Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights Message-ID: <5546@unc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Jul-83 12:19:29 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5546 Posted: Tue Jul 12 12:19:29 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Jul-83 20:07:12 EDT References: umcp-cs.698 Lines: 53 We don't need to postulate that there is any such thing as a "real" right of a person. By this, I mean that we don't need to refer to rights as given by God, inherent in the nature of mankind, or anything else. When we talk about a grammar rule in a programming language, we don't refer to some absolute rule that we are trying to capture. The rule is our creation, designed to facilitate programming. Similarly, we create the concept of "rights" to facilitate human intercourse. There are certain actions that we all agree are reprehensible, such as wanton murder, suppression of another person's ideas by force, and so on. If we just list these, though, there are too many and the list is too inflexible. We need a basis for determining in arbitrary situations what the right course is, and we require that this be compatible with our inherent wishes for the conduct of society. The concept of "rights" is one such basis. By listing the rights of humans, we create a means for discriminating between proper and improper actions in all situations. We need not appeal to any authority for this. We simply need to see that it works. My feeling is that it does work, and my evidence is the American government, one of the least oppressive in the world and one which has the idea of human rights at its core (at least, that is the way the Supreme Court has been running things in the last few decades). Decisions are made based on the Bill of Rights which correlate with our intuitive desires for freedom, and these do not seem to wind up hurting the country. In addition, nearly all of the things which are assumed by nearly all people to be heinous enough to be forbidden by law can be conceived of as an infringement of the victim's rights -- this is a more abstract point in favor of the "rights" model. Here we do have to invoke certain pre-existent principles. It is instructive to go back to the programming languages analogy. Although the syntax rules we are discussing are not pre-existent, they will be judged better or worse depending on how smoothly they carry out the purposes of the language. (For instance, a rule that you have to say "Mother, may I" at the top of any loop will be judged as rather a poor one.) This judgment is inherently subjective. The same goes for our selection of rights. This is a topic I could go on about, but I don't feel like it right now. Maybe later. (Do you have any idea what a strain it is carrying on ten discussions in different groups at once?) In conclusion, the idea of rights need be nothing more nor less than an abstract system used to resolve concrete problems. ______________________________________ The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill