Quote:
Originally Posted by ewomack
I've read Locke and I really don't care what he has to say about natural rights (I don't like his camera obscura theory of mind either). I've also read Rousseau's theories on the social contract. I don't find that convincing... though it's a neat story. I do think humans at one time did bind together for what seemed like a benefit, but turned out to be somewhat of a mixed blessing, though I doubt this was a very organized or well-defined event. Ultimately, the state has pros and cons like most everything else on this ball of magma. People "in a state of nature" (loaded phrase, I know, but meant here approximately as people living without an organized state) have no rights. The entire idea of "rights" in such a context is misleading. Rights come from laws. Laws come from collections of people. Such "naturals" aren't "free" either, because what defines freedom in a state of nature? The only sense in which a person without a government is "free" is that they are binded to no laws. Is that true freedom? I don't know. But without an enforcing governmental body the terms "rights" and "laws," in the political sense, have no meaning. We're on our own to deliver rights to people. Nature will not do this for us. The concept of a "natural right" is as much a human construction as a societal law.
So I guess my answer is "no."
|
I agree. Pretty much, this is the case. "Rights" are granted by a polity. It really is a manner of discourse in the post modern sense. Even our American Declaration of Independence that holds certain truths to be "self evident" are not at all "self evidendent" -- they are defined through forms of discourse such as this document ( not exactly creating rights sui generus, but close to it ). Any anthropology buffs out there will note that smaller societies don't have any concept of rights -- though they will have elaborate systems of reciprocity.
Rights are created through discource, but do not exits in themselves; we create them.
That said, "rights" have INDEED become part of our discourse ( if not, why would this thread exist? ). We have indeed come to accept such things as "human rights", for example ( rather an echo of rights all nations should hold "self evident" ). So, they have become part of our reality and are in that sense "real" and do truly exist to some extent.
But the biggest problem of "rights", as well detailed in the court case published as "Do Trees Have Standing", is that rights are delegated by those with "power" to those that don't have "power". This is a big problem as there good reasons the discource of "rights" has emerged over time.
What's emerging from this discourse is the issue or norms and morality -- again these are framed discources . . . . but there seems to be something to it.
Other ideas such as "democracy", "freedom", etc. don't seem to have the same pull as the idea of "rights". Rights are created by discourse, but as soon as any population gets to thinking in these terms, they tend to demand their "rights".