Morality or Rights?

[Hauptman]

Single unifying force = GOD

There, I solved that one.

Good to know that Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all now in agreement and the argument is done. Excellent job!!

[keith]

Actually, I am making exactly that argument that Rights are independent of morality.

How exactly do you construct that?

After all your right to X, is pretty much predicated on X having value to you. Whether you have any expectation of X being a Right is going to depend on others moral/ethical judgments.

[JacoKierkegaard]

Rights, period. The only moral guidelines that can be said to hold true for all people regardless of beliefs are ones that affirm one's right to live as one sees fit, e.g. murder, rape, and theft can be held to be universally wrong whereas other "moral" ideas like prohibitions on drugs and obscenity don't pass muster.

[keith]

Rights, period. The only moral guidelines that can be said to hold true for all people regardless of beliefs are ones that affirm one's right to live as one sees fit, e.g. murder, rape, and theft can be held to be universally wrong whereas other "moral" ideas like prohibitions on drugs and obscenity don't pass muster.

So would that be a universal universality, or a conditional universality?

This seems to be no more than metastasising moral realism.

[Nolano]

Someone else may have already quoted this, but I believe that it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who once said "My right to swing my fist ends where the next person's nose begins."

[JacoKierkegaard]

So would that be a universal universality, or a conditional universality?

This seems to be no more than metastasising moral realism.

Perhaps I overstepped myself there. I mean to say that what I described in my post is the only set of ethics I could conscionably see fit to impose upon all people without infringing upon their liberty.

[Hauptman]

How exactly do you construct that?

After all your right to X, is pretty much predicated on X having value to you. Whether you have any expectation of X being a Right is going to depend on others moral/ethical judgments.

A Right is whatever people agree it is; it is essentially a social contract.

For instance, if I enter into a contract to buy a car I have certain obligations as well as certain rights under that contract, and within certain legal limitations, my rights under that contract are whatever the seller and I agree to.

In another example, I have the legal right to make a "right on red" while driving in California. I would consider a "right on red" to be completely morally neutral, and even the political debate regarding it was based on practicality and pragmatism, and not morality.

As I said before there is certainly quite a bit of overlap between Rights and morality; certainly the concept of outlawing murder has both a morality and a Rights rationale, but the two are mutually exclusive. Rights can be moral issues, but certainly don't have to be.

On your second point, I could have the right to something that has no value to me. For instance, the second amendment gives me the right to bear arms, but I have no desire to own a gun. Similarly, the right of others to bear arms does not rely on my moral or ethical agreement.

[keith]

A Right is whatever people agree it is; it is essentially a social contract.

Which brings us back to the question of why people agree to it, or more precisely how they they agree to form the contract.

For instance, if I enter into a contract to buy a car I have certain obligations as well as certain rights under that contract, and within certain legal limitations, my rights under that contract are whatever the seller and I agree to.

Even where usury is a moral wrong there are social contracts that allow you to borrow money and repay the lender extra above the principal.

On your second point, I could have the right to something that has no value to me. For instance, the second amendment gives me the right to bear arms, but I have no desire to own a gun. Similarly, the right of others to bear arms does not rely on my moral or ethical agreement.

Or the Right to bear arms is predicated on your moral duty to defend the state?

In another example, I have the legal right to make a "right on red" while driving in California. I would consider a "right on red" to be completely morally neutral, and even the political debate regarding it was based on practicality and pragmatism, and not morality.

This I think is where the problem arises. There are certainly morally neutral legal Rights, the issue is what happens when legal Rights (that are morally neutral) intersect with moral judgments. You may have the Right to turn right on red but not if doing so involves mowing down a little old lady crossing the road.

As I said before there is certainly quite a bit of overlap between Rights and morality; certainly the concept of outlawing murder has both a morality and a Rights rationale, but the two are mutually exclusive. Rights can be moral issues, but certainly don't have to be.

On the question of whether there is, in fact, any difference between Rights and Morality take these two statements;

Murder is wrong

There is a Right to life.

They are fully overlapping. Now one or the other may be more appealing based on your preferred form of semantic juggling, but they are not different in their scope.

The second statement may be taken as predicated on the existence of a legal/judicial framework but I don't think you would argue that, in the absence of such a framework, Murder ceases to be a wrong?

Rights are secondary things, they flow from the society and its legal system. What establishes that system is the underlying moral preferences of that society. A legal system (in a democracy), and its system of Rights, is simply a means of distilling, and enforcing, the competing moral claims of the populace.

[I_luv_saber]

Rights are secondary things, they flow from the society and its legal system. What establishes that system is the underlying moral preferences of that society. A legal system (in a democracy), and its system of Rights, is simply a means of distilling, and enforcing, the competing moral claims of the populace.

While this is true, I think there are certain rights that are nearly universally agreed upon. This is where the beginning of the Declaration of Independence becomes so important:

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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So, in essence, while really all rights are subjective to personal morality, there are certain rights which are considered self-evident to most people. And these are the rights which this country was founded on. So while, technically, all rights are derived from morals, there are certain rights that are held to a higher standard and considered fairly universal. It's these rights that don't really flow from the legal system, but found the legal system. All other rights flow from the legal system and the rights that founded it.

Basically, some rights are above the current moral atmosphere. While one group may, for example, want to restrict the rights of gays, it may only be done to the extent that these basic, universally agreed rights are not infringed. While technically all rights are based upon morality, practically speaking, some are so universal they aren't really very subjective.

Just a few thoughts.

[Philistine]

I think that there is less of a clear distinction between "morals" based law and "rights" based law then is being assumed.

Most "morals" based laws are argued as justified because of some injury to others, whether directly or indirectly, and as others have noted, there is broad agreement, at least on a high level, of what should be illegal (e.g. murder, theft, fraud, etc.) that doesn't really differ whatever the justification.

I think you're also going to have a hard time drilling down to find some sort of deep underlying principal that the legal system is based on. Most areas of law are an accretion of more or less ad hoc principals that often bear more lip service than actual allegience to any particular underlying principal.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[Hauptman]

I believe that most rights are based on pragmatism. Remember that Rights are about protecting your freedom, whereas legislating morality is about restricting your freedom.

The founders came together and decided that freedom of religion was an important right. Why? Because they felt that all religious sects were good, and deserved protection? No, it was because they wanted to protect their own freedom to practice and were willing extend that right to others in compromise.

And I would assert that nothing is universal. In a society of cannibals, murdering and eating the people of other tribes is seen as morally good. In fact, the other tribes usually lived by the same codes.

Morality at it's heart is not about the particular code of behaviour you adopt; it's about how conscientiously you follow that code. In my opinion, that makes morality, and it's definition of behaviour, a personal matter that shouldn't be applied to others.

[Hauptman]

I think that there is less of a clear distinction between "morals" based law and "rights" based law then is being assumed.

Most "morals" based laws are argued as justified because of some injury to others, whether directly or indirectly, and as others have noted, there is broad agreement, at least on a high level, of what should be illegal (e.g. murder, theft, fraud, etc.) that doesn't really differ whatever the justification.

I think you're also going to have a hard time drilling down to find some sort of deep underlying principal that the legal system is based on. Most areas of law are an accretion of more or less ad hoc principals that often bear more lip service than actual allegience to any particular underlying principal.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

I agree with you. But I still thinks it's worth a try.

[I_luv_saber]

And I would assert that nothing is universal. In a society of cannibals, murdering and eating the people of other tribes is seen as morally good. In fact, the other tribes usually lived by the same codes.

Well, nothing is totally universal, but I don't think it's a stretch to say those basic rights are nearly universally agreed upon (as I stressed).

[latenight]

[quote=Hauptman;790483]I
And I would assert that nothing is universal. In a society of cannibals, murdering and eating the people of other tribes is seen as morally good. In fact, the other tribes usually lived by the same codes.

quote]


Bingo-both morality and rights are human constructs dependant on the particular people generating them.

[Hauptman]

Well, nothing is totally universal, but I don't think it's a stretch to say those basic rights are nearly universally agreed upon (as I stressed).

I understand where you're coming from, but how universal were they even when Thomas Jefferson was writing them?

"All men are created equal" kinda left out women at the time. Not much "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if you were black. Oh wait, you're a good white, christian male? Oh sorry.... no property, no vote for you either.

[jessicasimpson]

jumping in late here, so if anyone already covered this; SORRY
Ethics is the study of moral principals and appropriate conduct
Values are convictions that an individual considers to have worth
morals are judgements of right and wrong
principals are an individuals code of action
laws are codified rules of conduct set forth by society

so, saying that recreation drug use is moraly good, you would have to think that not useing recreational drugs is evil, and people should be punnished if they do not partake.

saying that recreation drug use is good is a value, and values differ greater between individuals. most laws are based on morals, as it is harder to inforce values or principles.

[dcmdale]

And I would assert that nothing is universal. In a society of cannibals, murdering and eating the people of other tribes is seen as morally good. In fact, the other tribes usually lived by the same codes.

Clearly there are cultural differences. I don't know if you have been following the case of the kid in New Delhi who was tortured to death a week ago by his teacher in class for flubbing his recitation of the alphabet. Last I heard, school officials were debating whether the teacher had overstepped his authority. He had not been arrested or removed. (And you wonder why your tech support people are so schitzophrenic?) http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/2009041...-condemns.html / http://blog.taragana.com/n/five-days...s-death-32088/

However, I am not sure how that strengthens your original proposition. Law (or to Philistine's excellent point, the portion of law that usually underlies serious criminal offenses) tends to reflect ethical differences between societies. I don't think that anyone is debating that the American concept of law arises, at least in form, out of some form of social contract. What I am struggling over is the circularity of what my understanding of your position is: Rights (as a social contract derived from our legal system) are to be the only basis for our legal system? I'm not trying to be dense, just trying to understand what you are arguing for. (Usually the people I encounter arguing for libertarian-type positions are arguing from a natural law definition of rights--not social contract).

Once we get past what is probably my lack of understanding, I am interested (as one of many parties to this social contract) how your position protects minorities against the "tyranny of the majority." Social contract (apart from Rawls' "blind contract"), as sole underlying theory, seems a weak basis for a libertarian theory of rights.