[GN] How Real is a "Right"?
Tom Keske
Human beings talk all the time about rights that we have, or
rights that we don't have, but what do we really mean by
this? It is only rarely that we mean it in the narrow,
legalistic sense, which is probably the sense in which the
term has the most clear meaning.
If a state bans same-sex relations, we tend to think that we
still have a "right" to such things, but the right is simply not being
properly acknowledged.
One of the religious-conservative Presidential candidates
asked an audience of students where rights came from.
What it the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights?
No, he said, "Our rights come from God."
So there you have it. Our rights come from a giant,
invisible Unicorn in the Sky. What, however, should
be our conclusion, if we take the more sensible, atheistic
approach? Our rights come from the Unicorn in the Sky,
but there is really no Unicorn. Does this mean that we
really have no rights at all?
Even if there were a Unicorn in the Sky, what is gained
by arguing over how the Unicorn is really instructing us
as concerns our rights, instead of arguing about our
rights, themselves? The Unicorn is so incompetent at
resolving human disagreements, that it accomplishes
little more than to add a level of indirection to the dispute.
One point to be conceded to the "God" theory:
If the notion of "rights" were to have an absolute meaning,
independent of human values or opinions, then a God
is probably required in order to give existence and
authority to the right. There is little persuasive power
in other people's preferences.
Of course, if an all-powerful God gave authority
to rights, you might think that it would be no more possible
to violate a right, than to violate the Law of Gravity.
The fact that "rights" are violated so routinely is one
of the reasons to doubt God, or at least to doubt
that the God would be all-powerful.
If I state a proposition that "There is a heavy, iron
frying pan on the stove.", and you deny it, then I can
say, "If there is no frying pan on the stove, then surely
you wouldn't mind my taking the frying pan that isn't
really there, and hitting you over the head with it?"
Perhaps the hitting over the head with the allegedly
non-existing frying pan would knock some sense
into the doubter, proving that the frying pan was, after all,
real, despite all assertions to the contrary.
We can't do the same with God or with rights,
which is sad. A lofty "right" is not quite as real as
a frying pan, or at least, is not as easily provable.
Reality is whatever is leftover, after you have
finished firmly denying it, or proclaiming it to be
something different. Reality's most defining
characteristic is its immunity to our disbelief in it.
Perhaps that is part of the reason why the human
race is so unlikely to find familiarity with ultimate reality.
To hear the Founding Fathers' proclamations, you
would almost think that you could define "right" as
"a principle for governing society that is so obvious
and universally agreed upon that it is virtually undeniable."
Problem is, as a society we disagree bitterly, all the time,
over things which each side feels ought to be completely
obvious.
We could try to make a secular definition of
a "right" that would be independent of a human
observer's individual feelings: "A right is a principle
of government that maximizes the well-being of a
society."
It's a nice try, but it doesn't really work, either.
Instead of arguing interminably about what a "right"
is, we can argue interminably about what constitutes
"well-being", and how to prove what really maximizes
it. A society where everyone has total freedom, including
the freedom to walk naked in the park- is that the best of
all worlds, because freedom is maximized?
The evaluation of what is a "good" world is as personal
as the evaluation of what a "right" is.
The truth of most human affairs is that they are similar to a
large group of people in a room, arguing about whether
to turn a thermostat up or down. Some complain bitterly that
they are too cold, and argue heatedly that they want it
turned up. Others complain that is it already too hot, and
they want it turned down.
You could say that "majority should rule." Not even that is
obvious- it assumes that you have equal value of all people
in the group. What if the ones that say it's too cold are elderly,
whose metabolisms are slow? Should the majority of younger
people agree to suffer?
What if the majority is a group of nose-picking losers who killed
your dog and raped your spouse? What if they are cultist
religious-nuts who only say that they are hot or cold because
that is what their leader instructed them to say?
What if South Africans had been majority white? Should
blacks then have felt obligated to go along peacefully
with a system of apartheid, indefinitely, because a majority
had wished it? What if the issue had been slavery?
In many situations, we might care about the majority,
but what if we don't? Are we obligated?
The obligation would come from the Unicorn in the Sky.
It is not an inherent quality, like the hardness of a frying
pan, that exists independently of an observer. The notion
of deference to majority rule is simply another value
decision, like the original dispute about the setting
of the thermostat.
People want different things. They struggle. Somebody
wins, somebody loses. That is where the reality of it
ends. The rest is angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Whoever wins or loses- that is real. The question of
who "should" win is not persuasively real.
As for what you want, anything is fair game. There
exists no exterior authority, and there exists no system
of logic to questions of pure value.
Another great myth is the notion that a system of principles
and rights needs "logical consistency".
We value free speech. Many people think that this means
we are obligated to endure things that we may find disagreeable.
If carried to its logical extreme, this would be a radical view
that few people would share. If free speech rights were
*entirely* absolute, then we would have no such things
as libel laws. It would be legal to make overt and specific
threats, or to incite riots directly.
Some people say to draw only the most minimal restrictions
possible. But who draws that line? Maybe one person thinks
that pornography is across the minimal line, because it promotes
violence against women, and another thinks that porno is fine.
Where to draw that line is simply another thermostat dispute.
We should get it straight- when we develop a system of laws
there is no such requirement as "logical consistency". In any
situation, one value can always trump another. The value of
free speech is trumped by the value of personal safety, the
value of human dignity, the value society's overall well-being.
What constitutes an example of the "value" in action
is also a matter of personal preference and opinion.
An example is the "Dr. Laura" dispute. Supposedly, for
"logical consistency" we are obligated to tolerate Dr. Laura's
bigotry, so that in return, gay programming will not be censored.
We should consider such notions to be dubious, unless
we have worked out a specific deal, in the spirit of
practical horse-trading.
It is foolish of us unilaterally to accept Dr. Laura, then sit back
and wait for homophobes to follow suit, by being generous with
pro-gay programs, etc. When they don't, the imagined
"logical consistency" gives us a wonderful "right" to whine
about the "hypocrisy". What is that privilege really worth?
There is no such thing as hypocrisy in matters of value.
We value free speech, but make an exception if we feel
like it, e.g., if it is dehumanizing to a class of vulnerable
people. The consequences of that dehumanization, we consider
to be more detrimental to society, than the limitation on free
speech. The guiding rule is whatever we think best makes for
the society of our preference.
If you had the luxury of experimenting with different approaches
in parallel worlds, perhaps we could prove our feelings, but
probably, not even then. We would argue about which world
was better, instead of what kind of world would be produced
by certain decisions.
The bottom line: do not feel shackled in pursuing exactly what
you want, without regard to calls of "hypocrisy" or "inconsistency."
We've been trampled all the time, e.g., when gays are forbidden in
the military, but blacks are not. The cries of "hypocrisy"
and "dual standard" get us nothing. Neither should we
straight-jacket ourselves with imagined requirements for
"logical consistency". You can value whatever you please, in any
combinations, with any exceptions that you please.
There is no such thing as a provably "symmetric" situation.
You make the situations different by attaching different
values to them. We argue that laws that apply to racial
minorities should apply to gays. The Religious Right argues
that gays don't deserve the same treatment by classifying us
differently, according to a value judgment. Skin color
is "benign", sexual orientation is "wrong". That supposedly
"justifies" the difference.
It is meaningless to fault these attitudes "logically". However, neither
are we obligated or restrained in how we pursue our quest
for the "rights" that we want. You can "justify" open revolt
simply by saying "I attach that much value to this issue."
Value differences are like opinion differences over the beauty
or lack thereof, of a piece of modern art. One person pronounces
that they adore the modern art sculpture, and acts as if
you therefore should also like it. If you loathe it, well, then you
are a very ignorant and bad person.
Human beings routinely act as if their personal modern-art
evaluations are God's own pronouncements, constituting
an obligation of agreement on fellow human beings.
The implications of the more sensible, secular philosophy have
potential to be anarchistic, which may seem rather paradoxical.
However, the outlook need not dictate anarchy, depending on how
much we de-value anarchy, compared to how much we value change.
You have no obligation to be persuaded by the Constitution
of the United States, nor by majority rule, any more than you have
obligation to be moved by someone else's taste in art, if you are not
naturally inclined to give deference to that person's opinion.
You might start to think that we have no "real" rights,
but that is missing the point. The Religious Right tends
to conceive of "secular humanism" as meaning that all
values are equal, and therefore we are supposedly
obligated to treat them as if they are equal.
It is more correct to say that all statements of value
are equally meaningless, than to say to that they are
of equal weight. A value statement is an emotional
expression that we may or may not share. That fact
that a value does not have "absolute" meaning does not
restrict us from pursuing the implementation of that
value, as if it were real. For all practical purposes, if
you persuade a society to go along with a certain idea,
it is effectively "real" as if it had been proclaimed by
the Unicorn in the Sky.
The rights that you have- really have- are precisely
those rights that you care about enough, fight for
successfully, and manage to establish as society's
convention. You can value whatever you please,
want whatever "rights" you please, use whatever
means to obtain them that you please- with the caveat
that you have to live with fellow human beings, and
accept the real-world, practical consequences of
every action that you take.
Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Zeke Krahlin
> The rights that you have- really have- are precisely
> those rights that you care about enough, fight for
> successfully, and manage to establish as society's
> convention.
As usual, Tom, you cut to the quick, and get to the heart of the matter.
All the Constitution with its appending Bill of Rights is, is a collection
of words. And these words propose generalized guidelines to preserve and
evolve a "democracy". Being mere words, they can always be defined in many
ways, especially when strung together into sentences and paragraphs. I
can't think of any passage from our Rights that can't be construed to
justify the most heinous sort of crimes that would make a Nazi grin with
sadistic delight.
The nature of a democracy--even in a Republic framework--is such that it
can only work based on mutual *trust of all citizens. In other words, a
democracy is the most vulnerable of all forms of government, to
corruption. The *only way for a democracy to succeed, is to provide a
well-rounded, quality education for all people. And that is *exactly what
our present system has *not done. Since the imagined threat of The Free
Speech Movement (as symbolized by that "horrid drug" marijuana), the
powers that be have quite effectively sabotaged our public education
system, so that for the last 25 years, we have been graduating our youth
from high school with no better a third grade level in English and Math.
So we presently must deal with a dumbed-down society...which, of course,
also means a virulently homophobic one.
Therefore, the ongoing, longterm tactic of "educating" heteros about gay
people, is not the most effective one to use any more. In fact, it is
deleterious and obstructive to our progress towards gaining equality. What
*will work (I believe) are aggressive, forceful tactics on many fronts.
Poorly educated people will not listen to reason (they don't have the
intellectual tools to do so); but they *do listen to cries of outrage,
noisy and irritating dissent, and suffering a bit of the pain that remains
the lot of gay people in this country. THEY NEED TO KNOW TERRORISM AS
REALITY.
So we need an intelligent, united, aggressive community with a real sense
of self-worth and identity...if we are to pull this off. Therefore, those
few who already possess an activist yearning, should do the grunt work of
inspiring the rest of us to obtain a righteous sensibility.
---
Final Testament
http://surf.to/gaybible
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/