People who want to find a way to justify doing bad things to others will often claim rights don't exist.
"Can you touch a right? Can you smell rights?" No, but this isn't the "gotcha" they want to pretend it is.
Anti-rights people say "Rights are a social construct". Yes, they are. So?
If rights don't exist, then no one can have the right to claim another's body, life, liberty, or property. No one can have the right to rule others. This brings us back full circle, and I'm fine with that.
Rights are a useful social construct- something our brains have made up in order to navigate the world of other people. Just like the constructs of "justice", "duty", "kindness", and hundreds of other things we act as though are concrete so we can live among other humans without it becoming an extinction-level bloodbath of anti-social constructs on a daily basis everywhere we go.
All real rights are "negative rights"; things no one has a right to do to another. It's easier to say "You have a right to..." rather than "No one has a right to...", but the second way is more accurate if you want to nitpick.
"No one has a right to murder you" is a good example of a more accurate way to say "You have the right to live".
I have yet to find an example of a person who argues against the existence of rights who doesn't want to harm others in some way; by taking their life, liberty, or property. They are searching for a loophole.
They will say, "There are no rights; it's all about force or power". Who has the power to do what to whom? Who is able to use force on others to make them live as the stronger one wills them to live? This argument puts them on the same level as the murderer, even if they claim that's not their intention.
If "negative rights" are a social construct, they are still the only thing short of violent self-defense keeping the wolves-in-human-form at bay.
I will behave as though your rights are a concrete thing I can touch, see, feel, taste, and smell. I can't control how you'll treat me, but this doesn't affect my promise to you. I'm not looking for a loophole I can use to excuse violating you.
(The newspaper edited this one heavily when they published it. This is as written, not as published.)
-
Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.
Leave a tip.
Profound ideas can often be expressed simply, and here you've provided a fine example.
ReplyDeleteDo I have the right to kill you? - obviously, certainly and truly, NOT. Therefore, we can turn it around: you have a right not to be killed.
Therefore, their intangibility notwithstanding, rights do certainly exist.
I agree.
Delete