a menial job in the hospital where he works. A doctor looks at Kenny and thinks of the five important patients whose lives he could save by harvesting Kenny’s organs. Bill suggests the consequentialists would favor this, because of all the good that those five important people could do. But Bill is only looking at the immediate consequences.

It is important to keep in mind that means become ends. If we decide to allow doctors to select unwilling organ donors, what are the real consequences? Any person, you or any member of your family, could be harvested on demand. And that would be an intolerable way to live. Because of those consequences, we allow no such right to doctors.

Bill stumbles onto the correct answer when he says the phrase “buy into the bad consequence that come from it” and then changes quickly, replacing “bad consequence” with “bad implications”. The correct analysis would impair his argument.

In Bill’s second scenario, Kenny is now a different guy who sticks a fork in your neck while you’re waiting for the bus. At this point, Bill asks you to examine your moralized emotions of blame and anger. This is where he goes into detail about the social norms you have internalized and that set the ethical standards that you use to judge Kenny’s behavior. “How dare you do this to me?!”, you think to yourself. And that is all fine and good.

But Bill overlooks the source of the cultural norms. He suggests something as automatic as natural selection. Cultures with the best rules survive and prosper more than those with inferior rules. In other words, the social norms arise as a consequence of their beneficial effects upon society.

Ultimately, it is about consequences. We left slavery behind, fighting against the cultural norm, because of the physical and psychological harm inflicted upon others among us. It is not enough to seek good only for ourselves.

All practical rights, and the rules that secure them, arise from agreement. Moral people, who seek the best possible good for everyone, seek the best rules to achieve that goal. Sharing the same goal, we eventually may resolve our differences. And, as our moral sense evolves, so do our rights and the rules that secure them. This is something to keep in mind as we face new issues like gay marriage and the 20 week abortion rule.

How you approach this problem of rights for all depends on how you want to view it.

You can view it religiously, culturally, scientifically, or philosophically.

Religiously is problematic for slavery, since Moses and St. Paul did not openly condemn slavery.

Culturally has been expressed above.

Scientifically simply gathers data and then churns it to whatever ends the scientist wants to promote as a theory.

And philosophically, you are stuck with "what is the greater good for all?" which we get from Aristotle. And most of us whether we know it or not are simply slaves of Aristotle.

You must remember that might always makes right, and so whatever regime is in power at the time in your country or in your world, that regime is going to make their own rules.

You picked on slavery, therefore I will comment that slavery has existed since prehistoric times. Even Hammurabi set special rules for slaves and their treatment, as opposed to those for free men or for aristocrats.

Today there is still child slavery and female slavery in Southeast Asia. Slavery has not disappeared. So no argument can make it disappear.

Better to ask, "What right has one nation to dictate rules to another, they both being sovereign?"

How you would explain all this to a Libertarian I am not sure -- maybe take the scientific approach.

[h_k_s]

Sooooo, you are suggesting that human rights are relative and contingent based on what I can convince someone to provide to me?

Pretty much, yes. Especially yes when political power is involved.

[h_k_s]

There are no real rights.

Moral rights are simply moral stances that one feels should be inviolable by any convention, including legal conventions.

Legal rights obtain via whoever has the power to codify them. In many systems, sure, that's going to obtain via agreement--whether a majority population agreement, or the agreement of representatives, or whatever the political system in place.

Terrapin Station is exactly right on !!

[Marvin_Edwards]

I don't know Bentham or Kant well enough to comment. My notion of justice and rights came from Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence:



Note that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is rhetorical, while "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted" is practical.

LOL.
Just like an American to take his information secondhand and think it is original.

Hmm. You say that as if Bentham and Kant were the "originals". Kant's "universal law" is nothing more than a paraphrase of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

[Marvin_Edwards]

I don't know Bentham or Kant well enough to comment. My notion of justice and rights came from Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence:

Note that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is rhetorical, while "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted" is practical.

No rights are "self-evident." That just amounts to, "I feel this so strongly that I can't imagine things being otherwise."

But different people have different feelings when it comes to this stuff.

Exactly. That is why practical rights must have sufficient public buy-in to actually work.

[Marvin_Edwards]

How you approach this problem of rights for all depends on how you want to view it.
You can view it religiously, culturally, scientifically, or philosophically.
Religiously is problematic for slavery, since Moses and St. Paul did not openly condemn slavery.
Culturally has been expressed above.
Scientifically simply gathers data and then churns it to whatever ends the scientist wants to promote as a theory.
And philosophically, you are stuck with "what is the greater good for all?" which we get from Aristotle. And most of us whether we know it or not are simply slaves of Aristotle.

And that is why rights, to be stable, must be based in objective moral judgments. Yeah, you heard me. Objective moral evaluation, based on the "best good and least harm for everyone", is the only criteria that everyone can agree to. And agreement is essential to make rights practical rather than merely rhetorical.

You must remember that might always makes right, and so whatever regime is in power at the time in your country or in your world, that regime is going to make their own rules.
You picked on slavery, therefore I will comment that slavery has existed since prehistoric times. Even Hammurabi set special rules for slaves and their treatment, as opposed to those for free men or for aristocrats.
Today there is still child slavery and female slavery in Southeast Asia. Slavery has not disappeared. So no argument can make it disappear.
Better to ask, "What right has one nation to dictate rules to another, they both being sovereign?"

Rights that are dictated are not agreed to. Only those rights that are agreed to are real.

How you would explain all this to a Libertarian I am not sure -- maybe take the scientific approach.

I think that is what I am doing.

[Sculptor1]

LOL.
Just like an American to take his information secondhand and think it is original.

Hmm. You say that as if Bentham and Kant were the "originals". Kant's "universal law" is nothing more than a paraphrase of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I was thinking more about John Locke when you said what you did about the US

[h_k_s]

How you approach this problem of rights for all depends on how you want to view it.
You can view it religiously, culturally, scientifically, or philosophically.
Religiously is problematic for slavery, since Moses and St. Paul did not openly condemn slavery.
Culturally has been expressed above.
Scientifically simply gathers data and then churns it to whatever ends the scientist wants to promote as a theory.
And philosophically, you are stuck with "what is the greater good for all?" which we get from Aristotle. And most of us whether we know it or not are simply slaves of Aristotle.

And that is why rights, to be stable, must be based in objective moral judgments. Yeah, you heard me. Objective moral evaluation, based on the "best good and least harm for everyone", is the only criteria that everyone can agree to. And agreement is essential to make rights practical rather than merely rhetorical.

You must remember that might always makes right, and so whatever regime is in power at the time in your country or in your world, that regime is going to make their own rules.
You picked on slavery, therefore I will comment that slavery has existed since prehistoric times. Even Hammurabi set special rules for slaves and their treatment, as opposed to those for free men or for aristocrats.
Today there is still child slavery and female slavery in Southeast Asia. Slavery has not disappeared. So no argument can make it disappear.
Better to ask, "What right has one nation to dictate rules to another, they both being sovereign?"

Rights that are dictated are not agreed to. Only those rights that are agreed to are real.

How you would explain all this to a Libertarian I am not sure -- maybe take the scientific approach.

I think that is what I am doing.

Seems very idealistic to me.

I'll have to agree more with Terrapin Station philosophically.

There really are no "rights." There are only cultural conventions that are locally agreed on.

[GregRogers]

Sooooo, you are suggesting that human rights are relative and contingent based on what I can convince someone to provide to me?

Pretty much, yes. Especially yes when political power is involved.

So then you are saying that "rights" do not have normative power? In other words, I cannot say you "ought" to grant me certain rights because it is purely to your individual agency whether you wish to grant them to me?

[GregRogers]

Sooooo, you are suggesting that human rights are relative and contingent based on what I can convince someone to provide to me?

Nope. Human rights are what we agree to respect and protect for each other. That is where all practical rights come from, and what distinguishes a practical right from a merely rhetorical right.

So if we agree to a "practical right", no one has a legitimate case to argue that what we agreed upon is immoral?