Philosophy Now Forum

as a leftie, i'm sometimes surprised by the advocacy some of my fellow travellers have for the concept of rights.
I agree with many things that people might want to enshrine in a constitution, or bill of rights ie the right to free speech (within boundaries), but wonder why they need to frame these ideas in terms of rights, why not see these things as part of an ongoing political discourse.
The problem with rights is that they can enshrine things that following generations might not agree with (the right to bare arms), they tend not to do what they claim to do (slavery existed long after the creation of the US constitution), they are undemocratic (they are usually made by elites and imposed on society, who then find it difficult to change them).
Paradoxically once a nation decides through it's democracy that the time is right to implement a bill of rights and a constitution, there's no need for it to have a constitution. The urge of that society to defend what we call human rights is a measure of the ethical maturity of that society and a more robust sign that the defence of what are now called 'rights' will be maintained.
I'd just add that I live in the UK where we now have a de facto bill of rights the European Convention on Human Rights.

adge wrote:as a leftie, i'm sometimes surprised by the advocacy some of my fellow travellers have for the concept of rights.
I agree with many things that people might want to enshrine in a constitution, or bill of rights ie the right to free speech (within boundaries), but wonder why they need to frame these ideas in terms of rights, why not see these things as part of an ongoing political discourse.
The problem with rights is that they can enshrine things that following generations might not agree with (the right to bare arms), they tend not to do what they claim to do (slavery existed long after the creation of the US constitution), they are undemocratic (they are usually made by elites and imposed on society, who then find it difficult to change them).
Paradoxically once a nation decides through it's democracy that the time is right to implement a bill of rights and a constitution, there's no need for it to have a constitution. The urge of that society to defend what we call human rights is a measure of the ethical maturity of that society and a more robust sign that the defence of what are now called 'rights' will be maintained.
I'd just add that I live in the UK where we now have a de facto bill of rights the European Convention on Human Rights.

You have only to look at the 'wonderful' UN universal declaration of human rights to know that they are only so much hot air. They are little more than a list of aspirations. The majority of humans do not have most of these rights, and almost none have them all.
I think the use they have is that any one can use them as a stick to beat their rulers over the head with, if they get the chance to acquire the political power to urge change. For that they have their uses.
The truth is that they provide a standard upon which to judge.

I do not agree that once the country decides through its democracy to have rights, that it no longer needs to have a statement of those rights. Keeping rights maintained is a continual battle that is trodden on with each new generation of politicians who use just about any excuse to squash those rights.
Rights diluted and lost in the UK in recent years.
Habeus Corpus
Double Jeopardy
Right to open assembly.
Right to privacy
right to protest.
And you think we have no need to continue the right for rights?

Please...........!

I'm a lefty too but these rights have been removed mainly by the party that is supposed to represent us.

chaz wyman wrote:

adge wrote:as a leftie, i'm sometimes surprised by the advocacy some of my fellow travellers have for the concept of rights.
I agree with many things that people might want to enshrine in a constitution, or bill of rights ie the right to free speech (within boundaries), but wonder why they need to frame these ideas in terms of rights, why not see these things as part of an ongoing political discourse.
The problem with rights is that they can enshrine things that following generations might not agree with (the right to bare arms), they tend not to do what they claim to do (slavery existed long after the creation of the US constitution), they are undemocratic (they are usually made by elites and imposed on society, who then find it difficult to change them).
Paradoxically once a nation decides through it's democracy that the time is right to implement a bill of rights and a constitution, there's no need for it to have a constitution. The urge of that society to defend what we call human rights is a measure of the ethical maturity of that society and a more robust sign that the defence of what are now called 'rights' will be maintained.
I'd just add that I live in the UK where we now have a de facto bill of rights the European Convention on Human Rights.

You have only to look at the 'wonderful' UN universal declaration of human rights to know that they are only so much hot air. They are little more than a list of aspirations. The majority of humans do not have most of these rights, and almost none have them all.
I think the use they have is that any one can use them as a stick to beat their rulers over the head with, if they get the chance to acquire the political power to urge change. For that they have their uses.
The truth is that they provide a standard upon which to judge.

I do not agree that once the country decides through its democracy to have rights, that it no longer needs to have a statement of those rights. Keeping rights maintained is a continual battle that is trodden on with each new generation of politicians who use just about any excuse to squash those rights.
Rights diluted and lost in the UK in recent years.
Habeus Corpus
Double Jeopardy
Right to open assembly.
Right to privacy
right to protest.
And you think we have no need to continue the right for rights?

Please...........!

I'm a lefty too but these rights have been removed mainly by the party that is supposed to represent us.

But it's recent years that the UK has been signed up to the ECHR (2000) and yet the 'rights' you've referred to have been undermined by the state-as they always are, both here and elsewhere.
You're point that rights provide some kind of bullwalk against excessive state oppression and allow the individual to make claims upon it is precisely what rights are meant to be about. But rights can only be realised in a context that allows their implementation to flourish, which requires a society that is both at ease with and is keen to defend them-by which point, they're hardly necessary.
The US is a good example since it's constitution is widely known and historically long lived.
I gave the example of slavery, which is no small point against the idea that a constitution can somehow transcend the political regime which would be required to uphold it's tenets, and defend it's citizens.
De facto slavery existed long after reconstruction, and segregation too. It wasn't the constitution that magically intervened to put an end to slavery and segregation, but the will of enough people who fought and in many cases died to change the situation. I could easily mention women's rights (some 1960's women's equality legislation that was easily implemented in the UK was never formally implemented in the US because of constitutional difficulties), gay rights, workers rights etc
I have had literally many conversations with Americans who have an inflated view of how the constitution has worked for the people, historically speaking, i think this has the effect of leading to blind faith in it, well at least up to a point.
There's also the problem that a constitution can enshrine and impose things on a populous which are in effect a millstone around it's neck-the right to bare arms might seem like a good a idea in 1776, but how many have been the victims of the fact that it legitimates a culture of violence, linking it directly to a specific idea of nationalism and what it is to be American-namely the constitution.

At the risk of rambling on here, i'll add footnote-the fusion of church and state that's existed in England since Henry vIII, may have inadvertently made the official religion less proselytising, in sharp contrast to the Churches in the US. An 18th century notion to allow the populous to get rid of kings may have helped the churches.

For myself, I like to put 'human lefts' before 'human rights'. There is an over abundance of rights and that needs to be counterbalanced.