Well, since "the creator" is another myth that doesn't help much.

And I pretty well know how and why they fit into the US constitution, but that isn't really my point.

The idea that they might be innate, to me, seems to have some rational base, but only in the most general of senses. When you get down to any specifics then problems emerge.

So, for example, I'm mildly offended by the view that I have a right to bear arms, particularly when that supposed right cannot be "infringed". I find it offensive for people to suggest I have such a "right" when I don't want it for myself and certainly don't want it for others. Rights are things you fight for and your ancestors fought for. They are the product of struggle. They aren't handed out by some creator or other, they are created by us and we shouldn't pretend otherwise!!

And while I might be mildly offended a sixteenth century Japanese samurai would either be totally outraged or totally bemused by the suggestion (like an 18th century slave owner) that everyone has an "unhindered right to bear arms".

The creator thingie is another piece to the propaganda puzzle.

The 2nd amendment made sense to them because they were concerned about a tyrant depriving them of the means to resist. And they didn't all live check by jowl and drive each other stark raving homicidally crazy, as we do now. They didn't watch shows five hours per day where people are getting their jollies shooting each other, as we do. So arms were not a problem, as they are now. It made sense then, it doesn't now.

And I do not think the right to pack heat was one of the rights Jefferson thought the creator had in mind. The second is an anomaly.

The money men write the laws to their own benefit.

It made sense then, it doesn't now.

Exactly! That's my point. If that's the case then rights aren't "inherent" or "inalienable". They can, and should, change over time.

Is there any right you think is inherent or inalienable, either one?

Nope Gramps. Not a one.
Of course, that doesn't mean we don't have rights.

What about the idea of "human rights"? Is that bunk?

No, it isn't "bunk" but it doesn't mean that one automatically has them.

Maybe we should call them "oughts". They ought to be automatic an unalienable.

I think the word "rights" has been so overused that its become less and less useful Gramps, but that isn't really my point. I'll try to use a non-trivial sense of the word here.

Are there such a thing as "human rights"? In this case it seems that the word "rights" is being used to refer to a set of liberal ideas about the way human beings should treat each other. I have no problem with that, although I recognise that some of the things on the "standard list" are, at the very least, controversial.

But all that means to me is that some of these are ideals worth striving for. Both the formulation of these ideals and the struggle for there implementation are a product of our history, not of any creator endowed, inherent or inalienable, set of rules.

The thing to consider is that although these notions have spread almost world-wide and are given lip-service by most, they are by no means universal. That's a western European vanity. If you look at a place like China you don't find any real tradition of some of the central tenets that we take for granted.
There are other kinds of cultures and other kinds of historical experience we need to at least be aware of.

Even the ancient Greeks, for example, embraced a "virtue ethic". It wasn't a matter of what you actually did, but how you were considered. If, at the end of your life you can look back and say "people will remember me with respect" then you had succeeded.

There are African tribes where justice is dispensed not on the grounds of truth and falsity but on the perceived effect a decision will have on the social cohesion of the group.

In warrior cultures personal honor outweighs any other consideration, and so on.

While I'd put myself firmly in the western cultural tradition when it comes to "rights" I think they have to justified. Going to the rest of the world and saying "these are the rights all human beings have because they were given to us by the creator, and they are the rights you should also embrace, since you already have them in any case" seems to me to be the height of hubris and arrogance.

So, I guess my simple answer is "no".

"Ought" doesn't help Gramps. Remember there are significant groups in your country that think that 5 year olds "ought" to be trained in how to use machine guns and that Blacks and Women "ought" to know their place.

The notion of "rights" provides a good retort to that kind of view, but we shouldn't give them more import than they deserve. They had a significant use as ideological weapons, but their edge is certainly being blunted.

This'll be mostly incoherent random thoughts, but:

I think this discussion started out as a disagreement (not a quarrel) about the appropriateness of "unalienable" used to describe rights. We've come around to doubting that rights exist at all. At least universally. From the discussion so far, it seems a right, if it even exists, has to derive from something, some authority has to confer it. Whatever the authority - creator, culture, custom or ones own iron will - if it can confer something, then it can also un-confer it. Even Jefferson's creator might decide to smite some poor schmuck for good reason, and there goes the unalienable right to life. So I have been convinced that No, as long as rights derive from some authority, they are by definition not unalienable. The most I can say is that they ought not be alienated.

But that's troubling. If there is no such thing as basic, universal human rights, then what's really wrong with slavery, misogyny and torture in places where the local, controlling authority practices it? Obviously customs and mores vary from place to place, and from epoch to epoch, but are the Golden Rule and the concept of the dignity and worth of the individual really just Western European vanity?

Anyway, our controlling authority is our Constitution, which is a written description of the way things ought to be, not necessarily the way things were at the time it was written. And it doesn't say we have rights, either. It just prohibits government preventing us from doing the stuff we'd do if we had rights, and gives us a framework for hashing out our disagreements about our inevitably conflicting rights. That's unalienable enough for me.

Regarding: "But all that means to me is that some of these are ideals worth striving for. Both the formulation of these ideals and the struggle for there implementation are a product of our history, not of any creator endowed, inherent or inalienable, set of rules." Point conceded.

I hope this doesn't sound insulting Gramps but I think a lot of the problems I see are a product of most people in the USA's belief that there s something "special", even "sacred", about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, The "founding fathers" are treated with a kind of awe. Its a bit like the way some people see the Bible as the "Word of God" - divinely inspired.
And, in a very real sense, they are presented in that way.

It means that some Americans simply can't get their head around the notion that there can be a different foundation to rights. So, for example a quite different way to describe the foundation of rights - called utilitarianism - was developed in Britain in the 19th Century, based on the basic notion that Law should be founded on "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". Its got its own problems for sure but the point is that it doesn't tie down rights to some specific set of pre-ordained rules for behaviour. They can change and fluctuate as society changes.

I don't think its valid, either, to conflate "rights" and "morality" or "ethics".

I could say a lot more on this subject, but I'm probably already boring you to death.

but I'm probably already boring you to death.

Not boring me or my wife at all.

Not boring me either ~

Sooz

Carry on, Cattleman.

I suppose the first thing then is to try and show the distinction between "rights" and "morality" or "ethics" (I'll run these together for the sake of convenience).

"Rights" to me seem to be almost invariably connected to legal issues. I suppose that isn't necessarily the case but in practice they certainly tend to be. When you claim a "right" you are typically looking for some kind of legal protection or redress. But we aren't doing that when we look at morality (and even less so when we look at ethics) and I at least am very glad about that. There are very many things that I'd regard as immoral, but I wouldn't for a second want them to be illegal. If we try to do that then we end up with Deuteronomy and stoning adulterers and fornicators. I think that being disrespectful to your parents is usually "immoral", but I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail for it.

Perhaps even more importantly, there are many moral precepts like the "golden rule" mentioned by Gramps which don't even have any clear way of being translated into a law of any kind. So, while moral precepts might well be used as one of the reasons used to promote the acceptance of a particular "right" or "law", as it was with slavery, its rarely sufficient in itself to be convincing (as was also the case with slavery). "Rights" can also be justified from a largely non-moral and pragmatic basis. I mean, look at most of the amendments in the bill of rights. While "moral" language might be used they are pretty much all pragmatic in character. The "right to bear arms" is justified, for example, because its seen as a bastion against tyranny.

The point is that the foundations of Law and the foundations of morality aren't the same thing at all and why you don't need some notion of "inherent rights" to oppose things like slavery, misogyny or torture. All you need is to be able to say they are wrong, or dysfunctional, or counter-productive or ineffective, or repugnant, or .........

Which brings us to the question of "authority".

But I've run out of steam for the moment ....

Nothing you wrote is insulting in the least, Cattleman. I hope you will say more about it.

I am embarrassed by the deification of The Founders (Peace be upon them). It's stupid for them to be depicted as giants among men, without self-interest, striving only for the good of mankind by establishing a shining city on the hill, blah blah blah. Also object to the Biblification of the Constitution, as though it were holy writ. It's a good working document, a good template for setting up a country and defining responsibilities and (forgive me) rights. It shouldn't be mistaken for inerrant holy scripture.

But this country was conquered and settled by religious fanatics, after all. We've had two Great Awakening revival movements, and we're in the middle of the third. So maybe it's not surprising that we feel we need founding Deity and a mystical Constitution.

You saying what I've been telling people for years...Don't confuse sin with crime, and do not seek to criminalize sin! Jesus is not eligible to vote in the US, and is not qualified for office (although there shall be no religious test for office, per the Constitution). Neither is Mohammed.

I question, though, the idea that law and society's moral/ethical culture don't have overlapping foundations. It seems self-evident that they do. If pragmatism were the bedrock foundation of law, slavery might be perfectly fine. Torture would be a no-brainer, do it! But those things are NOT perfectly fine to us because, as you say, they're wrong. But why are they wrong? Why care if somebody gets captured and dragged across the ocean in chains to hoe cotton for the rest of his life, if not because that treatment violates your expectation that people have a right to be their own masters? It's the violation of that man's inherent right to be his own master that makes slavery wrong. That conviction is part of my moral (not religious) code, and a foundation of our laws against slavery.

Further, I think that law regarding human interaction has its fundamental basis in human empathy. It's the vital component of our nature that makes it possible to live together. When someone's injured we wince, we render aid. We trust others to feel the same if we're hurt, or stolen from, etc. In a fundamental way our law proceeds from that, and so the Golden Rule really does underlie our concept of rights and laws.

Don't mean to hijack this thread by going off on a tangent, but I just had a random thought ~

I [personally] don't so much "deify" our founders, but I do marvel at how our founding documents were written as "living documents" ~ iow, allowing [forcing?] room for interpretation as the times [including morals and ethics] change ~ I see that as pure genius ~

Sooz

That's exactly how English common law evolved, sooz.
However, I think that by attempting to codify the intangible prevented US law to evolve as quickly as English common law.

The debate in this country now is about whether it really is a living document. The "originalists", like Scalia, don't think so. To me, if you can't infer from it then it's useless.

But its hardly special sooz. just about all constitutions have those features. As Oskar says its pretty much how English common law evolved. And "Common Law" is part of the British (and Australian and Canadian) "constitutions". Of course, their Constitutions are very different beasts to the US's.

As Edmund Burke put it: A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation., and Burke is generally considered to be the father of "classical conservatism". Interestingly, he was also a supporter of the Americans in their struggle against British rule, but not because he thought their "natural human rights were being violated" but because he thought their "Rights as Englishmen" were being violated.

Its interesting to note that many commentators have seen the Bill of Rights as simply an attempt to codify British Common Law of the time, and its certainly true that the amendments contained in the Bill are far more difficult to change than the kind of evolution that British Common law undergoes all the time.

Part of the problem I see is that the US idea of what a constitution should look like has become so pervasive that its effecting other constitutional forms, largely to their detriment.

I wasn't really suggesting that Law and Morality are totally separate spheres Gramps. Obviously morality has a significant input into Law. I'm just pointing out that law has lots of inputs, and morality is only one of them. There is a lot of law which, as far as I can see, has virtually no "moral" input at all. After all, what's the "morality" behind the fact that you drive on the right and I drive on the left? So what I'm suggesting is that the foundations of Law and Morality aren't the same. In fact, I doubt very much that Law has A bedrock at all, while I think morality possibly does.

Lets look at your example of the slave (its a very good one). You say:

But why are they wrong? Why care if somebody gets captured and dragged across the ocean in chains to hoe cotton for the rest of his life, if not because that treatment violates your expectation that people have a right to be their own masters? It's the violation of that man's inherent right to be his own master that makes slavery wrong. That conviction is part of my moral (not religious) code, and a foundation of our laws against slavery.


What I would say is: Slavery is wrong!
(got to go - computer room is being taken over - back later).