What is a Human Right?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:38am Mark Noonan
A news story to get the ball rolling:
Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani of Lima, Peru, has warned against a proliferation of supposed human rights that are “invented” by international organizations, the ACI-Prensa news agency reports.
In his weekly radio address, Cardinal Cipriani observed that genuine human rights are “based on natural law, a law that is etched on men’s hearts.” These rights, he added, are not created by a mandate from the UN or any other human organization.
The cardinal went on to put his listeners on guard against political organizations that push for recognition of new forms of “human rights,” including alleged rights to abortion or to define one’s own gender preference.
Citing the speech delivered by Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to the UN in April, the Peruvian cardinal emphasized the human rights must be defended on the basis of a secure and unchanging appeal to natural law, which endures across the boundaries of times and places. He added the observation that human rights imply corresponding human duties, and those duties, as well as the rights, should be properly understood and defined.
In my view, something can only be called a human right if it is something which is at least potentially inherent to an individual human being - I can at least potentially talk on my own, so I have a right to free speech. I can at least potentially defend my own life, so I have a right to self defense. On the other hand, I cannot perform surgery on myself, so I have no right to health care. I cannot marry myself, so I have no right to marry. And so on.
There is a lot of nonsense spoken these days about human rights - a right to marry, a right to health care, a right to education, a right to housing…if I have a right to housing, what sort of house? Where located? Containing what household goods? Once you start asking these rather basic questions, the whole concept of a right to housing is immediately shown to be asinine. Unfortunately, our leftists never ask such questions (intellectual curiosity has never been encouraged on the left), but by packaging the desire for these things in the guise of Judeo-Christian morality, the left has successfully convinced a very large number - and some times a majority - that their spurious rights are real, and must be accorded legal status.
It is useful that Benedict XVI, Cardinal Cipriani - as well as many others - are now pointing out that human rights are precious things, and must not be cheapened by making every political desire a campaign for a mythical human right. If everything is a human right, then nothing is a human right - and so by insisting I have a right to health care, I’ve been stripped of my right to life, as the government-run health care (designed to secure my supposed right to health care) comes at the cost - as we see more and more often - in a government bureacrat deciding if I’ll obtain life-saving care or, even, if I’ll be killed (”assisted suicide” and euthanasia, eg) because my continued living is inconvenient and/or expensive.
Our rights are granted to us - without charge and, indeed, without deserving it - by God on high, and are only to be taken away by Him, as He sees fit. Without this fundamental principle, all government becomes a tyranny - and all attempts at justice a sick fraud. But God didn’t grant us a right to everything our little hearts desire - he granted us those rights we need to be the creatures he wanted us to be, and health care and pre-K education aren’t among the vital things a human needs in order to be a child of God. I am a staunch defender of human rights - but only of real human rights, not the mythical human rights created by people to justify their varied desires for power, fame or simple relief for the guilt they feel over their undeserved good fortune in life.
Entry Filed under: General Government, Life Issues, Popular Culture, Religion, Social Issues
27 Comments
1. congressive | May 7th, 2008 at 1:26 am
(intellectual curiosity has never been encouraged on the left)
Given the nature of science vs religion, this is by far the biggest straw-man lie you have ever told on these pages. Ever.
But hey, they’re your pages.
Your definition of rights as “something which is at least potentially inherent to an individual human being - I can at least potentially talk on my own, so I have a right to free speech” explains why you thinks it’s ok to poop in the streets and deny it’s pollution. It’s a “right.”
Now us liberals must spend the next four years cleaning it up. Don’t worry, we’ll send YOU the bill.
2. brett michaels | May 7th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Deleted - off topic.
3. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | May 7th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Mark-
You were born 1000 years too late and on the wrong continent. Unfortunately the “city of sin” has only made you more or a zealot.
4. robert w. blunt | May 7th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Our political system is based on the following:
1) All people are created equal in their personal sovereignty (authority to self-govern) negating the medieval concept that God puts kings to rule over comman people because they lack the wherewithal to govern themselves.
2) That natural law reveals that all people, simply because they are human, have the right to life, liberty, and property/prosperity/fulfillment.
3) That governments are created by people to protect these rights.
4) That governments that rule by the consent of the people are the only legitimate governments; all others are variations of tyranny.
5) That government can only deprive us of life, liberty, or property if it follows strict rules to ensure that government is treating us with fundamental fairness (due process of law).
In trying to create a government consistent with these principles, our founders devised a blueprint- the Constitution- which specifies the structure and functions of this government. When the original blueprint was submitted for ratification, it was deemed insufficient in its specific protections of the people’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Consequently, additional specific limitations on the power of government were imposed- the Bill of Rights.
The fundamental principle embodied therein is
that expressed by the old English maxim that “a man’s home is his castle”- that within his own home, a person has the right to be secure in his person, property and effects, from both criminals and government; that within his own home, the individual is sovereign (the higher authority), not the government.
Much of what you complain of regarding liberal ideology is simply the demands of people to make their own decisions within their own “castles”. Should government or the individual decide matters that only affect the individual? For example, what justification is there for the State of Connecticut to decide, instead of the individuals involved, that married adults can or cannot use artificial means of contraception? It was this question which resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold. The Court ruled that “liberty” includes the personal power (sovereignty) to make these decisions, not the government. You have a problem with this? How about a law that mandates that people must wipe their butts with their right hand, not their left? Is this a decision that government or individuals should make? Does this mean we have the right to wipe left-handed, or does it mean that we have the right to make personal decisions without government restriction?
The court decisions which have applied the concept of liberty to governmental restriction of personal-decision-making have not created new rights, they have simply said that these are decisions that individuals, living in liberty, should make for themselves.
What’s wrong with that?
5. Danish Artist | May 7th, 2008 at 6:51 am
What is a human right?
Whatever a liberal activist judge says it is!
Then the ignorant masses (for the slow witted - Democrats) will fall in lock step behind it, regardless what the Constitution or laws of nature says.
6. steveGA | May 7th, 2008 at 8:40 am
“In my view, something can only be called a human right if it is something which is at least potentially inherent to an individual human being”
Humans are inherently social beings. As social beings, humans have always grouped themselves, organized themselves, and eventually created rules to govern their organization or society. This is human nature, and both evolution and human history support this.
By your ‘logic’, then, ANY rule of the organization can be made into a right. Since its human nature to make such rules, the rule itself is an extension of human nature. Therefore, we can indeed have a right to education, health care, marriage, etc.
7. extramedium | May 7th, 2008 at 8:47 am
A very interesting part of the piece is the concept that human rights correspond to human duties. Therein lies a useful key to understanding the differences between people of different beliefs and ideologies.
I used to think that the difference between liberals and conservative is that conservatives had a strong sense of duty, where liberals did not. I now think that both parties have a strong sense of duty but they differ only in what they believe those duties to be. Likewise, people of Christian belief have a different sense of rights and duties than other people of other beliefs.
In fact, a non-Christian might take the concept of “supposed human rights that are “invented” by international organizations” to be an accurate description of human rights as narrowly defined by Judeo-Christian dogma.
As America’s power wanes it’s going to be really important for us to understand differences between people of different beliefs and ideologies…and to find basic common ground.
8. Eric T | May 7th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Brett-
I’ll pray with you for them.
John 5:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Romans 10:9-13 says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
In Daniel 12: 1-4, Daniel talks of the end of the age where it says, “Many that sleep in the dust shall awake to everlasting life.” This “sleep” is referring to the physical body sleeping, not the soul or spirit. Our spirit is the “real us.” We are a spirit and have a soul (mind, will and emotions) that lives in a body.
9. Rana Quijotesca | May 7th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Mark-
First of all… your definition of rights isn’t that robust logically. Do people who can’t (even potentially) defend themselves (quadriplegics, for example) have the right to self-defense? Basing rights on capabilities is inherently problematic because it implies that those with more capabilities have more rights… Can a guy who can stitch himself up after an injury or perform basic medical procedures on himself have the right to medical care? Who says that all medical care is surgery… do people have preventative health care? Everyone has the potential to give themselves preventative treatments? Should we guarantee preventative health care? (yes, we should) Hell… a pregnant woman can repeatedly punch herself in the stomach until the fetus dies… should she be granted the right to an abortion?
Secondly, that conception of rights isn’t what our country is based on. We were based on what can broadly be defined as libertarianism… we have negative rights, but not necessarily positive ones. For example–I have the right to make a sandwich, but I don’t have the right to make you make me a sandwich… (I have the right not to be touched, but not to have people touch me).
In their book, Why Deliberative Democracy, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson talk about the need for “moral reasons” behind points up for deliberation. According to them, a moral reason is one that is made independently of who makes it. Perhaps we should assume that rights exist, and block out the ones that contradict each other… it’s a start…
10. majoriot | May 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Please list the rights your god granted you an dplease no more references to the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
“not the mythical human rights created by people to justify their varied desires for power”
A controdiction with your religious beliefs.
You are going to have to have to choose whether you will use religion as a basis of your rights or not.
11. FmrMarine | May 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
BM;
>>>60k dead in Burma and not one single call for prayers or even a mention of the suffering the survivors are enduring.<<<
Let islam bury it’s dead, and feed their survivors.
WE are the GREAT SATAN….remember?
Let the mullas cry for prayer through their mud filled loud speakers.
As for me……….60,000 enjoying the 70 virgins, not a bad days work!
12. neocon | May 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The liberals are all of sudden concerned about life. Who would’ve thunk it?
13. bongoman | May 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
neocon, I defy you to locate a ‘liberal’ post here where someone has actively celebrated the deaths of anyone, let alone tens of thousands of people.
14. neocon | May 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
You do support abortion on demand, right?
You did not support removing Saddam, right?
I rest my case
15. bongoman | May 7th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I’m challenging you to find a post where someone, apart from FmrMarine, has rejoiced in the deaths of people. As in “not a bad day’s work” that tens of thousands of people were killed.
I’m waiting…
16. neocon | May 7th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
nice dodge bongo
Liberals celebrate death quietly. Wouldn’t want to offend anyone, right? Just ignore the deaths as if they didn’t happen. Great tactic.
17. FmrMarine | May 7th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
ABORTION = 50,000,000 people MURDERED in the USA, AMERICAN CITIZENS
for those I weep.
18. FmrMarine | May 7th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
>>>>I’m challenging you to find a post where someone, apart from FmrMarine, has rejoiced in the deaths of people<<<<
UMMMM
Dont muslems rejoice when………They go to paradise?
LIKE……
Flying aircraft into occupied bldgs?
Blowing up laden trains?
Blowing up laden buses?
Blowing up coffee shops?
Blowing up wedding parties?
Blowing up churches?
Killing women and children?
Cutting the throats of people while video taping it?
Who is little ole me not to rejoice with these muslems and their 72 virgins.
For the Buddists I mourn, and the Christians I pray.
19. Jeremiah | May 7th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Freedom - It’s our God-given right to choose, and down through the ages it was the choice of many to willfully forfeit blood sweat and tears to defend it from generation to generation.
Ferocious battles were fought between those who believed in freedom’s cause which came through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which grants us every step of our freedom, and those who were of the mind of a Socialistic tyrannizing Atheist.
The end never justified the means … it was always for the continuation of protecting the homeland and echo freedom’s ring throughout all of these blessed States.
No one earthly human being can tell us our rights…then who? But that Being that reigns Eternally Supreme. And when we put our complete faith and trust in Him, then He shall put our enemies feet swiftly to flight, filling their hearts with the fear that seperates the light from the darkness. The blackest night cannot encroach upon His presence, because His power is beyond all extremes, and it brings joy and peace to those who are oppressed.
Therefore, let us be thankful, and lift our hearts to the Throne of Grace in praise!
Psalm 118:24 ‘For this is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.’
20. FmrMarine | May 7th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
bongo;
>>>>Many religions are practiced in Burma and religious edifices and religious orders have been in existence for many years and religious festivals can be held on a grand scale.
The Christian populations do, however, face religious persecution and it is hard, if not impossible, for non-Buddhists to join the army or get government jobs,<<<<
HMMMMMM
Christian PERSECUTION?
WHODA THUNK THAT!
QUICK all FREE Christian nations…….
lets send them BILLIONS of out tax dollars to help them stamp out…….Christians?? WTF?
21. What? | May 7th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Neocon writes:
“You do support abortion on demand, right?
You did not support removing Saddam, right?
I rest my case”
You support the death penalty.
You support a war that is currently costing the lives of Americans and Iraqis that is serving no discernable purpose in defeating the war on terror.
This is not celebrating death but it is certainly showing a lack of care when the government deals in it.
Also, the left doesn’t dance around every time there is an abortion. It is not a celebration. We support abortion because we believe compelling a mother to have a child she cannot support harms the woman, society, and ultimately the child. If the government we live under took it upon itself to raise these children, I may feel differently about abortion. However, considering conservatives like yourself who trumpet “personal responsibility” still have a modicrum of power I doubt that day will come.
22. Mark Noonan | May 7th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Steve,
Not in a civilization - like ours - based on Judeo-Christianity. I cannot compel you do to for me. When you speak of something like health care, if you compel me to provide it for you, then you are making my action worthless - a moral action, like providing assistence, requires that it be completely voluntary. Sin and saintliness must be freely chosen, or they are neither of them.
23. Mark Noonan | May 7th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Rana,
You didn’t read what I wrote with sufficient care - “at least potentially inherent to an individual human being” means that even the most helpless infant has it - he can’t speak or, indeed, really do anything for himself, but he has inherent to him all of those things possible for an individual human being. That he might be born with a birth defect preventing speech doesn’t negate his right to speak because as a human, he has the potential to speak.
The fundamental thing is that our rights are individual, not group - my rights do not depend upon my skin color, my sex, my nationality, my creed; they depend upon my individual humanity.
24. Mark Noonan | May 8th, 2008 at 1:06 am
majoriot,
Ok,
25. extramedium | May 8th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Fmr Marine - what happened to your comment where you rejoiced in the death of 60,000 innocent Muslims? It was the one in response to post #2 by Brett Michaels - the one where you said it was “not a bad day’s work”. It seems to have disappeared.
Have you found a way to delete comments that you regret making on B4V? Did you make a request for Mark to delete that?
26. extramedium | May 8th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Well, there - it reappeared!
27. FmrMarine | May 8th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
extra;
“Well, there - it reappeared!”
MAGIC!