[MispelledToyota]

Rights are only a concept that exists within societies, so it seems like societies will either define rights broadly and then discuss tradeoffs, or they would need to define rights very narrowly so a tradeoff isn't conceivable. But then few things would be bona fide rights. If you define a right as inviolable, then privacy isn't a right by that definition unless you have some extreme individualist/anarchist worldview.

[ameister14]

>Rights are only a concept that exists within societies

I fundamentally disagree with this. Rights exist regardless of society, society merely limits them.

[MispelledToyota]

The only right that seems even remotely plausible and socially independent was Hobbes's claim that we have a right to defend ourselves from being killed.

Anything else just seems too ontologically and epistemologically suspect.

[rovolo]

I think that you're missing the point of the comment you're responding to. Here are some similar statements:

"Permission is only a concept that exists within an Authorization scheme"

"Legal and Illegal are only concepts which exist within a Legal framework"

"Simultaneity is only a concept that exists within a shared reference frame"

They are saying that societal rights are actions a society says it's okay with. You are saying that rights are actions you can take without consequence (I'll call this 'effective right'). Those are different concepts, and you're asserting that "effective rights" is the correct definition of "rights". The different definitions say different things:

- You have the effective right to do something -> no-one will stop you. This can be a vacuous statement if there's no-one around.

- You have the societal right to do something -> the people around you will tolerate your action.

[wolverine876]

> Rights exist regardless of society, society merely limits them.

Exactly. Universal human rights are in fact the basis of most modern government, international law, and more. Recall that someone once wrote,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ...

Note that no higher power (beyond a "creator") endows these rights. Since that was written, that philosophy and government based on it has swept the world. Most people reading this comment live in a country that operates on that or a similar basis. The evidence of belief in it and its success are overwhelming - I always wonder why it's trendy these days to try to shoot it down. Isn't it good news (except for people who want to oppress others)?

[handrous]

> I fundamentally disagree with this. Rights exist regardless of society, society merely limits them.

I'm curious what "exist" means here and am very surprised at the "merely".

[ameister14]

>I'm curious what "exist" means here and am very surprised at the "merely".

In a natural state you have all the rights - your rights are theoretically unlimited. Society is what limits them. Society cannot create or remove rights, but it can limit your ability to express or use them.

[handrous]

Ah. I found Locke's Second Treatise very unconvincing, so we probably disagree both on the soundness of the argument-from-nature and what constitutes a right—is a right "real" when merely conceived of, or must it be exercisable in practice, necessitating either highly effective personal power or highly effective power of a society on your behalf, to be, in any sense, real (moreover, what does it mean for a cave-dwelling loner in the state of nature to have freedom of speech, for example? Not much, I'd say—rights aren't even useful or sensible constructs absent society, from what I can tell, and within society they're basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want to provide with a powerful label)

[ameister14]

>is a right "real" when merely conceived of, or must it be exercisable in practice, necessitating either highly effective personal power or highly effective power of a society on your behalf, to be, in any sense, real

Yes, it's real when conceived of, just like drugs are legal until there is a law against them. There are limits on exercising one's rights, but that doesn't mean the right itself goes away or as you put it, never existed in the first place.

>moreover, what does it mean for a cave-dwelling loner in the state of nature to have freedom of speech, for example? Not much, I'd say

So rights only exist where they are useful? How about if you don't exercise a particular right, do you still have it?

>rights aren't even useful or sensible constructs absent society, from what I can tell, and within society they're basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want to provide with a powerful label

I think it's more that they are freedoms we have recognized exist rather than something society has created. While freedom of speech might not have been particularly useful without a society, you certainly had that freedom before society existed. It's not really possible for society to be the creator of freedom of speech if it existed prior to society.

On the other end, if society collapses and you are again in a state of nature, you again have freedom of speech. So it's really just that society limited your ability to exercise that right, it didn't remove it entirely.

For me part of the importance of inherent rights comes down to an understanding that given societal ability to decide for a person what rights they possess, they will, from time to time, decide that a person possesses no rights at all. If that is actually true, and all rights come from society, then there's no real moral way to rebel against that. Individuals need to have an ability to balance against society and if society is the source of all power as well as all moral standing, there is no possibility for the individual.

If rights exist at all, they must by necessity be inherent to the person and not granted by society.

[MispelledToyota]

Then yes, rights don't exist at all.

What we do have is something else, let's call it "rights(tm)", which are a social construct used to privilege and protect individuality. We use it as a tool when making decisions about how to treat others and what laws are legitimate. They are contestable, and allow the tradeoff to be adjusted based on circumstances and the priorities of societies.

[MispelledToyota]

If rights are unlimited, and only their expression can be limited, then it seems like it is a category that excludes nothing and so is basically vacuous.

[ameister14]

It's important when you get into society, though. If we didn't have the right to rule ourselves in all capacities, we would be limited in ability to respond to new situations.

It's also really the only thing that makes sense from an individual rights perspective, given the absence of God.

[majormajor]

> It's also really the only thing that makes sense from an individual rights perspective, given the absence of God.

If someone's going to disagree with someone else on the existence of God, then surely they can disagree with them on the existence of rights (in general or in specifics). And so the concept of rights outside of society consensus is back to being no more use than the concept of God. (That is: it's high use if everyone agrees, but there's nothing forcing everyone to agree, so it all comes down to social negotiation.)