question on human rights

[Redlass]

I suppose the question becomes, then, whether a state grants rights or whether it recognizes rights.

I do tend to think there are certain rights that are inalienable. But the fact that certain rights are inalienable (and I would make the list much smaller than the one above), doesn't mean that a person can't voluntarily give them up.

Also, rights are frightening in part because the carry with them responsibilities and limitations. In order for a state to recognize rights, it has to trust its people and have created an environment in which people can be trusted. It's partly why it is a dicey situation for one country to go into another and "defend" their rights unless it is going to do major nation-building.

[5Cats]

Rights, as eris has mentioned, are only granted by the society you're in. Nothing is "inalienable" except wishes I suppose. You have the right to wish for a better life, to dream of something better.
Sometimes rights counter each other. The "Right" to own slaves is not congruent with the "Right" to freedom from slavery. Every working stiff I know is a wage-slave. Without their wages, they'd be throw to the wolves. So they have about as much freedom in our society as if they were wearing shackles.
Speaking of which, Redlass makes an interesting point. What about the "right" to trade our rights away? Some people voluntarily enter into a "Story of O" kind of relationship where they happily become a slave, an object & etc. Should we arrest them?
Marriage, divorce? How many wives/husbands do you have a right to? How easy/difficult should a divorce be? Should divorce be allowed at all? These are far from "inherent rights" I think, totally formed by society and/or religion.
So your professor is wrong Jade (in MHO) since there are no inherent rights at all.
We should count our many blessings that we sit in our warm dwellingplaces, typing away at our wonders of technology, all safe and secure. I know I do! It could all be gone in a flash.

[Redlass]

But then, are such things as the "right" to practice religion or to think one's own thoughts merely a gift of the state?

I would say that they are rights. However, the fact that they are rights is not a guarantee that you will have them. Rather, if a state takes away certain basic rights of its citizens, then it is an oppressive regime that lacks legitimacy. (Government, after all, is supposed to be for the sake of society, not for the sake of the rulers.) That being said, I would keep the list of "rights" very short and categorize the other things as "good things to have" or "important freedoms." However, those other things would also vary according to cultures and what the people within the community thinks is appropriate and necessary to make their society work in the way that is most desirable for them.

[erisesoteric]

Originally posted by Redlass:
But then, are such things as the "right" to practice religion or to think one's own thoughts merely a gift of the state?

<font size="2" face="Comic sans ms, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes... or conversely, they are what the people of the state have agreed is necessary. "The state" is not a nebulous, scary organization, gifted with powers from god, and instilled until the end of eternity. "The state" is simply what the people are putting up with for the time being.

As the people of the state become more educated and more capable of trusting each other, the powers of the state decline, and the people claim more of their "rights" and responsibilites as people.

Which, of course, does nothing to deny the fact that "the state" is made up of people as well... people with power, and the problem with power is that it makes one want to hold on to it. That power is often contingent upon restricting the rights of the people. And that is where oppression comes from... any given regime who is afraid of losing power will restrict rights.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 09, 2004 09:53 PM: Message edited by: eris esoteric ]</font>