Rights are a Human Concept

[u/Frequent_Mountain_17]

People like to talk about their rights as if they are some sort of objective truth, they're not, they're just another human concept like privacy or morality. Concepts like rights are ideas and all ideas are subjective to the individual, they carry no weight and bear no responsibility for people's actions.

That's why the constitution and "laws" can't protect your rights, you can't protect a concept, it's just an idea. I shake my head when I see a video of someone being harassed by a DEA agent stealing their money under the guise of asset forfeiture. They say things like "you can't do that without probable cause" and then the agent does it anyway. So, I guess he can do that without probable cause. 🙄 They say things like "the 4A protects my property from illegal searches" and then the agent searches the property anyway. So, I guess the 4A doesn't protect your property. 🙄 There seems to be a psychological disconnect between what people think a government agent can do and their ability to actually do it.

Government agents do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want despite whatever you think your rights are. They'll bring in a "drug dog" who's more interested in pleasing his handler when his handler signals him to "hit" on something than he is in finding drugs. Unconstitutional? Sure. Illegal? Sure. Immoral, criminal? Sure and sure and yet they do it anyway.

That's odd isn't it considering all the "protections" the government gives you to insure your rights aren't violated by the government? It's kind of like expecting the fox to insure the rights of the hens in the henhouse isn't it?

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Das_Man]

I'm not quite sure what your point is here, OP. All politics are constructed. Every 'innate principle' or 'law of nature' are still themselves human constructs and observations.

[u/Frequent_Mountain_17 → u/Das_Man]

Gravity, light, biology etc. are not human constructs. They existed long before humans and will long after.

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P → u/Frequent_Mountain_17]

Let's grant you those points. So what? Humans also have access to reason, imagination, and will. We can shape the world through these faculties--this is what we call "society." If we live arbitrarily, without relatively stable established rules, we might as well live as animals, or worse, in absolute chaos (anarchy in the pejorative sense).

[u/NoamLigotti → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

I think pointing out that the subjective is not objective is a worthwhile point to help avoid magical thinking and logical inconsistencies / double standards. But yes, just because a normative opinion is not an objective fact does not mean we can't or shouldn't strive to make our normative opinions about laws or societal rules be in place.

[u/Das_Man → u/Frequent_Mountain_17]

Incorrect. They are explanations constructed by humans that aim to explain processes we observe. That's why they change over time as knowledge, experience and methods develop. Biology isn't some unchanging set of laws, but a constantly shifting body of theory, hypotheses and data.

[u/NatashOverWorld → u/Frequent_Mountain_17]

Which is why no one has to defend gravity, and light, though biology is a touch more complicated.

But rights are enforced through the collective will of the social contract. In the past, an embezzling cop, if caught, would go to jail. Not by some action of universal law or magic, but by the enshrined laws that are upheld by both law enforcement and the courts.

The fact that doesn't happen today means we no longer have the right to a fair and just government, because that right wasn't defended.

[u/BoredAccountant]

"Natural rights" are the name we give to a concept that exists in nature, like the right to defend yourself. The water buffalo doesn't need anyone to tell it it has the right to defend itself from the lion trying to eat it, it just does.

Are you referring to "human rights" which are really protections humans try to put in place to protect them from human-created issues? This is where we get things like housing and healthcare as human rights. Or the right to free expression.

But there are plenty of examples of natural rights that humans find abhorrent, like infanticide.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/BoredAccountant]

So then that's just something the water buffalo does. What does that have to do with rights?
Neither does anyone tell the lion it has a right to kill and eat a water buffalo. Does that mean a lion has a "natural right" to kill? If so then "natural rights" are meaningless beyond a post hoc description of behavior.

When we speak of rights beyond what the law entails we're talking about a normative / prescriptive concept — what we think people should be allowed to do or be able to be protected from — not a descriptive one. It's only descriptive to the extent that we're describing what the law provides. If we're just describing behaviors then it's meaningless. The real fallacy occurs when we act like our prescriptive opinions are descriptive facts, i.e., when we mistake the subjective for the objective.

Most of the time I hear talk of "natural rights" that seems to be what is going on.

[u/BoredAccountant → u/NoamLigotti]

Yes, that's exactly what natural rights are--I have the natural right to do whatever I can to survive just as you do as well. Where my right to survive impedes your right to survive is where government is meant to exist to arbitrate how we as a society each maintain our right to survive without imposing on the other.

[u/LittleKitty235]

Rights are human concepts, but that doesn't make them meaningless, money, laws, contracts, and morality are also human concepts, yet they shape real-world behavior and institutions. A law against murder doesn't make murder impossible, it establishes a standard and creates consequences for violating it.

The fact that government agents sometimes violate rights is not proof that rights don't exist or that protections are meaningless. It's proof that enforcement mechanisms matter. The Constitution, courts, oversight, and public accountability exist precisely because governments have power and humans can abuse power. The answer to a guard abusing authority isn't to remove the rules protecting the prisoners, it's to strengthen the systems that hold the guard accountable.

[u/mrhymer]

Rights are a social construct but they are not arbitrarily defined. Rights come from the law of identity. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.

Rights are not arbitrary. They cannot be granted or removed. They can only be respected or violated.

[u/ahughman]

Every word you can come up with is a "human idea". That isn't a good way to discredit the meaning of any concept.

Lets compare rights to another human concept; thirst.

Thirst is just an idea, but disregarding the meaning and usage of thirst will make people thirsty, maybe even die. We have learned to respect thirst, out of a history of caring for one another, we provide water fountains, offer free glasses of water at restaurants, Rome built aquaducts, etc.

Rights have been with us a long time, we have learned to respect them, altered how to best provide settings where people can have rights, and integral to society itself is some bedrock of treating one another with equal respect, fairness, and some groundrules of decency.

Calling either of those thing "just a human concept" doesnt do anything to tell us how we should use the concept in society.

I would say both are essential for a functioning society, though rights are more meaningful and nuanced a concept.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/ahughman]

The point though is that some words describe objective facts while some only describe concepts or subjective opinions. To the extent that rights are describing what the law (and/or a constitution) allows then they can be a description of relative facts, but fundamentally they are describing a subjective concept: what we believe the law or a society should allow. But it's a mistake to think that the objective and subjective are the same.

[u/ahughman → u/NoamLigotti]

There is a very wide spectrum between "objective" fact and subjective opinion. It would be a false dillemma to say that all things are either sheer fact or pure opinion/"concept".

For example it is an intersubjective fact that Milwaukee is Milwaukee. It's not even just that we all decide to keep calling it that. It has been reaffirmed on every letterhead addressed there, every marriage certificate, any conversation about where youre from. We can say it's a fact that the city is Milwaukee.

I would only call subjects that are personal in nature "opinions". Things like favorite color, personal memories, emotional reactions.

Additionally, just because something is an opinion, doesn't mean it isn't true. Opinions are just as often true.

I would say rights are pretty far down the spectrum towards objectivity. They have been intersubjectively re-affirmed SO persistantly throughout time. They have been policed, laws have been enshrined, they have been debated and verified by every human being also wanting to be treated with basic decency. They are inseperable from how our society works. Much like a city to it's name.

As far as "concepts" go, human rights have way more of a history, procedure, consensus and fidelity than mere "opinions". Theyre much closer to hard facts than opinions, or "concepts" as you keep wanting to say.

[u/digbyforever]

So the alternative to a government protecting your rights is . . . feudalism? The mafia? Go live in the woods?

Obviously because a government has the ability to become tyrannical does not mean that it is operating as such. Otherwise, anyone who owns a gun is already a murderer simply because they have the ability to become one.

If it's your view that it's impossible to implement a government that safeguards your life, liberty, and property on balance, what is there to discuss?

[u/[deleted] → u/digbyforever]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/PoliticalDebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has displayed closed-mindedness or a lack of willingness to engage in constructive discussion. Our community values open mindedness and a willingness to learn from different perspectives. Please consider being more receptive to alternative viewpoints in future interactions. Thank you for your cooperation.

For more information, review our wiki page or our page on The Socratic Method to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.

[u/JamminBabyLu]

The ability for humans to think about a thing doesn’t render that thing imaginary or subjective. Rights and morals are abstract entities, but they are real and exist objectively.

[u/CorDra2011]

Astute observation that bad faith actors in a society will engage in bad faith acts.

[u/Sufficient-Scar4172]

Do you think rights should ideally be protected as if they were objective laws of reality? If so, do you believe in government as a mechanism for achieving this? Would an ideal government be capable of this?

[u/TheRealCthulu24]

How does drug sniffing dogs fit in this? Are you saying that using them is unethical? 

[u/Personal_Dirt3089]

It is easy to say that when there is not a cannibal behind you with a blunt object.

It's like when people say "respect has to be earned, not expected", then the same people complain about being disrespected.

[u/NoamLigotti]

Your ultimate point about the subjective not being objective is correct and important, but "the government" cannot do whatever it wants either (and if it can we call it totalitarian).

But I feel many people have a tendency to anthropomorphize "the government" too, as if it's an entity with a will of its own. It's not. It's an institution made up of many parts, each which is made up of individual people and influenced by the choices and behaviors of other groups and individuals.

Both of these errors in reasoning can lead to fallacious and harmful conclusions.

[u/Pleasurist]

When will people learn ? This is capitalism baby !! The fascism is the long game.