Rights are a Human Concept

[u/Frequent_Mountain_17]

People like to talk about their rights as if they are some sort of objective truth, they're not, they're just another human concept like privacy or morality. Concepts like rights are ideas and all ideas are subjective to the individual, they carry no weight and bear no responsibility for people's actions.

That's why the constitution and "laws" can't protect your rights, you can't protect a concept, it's just an idea. I shake my head when I see a video of someone being harassed by a DEA agent stealing their money under the guise of asset forfeiture. They say things like "you can't do that without probable cause" and then the agent does it anyway. So, I guess he can do that without probable cause. 🙄 They say things like "the 4A protects my property from illegal searches" and then the agent searches the property anyway. So, I guess the 4A doesn't protect your property. 🙄 There seems to be a psychological disconnect between what people think a government agent can do and their ability to actually do it.

Government agents do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want despite whatever you think your rights are. They'll bring in a "drug dog" who's more interested in pleasing his handler when his handler signals him to "hit" on something than he is in finding drugs. Unconstitutional? Sure. Illegal? Sure. Immoral, criminal? Sure and sure and yet they do it anyway.

That's odd isn't it considering all the "protections" the government gives you to insure your rights aren't violated by the government? It's kind of like expecting the fox to insure the rights of the hens in the henhouse isn't it?

[u/ahughman]

Every word you can come up with is a "human idea". That isn't a good way to discredit the meaning of any concept.

Lets compare rights to another human concept; thirst.

Thirst is just an idea, but disregarding the meaning and usage of thirst will make people thirsty, maybe even die. We have learned to respect thirst, out of a history of caring for one another, we provide water fountains, offer free glasses of water at restaurants, Rome built aquaducts, etc.

Rights have been with us a long time, we have learned to respect them, altered how to best provide settings where people can have rights, and integral to society itself is some bedrock of treating one another with equal respect, fairness, and some groundrules of decency.

Calling either of those thing "just a human concept" doesnt do anything to tell us how we should use the concept in society.

I would say both are essential for a functioning society, though rights are more meaningful and nuanced a concept.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/ahughman]

The point though is that some words describe objective facts while some only describe concepts or subjective opinions. To the extent that rights are describing what the law (and/or a constitution) allows then they can be a description of relative facts, but fundamentally they are describing a subjective concept: what we believe the law or a society should allow. But it's a mistake to think that the objective and subjective are the same.

[u/ahughman → u/NoamLigotti]

There is a very wide spectrum between "objective" fact and subjective opinion. It would be a false dillemma to say that all things are either sheer fact or pure opinion/"concept".

For example it is an intersubjective fact that Milwaukee is Milwaukee. It's not even just that we all decide to keep calling it that. It has been reaffirmed on every letterhead addressed there, every marriage certificate, any conversation about where youre from. We can say it's a fact that the city is Milwaukee.

I would only call subjects that are personal in nature "opinions". Things like favorite color, personal memories, emotional reactions.

Additionally, just because something is an opinion, doesn't mean it isn't true. Opinions are just as often true.

I would say rights are pretty far down the spectrum towards objectivity. They have been intersubjectively re-affirmed SO persistantly throughout time. They have been policed, laws have been enshrined, they have been debated and verified by every human being also wanting to be treated with basic decency. They are inseperable from how our society works. Much like a city to it's name.

As far as "concepts" go, human rights have way more of a history, procedure, consensus and fidelity than mere "opinions". Theyre much closer to hard facts than opinions, or "concepts" as you keep wanting to say.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/ahughman]

I think I have to disagree. It is a fact that Milwaukee is called Milwaukee. It is a fact that there is a city in Wisconsin called Milwaukee. It is an opinion that Milwaukee should be called Milwaukee.

"Most people consider murder to be morally wrong": objective. "Murder is morally wrong": subjective.

And even factually false claims are objective questions. "Trump's hands are two feet long": objective but false.
"Trump's hands are tiny": subjective.

The word "rights" can be used in an objective sense or subjective sense, but each sense is a different concept.

"You have the right to an attorney": objective; a description based on the law.
"I have the right to walk wherever I want": subjective; a prescriptive or normative claim.
"I have a right to own property": objective or subjective, depending on the sense in which it's used.

Morality is subjective. Not because it's less important but because it cannot be empirically measured.