Political Philosophy: Liberty and Rights
2. Where Do Rights Come From?
Aeon J. Skoble is a professor of philosophy at Bridgewater State University. His research in moral and political philosophy includes theories of rights, the nature and justification of authority, virtue ethics, and theories of legal interpretation.
Where do rights come from? Prof. Aeon J. Skoble claims there are several types of rights that come from various sources. For instance, voting rights and contract rights come from the legal system. Moral rights are the most controversial, with disagreements about their origin. Fortunately, despite these differences of opinion amongst classical liberals, the various theories of rights are similar in practice.
- The Philosophy of Liberty [Video] An ISIL animated video on the philosophy of liberty and self-ownership.
- Deontological Ethics [Article]: Larry Alexander and Michael Moore provide a concise summary of the philosophy of deontology, as contrasted with consequentialism.
- Rights [Article] A classic piece by Henry Hazlitt on rights and their many conceptions.
- Do Our Rights Come from the Constitution? [Article] Jacob G. Hornberger's look at where our rights come from.
Use these questions to enhance your understanding of the topic. We recommend watching the featured video first; the suggested resources will also help.
- Login or register to post comments
- Back to Top
Comments
This dialogue in the comments here reminds me of a debate I had with someone who claimed that the Jews consented to the holocaust just by being born into their situation and not making any attempt to resist:
http://stateexempt.com/wordpress/2011/08/11/the-most-pathological-argument-for-government-consent-i-have-ever-seen/
Aside from Mike Huben and a few other exceptions, do people really view that as a valid source of "social contract?'
Not a bad video, but it doesn't really address the question at all. The response given would have been adequate had the question been "utilitarianism or deontology: which is better?" But the real question at hand is actually something more along the lines of "why was David Hume wrong?" Any attempt to address the source of moral rights without at least discussing Hume's is-ought problem is necessarily incomplete.
There are many staunch libertarians out there who also happen to be error theorists. There are many more people out there who are error theorists (whether they know it or not) who might become libertarians if they could be persuaded that the two views are compatible. This video sort of implies that a person cannot be a libertarian without believing in the existence of moral rights. This is neither true nor a message from which our movement will benefit.
"This video sort of implies that a person cannot be a libertarian without believing in the existence of moral rights. This is neither true nor a message from which our movement will benefit."
I would disagree with you on this. If you don't believe in the existence of moral rights, then can you really say we have rights at all? What I’m saying is that if a right isn't endowed by nature or by god, then who endows it? It would only leave men to dictate rights to other men, and if they were not dictated they would be decided by consensus. I think the problem with this is that men are fallible, and if rights come from men then they too are fallible. A right that is fallible, or changeable by popular opinion is a right which is violable. And well....a right that is violable isn't much of a right.
The bottom line is this, rights which are not from outside the realm of man come from man. Rights which come from man are fallible and violable by man, and therefore what’s the point of having them in the first place?
We are a contract society and thus forfeit some rights for others. Man has both given and taketh away rights has he sees fit.
Can you show me my signature on this contract Mr. Commie?
Your birth alone was the signature on said contract. The Cathols call it 'Original Sin' so your wealth and liberty can be taken away.
Being born implies you have accepted a contract?
Did you have a choice in the matter of being born? I don't see what you are basing this concept on. Could I have contracted to be born to a different set of parents. Or chosen a different set of circumstances.
What? I am supposed to take my morality from a Religion who's only claim to fame are the failed Crusades, the horrific dark ages, and some other more modern sins which...well I don't need to name for everyone to know.
Critics of social contract theory argue that almost all persons grow up within an existing society, and therefore never have the choice of whether to enter into a social contract. Not having a choice, they say, makes any such contract void.
The original proponents of the social contract theory, John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, answered these critics, but not in a way that is entirely satisfactory. To understand how the social contract comes about, we need to look at the kinds of contract that prevail during each stage in the development of a human being in society.
Each of us begins life under the terms of a special kind of social contract called a filial contract, between a child and his parents, and by extension to his siblings. That contract is established at the moment of bonding between parents and child following birth, and the terms of the contract are that the child will provide the parents certain pleasures that come with parenthood, particularly the satisfaction of helping to form a happy and admirable adult, and support for the parents in their later years, and in turn receives their love, support, guidance, and protection during childhood.
Although a filial contract can exist in a family that is isolated from any larger society, when the parents join a society, they pool their rights and duties as parents with other members of that society, and thereby become agents of the larger society in the raising of their own children, and accountable to that larger society for doing so properly.
As a child grows, it encounters other members of the larger society, usually beginning with other children. Whenever any two or more individuals meet with the understanding and expectation that they will live together in harmony and not fight with one another using any available means, they are establishing a social contract among themselves. In most cases they will be contracting with persons who have already established such a contract with still other persons, so that the terms of the contract are not only to live in harmony with those in direct contact, but also with all those with whom each of the parties is already engaged in a social contract, and by extension, to all others that those are in a social contract with, and so on. In other words, the social contract is transitive: if a is in a social contract with b, and b with c, then a is in a social contract with c. In this way each of us is bound under a social contract with all the other members of the society, most of whom we have never met.
As a person makes the transition from childhood to adulthood, his obligations change to match his abilities, and the filial contract gives way to the larger social contract and obligations to larger communities at the local, provincial, national, and global levels.
Of course, the social contracts of several societies may not extend to one another, giving rise to tribes or nations, whose members are bound by social contract within their membership, but are in a state of nature with respect to one another. If that state of nature involves active conflict, whether at the individual, tribal, or national level, it is said to be a state of war.
Did you copy this from wikipedia?
No liberal ever has a new or original idea but steal and manipulate other people's idea
I'll take that as a yes.