A problem for equal rights: Philosophy Forums

A problem for equal rights

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 08/06/09 - 02:22 PM: Subject: A problem for equal rights	#1
It seems that either everyone should not have equal rights or it doesn't much matter whether they do. Children should not be allowed to cast valid ballots, so either they shouldn't have the right to vote, or somehow having the right to vote is consistent with not being allowed to cast valid ballots. If the first is true, then everyone should not have equal rights. The second could be true if we allow the right to vote to be nuanced or conditionalized: maybe the right to vote is the right to cast valid ballots if you're an adult. Equal rights could be a good idea in that case. If we're allowed to build in conditions to rights, then we could easily define the rights so that everyone could have them. So if we still don't give everyone equal rights, it's a clear case of special pleading. On the second option, then, everyone ought to have equal rights. But it doesn't much matter. If we don't want blacks to drink at the same fountains as whites, we just give everyone the right to drink at these fountains if you're white.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 08/06/09 - 11:27 PM:	#2
There is a difference in your two examples. The right to vote, subject to age, and conformity to the law, is available to all - it is universal, in that children grow up. Black people do not grow white, as a rule. I'm not quite clear what the problem is?
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Heterotheist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 79

Posted 08/07/09 - 01:46 PM:	#3
To me, the notion of a right inherently includes both inalienability, and no conditions more exclusive than being a human being. Other rights language is an unfortunate linguistic appropriation. The right to vote shouldn't be conflated with the more fundamental right of expression -- the right to vote is not a right in that sense; it excludes children by prudence. Usage of the word right in everyday language, as a "power word" to bust out when a particularly righteous and indignant individual wants something with a little more heft than "deserve", is even worse: "waitaminute, I have the right to park here!" etc.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 08/07/09 - 02:08 PM:	#4
unenlightened wrote: Black people do not grow white, as a rule. Yes, and we just lost our most notable exception. The problem (I'm thinking) is that it often seems best to distribute rights unequally. There are reasons, along the lines of modesty and reduction of harassment, to give males the right to certain restrooms and females, others. This seems especially forceful since in the civil rights movement equal rights were taken specifically to include the right to same restrooms. Maybe that means rights shouldn't be equal -- or that males and females should use the same restrooms. Or maybe we've misidentified the right: it's really the right to use the restroom appropriate for your sex. But then the injunction to have equal rights has little force. Why not a universal right to use restrooms appropriate for your race? You may be suggesting that we can give "nuanced" rights if they turn into "simple" rights at the same time for everyone. That might work for voting, but what about restrooms?

Octopus
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 32

Posted 08/07/09 - 03:29 PM:	#5
#1 You don't seem to be allowing for whether the restriction can be justified or not. Children are not emotionally or physically mature enough to be allowed to do certain things like wield power or drink alcohol. They are not equal to adults in the important regards. So equal rights if genuinely equal. In what pertinent ways are black people not equal to white people in terms of drinking water?

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 08/07/09 - 07:01 PM:	#6
Heterotheist wrote: To me, the notion of a right inherently includes both inalienability, and no conditions more exclusive than being a human being. If you're correct, rights could be equal -- but they wouldn't be numerous. Notice that almost any right is commonly thought to have exceptions. You have the right to life -- unless you're an enemy soldier. And the right to liberty -- unless you're a criminal. And the right to property -- unless you have to pay child support.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 08/07/09 - 07:13 PM:	#7
Octopus wrote: You don't seem to be allowing for whether the restriction can be justified or not. Maybe that's it. We could remove, or at least reduce, the problem making it certain that everyone has equal rights, and making a presumption that that they be simple. Rights should only be complicated if there's a special justification; although that may happen frequently, this rule could eliminate the most egregious biases. Like cases, after all, should be treated alike. Okay, problem solved.

Vulcan23
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 24

Posted 08/10/09 - 09:42 AM:	#8
Your a doctor. You have two patients in critical condition. One will live the other will not. One's a 15yr old boy. One's the president. Whats the obvious choice?

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 08/10/09 - 10:37 AM:	#9
I think inherent right is really nothing more than a political spin to positive liberty; rules made by politicians that are only as inherent as it is enforced. Each right comes with a certain interest to the person who came up with it. I think the problem even if we have rights that seems universal, the result can still be exclusive. For example, rights to own property really doesn't mean much to the homeless. Or, say I make a new right call "right to clean air". Sure it is universal to everyone, but is that really equal? Or just a hammer against smokers/drivers/heavy industries? Likewise, justifying unequal right is limited by those who are in the position to make the justification. "Separate but equal" was well justified for a time.
Keep it simple.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2253

Posted 08/10/09 - 02:07 PM:	#10
Rights are just certain privileges elevated towards a more universal application. The term "equal rights" is just an attempt to make permanent this universal elevation of privilege. Either way, there is no such thing as a right if it can be taken away or otherwise limited.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.