Difference between natural right, legal right
Answers
Answered by
4
Natural and legal rights:-
In the current debates about gay marriage and union contracts, the casual way in which the word "rights" has been tossed about is disturbing. The misuse of this word leads to sloppy thinking and increases the power and influence of propagandists and special interest groups.
Is there a "right," for example, for what the Iowa Constitution calls a "class of citizens" to marry who they choose? Are there any such things as "workers' rights," as the term has been used by the Wisconsin mobs and the adoring press that parrots the daily talking points?
The misuse of words has consequences. My students, many of whom are very bright, can't be opposed to same-sex marriage, not because of any moral argument, but simply because they don't have the words to formulate the logic of such an opposition.
In linguistics there is a proposition called the Sapir-Wharf Hypothesis.
Basically, this idea states that how we think and what we think is determined to some degree by the words and the meaning of words that are available to us.
If our concept of "rights" is sloppy, then our thinking about "rights" becomes sloppy.
There are natural and legal rights. Natural rights are those defined beautifully in the Declaration of Independence:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Legal rights are the privileges given to citizens by their governments.
People who want ever larger governments are especially enamored by the concept of legal rights and have a tendency to say that all rights are legal.
The same group of people, however, will talk about "human rights" and how a government at some place or time is denying these rights.
Legal rights cannot be denied. They either exist or they do not. To say that "human rights" are being denied by a government is to say that human rights are, in fact, natural rights.
It is an advantage to propagandists to be able to switch between these two meanings with ease, coming down on whichever side benefits their cause.
The "workers' rights" being talked about in Wisconsin are not natural rights, they are legal.
What a state government can give, it can also take away. To suggest that Wisconsin is violating the rights of unionized workers is, at best, uninformed, and at worst, purposeful misinformation, or what our ancestors called "a lie."
The use of the word "rights" in connection with gay marriage is a bit more complicated, but not any less deceptive, because there is another difference between natural and legal rights.
Natural rights are yours even if a government didn't exist. I have the right to free speech unless it is taken away, and it comes at no direct cost to others.
Legal rights typically don't exist unless the government takes something from one person and gives it to another. For example, you have no natural right to a minimum wage. The government must force another citizen to give up something for that legal right to exist.
Many have argued that gay marriage is benign because it does not restrict the freedom or property of anybody else. No. It must do so because legal rights can only be bestowed by the limitations of other rights or freedoms.
In the current debates about gay marriage and union contracts, the casual way in which the word "rights" has been tossed about is disturbing. The misuse of this word leads to sloppy thinking and increases the power and influence of propagandists and special interest groups.
Is there a "right," for example, for what the Iowa Constitution calls a "class of citizens" to marry who they choose? Are there any such things as "workers' rights," as the term has been used by the Wisconsin mobs and the adoring press that parrots the daily talking points?
The misuse of words has consequences. My students, many of whom are very bright, can't be opposed to same-sex marriage, not because of any moral argument, but simply because they don't have the words to formulate the logic of such an opposition.
In linguistics there is a proposition called the Sapir-Wharf Hypothesis.
Basically, this idea states that how we think and what we think is determined to some degree by the words and the meaning of words that are available to us.
If our concept of "rights" is sloppy, then our thinking about "rights" becomes sloppy.
There are natural and legal rights. Natural rights are those defined beautifully in the Declaration of Independence:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Legal rights are the privileges given to citizens by their governments.
People who want ever larger governments are especially enamored by the concept of legal rights and have a tendency to say that all rights are legal.
The same group of people, however, will talk about "human rights" and how a government at some place or time is denying these rights.
Legal rights cannot be denied. They either exist or they do not. To say that "human rights" are being denied by a government is to say that human rights are, in fact, natural rights.
It is an advantage to propagandists to be able to switch between these two meanings with ease, coming down on whichever side benefits their cause.
The "workers' rights" being talked about in Wisconsin are not natural rights, they are legal.
What a state government can give, it can also take away. To suggest that Wisconsin is violating the rights of unionized workers is, at best, uninformed, and at worst, purposeful misinformation, or what our ancestors called "a lie."
The use of the word "rights" in connection with gay marriage is a bit more complicated, but not any less deceptive, because there is another difference between natural and legal rights.
Natural rights are yours even if a government didn't exist. I have the right to free speech unless it is taken away, and it comes at no direct cost to others.
Legal rights typically don't exist unless the government takes something from one person and gives it to another. For example, you have no natural right to a minimum wage. The government must force another citizen to give up something for that legal right to exist.
Many have argued that gay marriage is benign because it does not restrict the freedom or property of anybody else. No. It must do so because legal rights can only be bestowed by the limitations of other rights or freedoms.
Similar questions