All this talk of people having “rights” to this and that is for the most part nonsense
If someone is claiming a right… upon what basis?
The rights we Americans claim we usually argue from the U.S. Constitution, and that document was written with a very specific theoretical basis for the affirmation of certain existing rights. We need to remember that the Bill of Rights was not intended to either create rights nor to explicate them exhaustively but merely to explain how the new government would act in relation to the rights that existed prior to the government itself. The presumption was that God gave inalienable rights. For those that believe in no God, the document is essentially meaningless and rights are reduced to being an unfortunate misinterpretation of human norms in relation to a Christian metaphysics in which they do not believe. And if there is no basis for the rights we claim then we have neither a moral nor a civil obligation to affirm a right that either does not or cannot exist. Apart from something more than human, rights talk is nonsense talk. So how then can some reasonably argue for the “right” to do this or that when what they claim the right to do is contrary to the Christian metaphysical system that gave birth to the concept of “rights” in the first place?
There are three basic understandings of Human Rights that we might categorize as views of Nothing, views of Something, and views of Everything.
The argument is between the three views: The Nothing view; those that think there is nothing in specific that we are, the Something view; those that think there is something that we are but it is not what Christianity teaches that we are, and what I will call the Everything view; those that think that what Christianity teaches that we are is actually what we are.
The first view is easily dismissed even though it is incredibly common. Those that think that we are merely the accidental effect of impersonal forces cumulatively stumbling through the millennia with neither rhyme nor reason cannot now by an arbitrary act of will create a meaning for life and the human rights that can only accompany such an understanding. There must be a Who and a What we are that can provide a ground for human value as a foundation for human rights.
State action does not create “rights”. State action can only recognize and protect or violate those rights through legislation and the use of force. Voting also has no power to create rights that do not previously exist. If there is a right, the will of the people is largely irrelevant and if there is not right the will of the people cannot make it so. It is easy to confuse a law with right, but if we think that laws can ever be wrong, we have already made the distinction. The only question is, will we be consistent by holding a worldview that is reconcilable with believing that people have rights, or simply claim them against all sound reason.
If we start without meaning, we end without meaning, and all talk of rights is nonsense. Those that hold this view should also hold back the words since no reasonable argument can be made in their favor.
The second view is more complicated because it demands that those that hold to some other view of what we are explain what that is and how it justifies their interpretation of what should and should not be done in the society. An explanation of this kind is seldom forthcoming. If someone does, unlike the first kind of thinker, think that there is something about both ourselves, and our place in the universe, that substantiates the actual existence of human dignity and the human rights that accompany such, it must be named and vetted for legitimacy. If whatever the competing philosophy is cannot be sustained it cannot be used to justify something else, being, what the human being is and what their rights should or should not be.
No point of view is worthy of respect in and of itself without public scrutiny and examination. If someone is willing to make the claim they will need to defend it. If it cannot be defended it will need to be abandoned. So far, when I look at the history of either philosophy or religion, there is no competing worldview that can stand up beneath the excruciating tests of internal coherence and external viability. This is really very important because someone’s understanding of the way the world is might be incredibly complicated and yet completely irrelevant to our lives as they actually are, or winningly practical but insufficient for a comprehensive theoretical understanding that fulfills our innate intellectual need. A worldview needs both to be in the running.
When worldviews are measured against worldviews there are two kinds of losers: the incredibly obvious and the reasonably respectable. The real competition is only between the reasonably respectable interpretations but even when these do battle their fundamental axioms seem to be similar to each other by a strange kind of necessity. There are certain features of thoughtful worldviews that are irreplaceable. At the end of the day, there are not so many that can engage in constructive dialogue and stand up to critique. But even in this case, a worldview that can provide a grounding for human dignity and human rights, or any rights at all, will not provide a ground for the claim of any and every assertion of rights, but only those that coherently fit within its worldview. There are worldviews that cannot sustain the existence or the defense of human rights. There is no worldview that can defend every possible claim that someone might make as to a “right” to something or other. All of them have their internal limitations. All of them have a reasonably scope of the application of the facts to the circumstances. The question might be, are we willing to sacrifice reason by choosing a worldview that fits with the rights we want to claim regardless of whether or not it is the real world? Or do we measure the true worldview and then take as rights the ones that are consistent with the world that we think actually exists?
The third view, Christianity itself, might have a great deal of variation within the different interpretive traditions that claim the title, but that would be variation within a specific kind that include: eternal truths; absolute moral boundaries; a creational framework for human relationships; a measurement of the powers and duties of the state; an ultimate good for each person related to the form for the flourishing of persons, families, and communities; an interpretation of both being itself and being human that incorporates an understanding of human dignity; a comprehensive philosophy of justice encompassing social justice; a justification of the use and normativity of reason; a grounding for ethics; and many other components necessary to any useful way of looking at human rights. If these are not present, reasons that one should find persuasive have not been articulated.
Christianity, when understood in its broadest scope and not its narrowest definitions, does seem to provide both a sufficient theoretical basis for human rights and an articulable practical application of rights-talk to the circumstances and events with which we have to contend. It fits the problem, that there is evil in the world that must be resisted and suppressed in an organized fashion through states with laws and the ability to use force, and the answers supply a reasonable basis for a good consistent with human flourishing in the context of human dignity. There must be a “good” before there can be a right. A human being wanting something does not make it a good; it makes it a whim.
And so the question would be if someone is claiming a right, upon what basis, and if there is no basis, we have neither a moral nor civil obligation to affirm a right that does not, or can not, exist. If rights do exist then a worldview that is reconcilable with their existence must be affirmed and the scope of those things that are or are not rights is predecided by the worldview itself.
Neiswonger
