(or, “Why human rights are a bullshit basis for a legal system”)
Disclaimer: this article is not about human rights violations by any particular person or group and is not right wing propaganda aimed at justifying torture, terrorism, genocide or other evils in our world. This is about scrapping human rights as a basis for ethics and law in favor of something more effective.
Many countries have a bill of rights or equivalent legal document that sets out the rights and freedoms of citizens. See, for example:
- Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2006)
- Human Rights Act 1998 (United Kingdom)
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
- United States Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution (Completed in 1789, ratified in 1791)
Here are some examples of rights:
- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
- No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
- Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability (Canada).
- A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (United States)
Here are six reasons why basing a legal or ethical system on rights is a really bad idea.
1. Inter-Rights Conflict
The primary reason that any rights-centered ethical system is doomed to abuse or impotence is that practically all of the rights are in conflict with each other. For example, freedom of religion is clearly in conflict with freedom from discrimination based on gender, race and sexual orientation, because of the racism, sexism and homophobia ingrained in some religions. Said Rajaie-Khorassani, the Iranian representative to the United Nations said in 1981 that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which conflicted with Islamic law. [1]
It is easy to contrive situations where freedom from torture conflicts with right to life, or where the right to trial by jury conflicts with the right to security. Just pick a few rights and use your imagination. I’m sure you won’t have too much trouble finding the conflicts.
2. General Absurdity
In the novel Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein criticizes the U.S. Declaration of Independence and 20th century democracy in general as unrealistic, idealistic fantasies in which “people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.” (p. 93). What good is the right to work when you can’t find a job? What does your right to life mean when a man with a gun threatens your family? What does the right to liberty mean in a country full of jails? What good is the right to asylum when some psycho in Guantanamo Bay is shoving a taser up your ass? Some people have this notion that they have a right to the things that make life worth living. This is nuts. Family, career and hobbies all require work and sacrifice, and sometimes shit happens and your rights don’t mean squat.
3. Judges’ Pragmatic Misapplications of Rights
The next problem is that judges tend to interpret rights in a social context, rendering them impotent. This is why, for instance, free speech does not apply to children in school. If all people have a right to free speech and are entitled to freedom of discrimination based on age, and elementary education is mandatory, it clearly follows that children have the the right to free speech in school. However, the judges who’ve ruled on this thought for a few minutes about the problems it would cause and shut it down. As far as I know, there are no bills of rights that say, “you are entitled to the following rights as long as it’s not too difficult;” yet, this is how judges interpret rights, time after time.
4. Pragmatic Rights
When government officials sit down to write a bill of rights, they do so in a particular social and historical context; they’re human too, with all the biases and irrationalities that may imply. Some rights, like the right to a name, may be timeless. Others, like the right to bear arms, are included for reasons that make sense in a particular historical context. The problem is, once rights are granted, it can be prohibitively difficult to remove them, even when the world changes such that they no longer make sense.
In the U.S., the second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Of course, a militia is no longer necessary to national security in the United States. At first glance, then, the second amendment should be repealed (unless another justification is found). This has proven incredibly difficult. Arguments of the form, “you can’t introduce gun control because it’s against the constitution” miss the point that a constitution should be regularly updated to keep pace with the changing social context. But I digress (I’ll return to gun control in a later post).
5. Layman’s Misunderstandings of Rights
Ever hear someone claim they have the right to smoke? To hurt themselves? To eat badly? To punish their children how they see fit? To be rude? To drive?
Many people succumb to the delusion that they have a right to do whatever they want, as long as it is not illegal. This is simply untrue. A person’s rights are explicitly granted by national legislation such as a bill of rights. If no legal document confers a right (e.g. to smoke) then no such right exists.
Some people make a philosophical argument that certain human rights are innate (see the preamble to the UDHR). Practically speaking, however, your rights are those your country decides to give you.
6. Promotes Egocentrism
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am sick and tired of people whining about their rights. What ever happened to responsibilities? What about honor? Depending what country you live in, you probably have the right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean you should be rude, incite fear and hate, make people uncomfortable or generally irritate the people around you. You may have the right to pursue happiness, but that doesn’t mean you can neglect your children if they get in the way.
I suggest (and this is just a conjecture, but worth considering) that the emphasis on rights in western society explains at least some of the self-centered behavior that has become ubiquitous. If our culture instead emphasized duty and honor, doesn’t it seem likely that people would treat each other better?
Conclusion
I hear and read constant blathering about rights without any regard to responsibility. Simultaneously, we have a dearth of intelligent debate on whether certain rights should be granted or whether right are the best basis for our ethical and legal systems.
In my next post, I will suggest an alternative basis for ethics and law in western culture.
| Comments | Published in | PREV | NEXT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 |
law list ethics essay |
Although the general idea is okay and there are some rather good arguments, some of them seem to be not entirely correct.
> What does your right to life mean when a man with a gun threatens your family?
When a man with a gun threatens my family, their (not mine) right to life ensures that his actions are illegal and the state is bound to punish him. Wait, this is stupid – their right to life actually are supposed to make a _potential_ situation of this kind illegal, so that the state does everything necessary to make sure that this doesn’t happen. Including a punishment if it happens nevertheless.
> What does the right to liberty mean in a country full of jails?
The right to liberty means that these jails are used to isolate people who tend to violate the liberties of other people. Of course, first we’d have to come up with a consistent set of liberties that wouldn’t violate other people’s liberties – but that’s not a human rights thing, that’s a matter of particular implementation.
> Many people succumb to the delusion that they have a right to do whatever they want, as long as it is not illegal. This is simply untrue. A person’s rights are explicitly granted by national legislation such as a bill of rights.
That’s not exactly correct. As long as it’s not illegal, I have a right to do it. What a legislation grants is that the state makes sure that you’re able to do certain things no matter what.
——
That’s how the logic of human rights is supposed to work. Still, all this is a matter of arbitrary choice of what we call ‘rights’ and ‘rongs’. And it is this last thing that makes me dislike all this human rights thing.
Btw, a good criticism of (in particular) human rights is given in part 1 of Popper’s ‘Open Society and Its Enemies’. Although this book has been written many years ago, some ideas are still quite ahead of even our near future.
I’m curious on how you interpret the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In your point 5 you claim that “your rights are those your country decides to give you.” Is the Ninth Amendment a contradiction of your point, or do you mean that something like the Ninth Amendment is still an example of a legal document “conferring” you rights?
Personally, I see a philosophical difference between the enumeration of human rights and saying you have all rights except those explicitly taken away.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, I think there is one little problem with your entry. You don’t quite understand what a “right” is. A right is a moral justification to use force in order to protect something.
So when you say:
“What does your right to life mean when a man with a gun threatens your family?”
What it means is that you are morally justified to kill that person. I don’t think anyone would disagree on that point.
That being said, I agree that all the formulations of rights we have today are nonsensical and useless at best.
All these rights and justice are just bullshit.
Just do what you feel like doing and make sure you don’t get caught.
Laws were created to protect those in power not for some weird ideals.
In response to: “a militia is no longer necessary to national security in the United States.”
From: http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/08/17/rights01/
“… The last line of defense to a police state is an armed population, and our founding fathers knew that. Civilians owning guns not only keeps a certain amount of criminal activity in check and discourages foreign invaders, but also serves as a constant reminder that this nation was born when a group of land-owning rich guys ran off and played insurgency. Let’s face it – you’re supposed to be enemy combatants when your country gets to this point. The framers of our current police state in the making know this, and that’s why even OSHA is in the business of gun control now.”
[...] Britain, etc), grant their citizens the right to freedom of religion (FoR). In a previous article, Six Reasons to Burn the Bill of Rights, I suggested that FoR was neither good nor possible. To be more specific, freedom of religion [...]
First of all, the arguments for against gun rights are retarded. I’ve posted links elsewhere on the site, so I won’t bother reposting them.
Ever hear someone claim they have the right to smoke?
They should have the right to smoke. It’s their body, and they can do what they want with it.
To hurt themselves?
Hell yeah!
To eat badly?
Same thing. The government can’t regulate what you eat.
To be rude?
Yeah, you do have the right to be rude. It’s part of freedom of speech.
You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands, bitch.
No justification for the second amendment? Are you an idiot? A well regulated militia would be an integral part on the defense of the people against tyranny. A national guard is NOT what was intended.
@Darth Vasya, I was being metaphorical. I mean if someone threatens your family you probably risk your life to protect them. In this circumstance knowing that you have any “right” to live is not very comforting. Where are you getting this idea that a right is anything not explicitly forbidden? This is not the meaning used by the United Nations or by any dictionary definition I’ve seen.
@Grant, Different people define ‘right’ differently. Defining rights as anything not explicitly forbidden is not particularly helpful for moral reasoning. I think the amendment you quote simply indicates that the Bill of Rights is not meant as a comprehensive list.
@Francois,
“A right is a moral justification to use force in order to protect something.” – what dictionary did you get this from? I have never seen ‘right’ defined this way.
@Dude,
Though I understand your frustration, anarchy also has negative consequences
@Reader and @Cody,
Rednecks with guns do not and cannot protect themselves against a tyrannical government. One F15 would provide clear military superiority over all of the private militias in the United States combined. You can’t fight a modern military with weapons that can be constructed without significant infrastructure.
There is no evidence that more guns reduces crime.
There is no reason to believe that any country with a nuclear arsenal could be invaded without leading directly to a full-on nuclear war.
@Tom
I have no problem with you hurting yourself if you so choose. I have a problem with you hurting others.
@fu,
Very sophisticated comment on national policy.
This is your statement:
“Of course, a militia is no longer necessary to national security in the United States. ”
Is that comment supposed to be taken seriously? How does the fact that the government has superior weapons change the fact that a militia is needed to ensure that the government does not become tyrannical? I agree with you that the constitution does need to be REVISED, or in fact another amendment be added to it. When the founding fathers wrote that amendment governments did not have F22s and ICBMs; in our founding fathers’ time a rifle and an organized militia were enough to combat tyrants. A highly organized civilian militia with better weaponry needs to be established.
Upon reading your statement again I realize that is is full of logical fallacy; you make ambiguous statements that can be turned around.
“There is no evidence that more guns reduces crime.”
Nor is there evidence that they contribute.
“Rednecks with guns do not and cannot protect themselves against a tyrannical government.”
That statement effectively means nothing. The word “redneck” is injected into the statement in a purely pejorative manner. The statement truly implies: “Gun owners are just incompetent rednecks who could never stand up to a real army.” It does not acknowledge the fact that a “well regulated militia” is not a synonym for “incompetent rednecks” running around with guns. The statement seems to parallel that of English military generals who saw American revolutionaries as “petty provincials” who could not stand up to the discipline and competence of a European army. This proved to be a most fatal assumption.
“There is no reason to believe that any country with a nuclear arsenal could be invaded without leading directly to a full-on nuclear war.”
There are actually various reasons to believe this. There are various to reasons to believe the contrary as well. This statement is nil, just like most of your other conjecture.
@Cody,
My point is simple. Two hundred years ago, the most advanced weapons of the day could still be made in a well-equipped metal shop, provided you had the know-how. Today this is no longer the case. Modern weapons require massive infrastructure to build. Even an organized, well-armed militia is no match for stealth bombers, aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons. If militias are no longer capable of protecting a country from tyrannical leaders, there’s no point in arming militias, is there?
I know lots of gun-toting rednecks. I don’t know any highly-trained, well-organized militias. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any, but unless I see evidence to the contrary, I’ll continue to believe in what I’ve seen. Similarly, if any country invaded a nuclear-capable nation, they would naturally expect a nuclear retaliation. That’s why I say it’s inconceivable. What on Earth makes you think that if some country invaded the US, President Numbnuts would hesitate to nuke ‘em?
The fact that well regulated militas don’t exist means nothing; I agree that none exist– at least that I am aware of. They would be immediately disbanded/imprisoned by the government as a paramilitary or seditious organization; however, this is not an argument against them. The fact that government has superior weapon power would seem to me as a reason to exalt the second amendment. You’re also assuming that in an all out war between the government and the people that the military will unamiously take the side of the government. I beg to differ.
The whole nuclear thing is another argument, which I have no desire to get into.
Regardless of this, the fact that The Bill of Rights has provided citizens with a degree of basic rights is an excellent argument for its favor. Who cares if it is contradictory? All that matters is that judges who interpret it do it in a fashion that allows some degree of liberty for its subjects.
Thanks for the article
mix aspirin and ibuprofen :-OO levitra dangers 8D can i take acyclovir with antibiotics =-PP joan lockwood hoodia eodwj