Why Rights are an Obligation -- Ours, As Well

(Background music)

(For more on the subject of rights, click here)

Abstract

Rights are essentially permissions that allow us to act in certain ways. These rights can be violated and are not inherent to our existence. They are enforced by society and compassion plays a big role in maintaining them.

We all have a responsibility to respect the rights of others. This doesn't mean we have to love them, but we shouldn't violate their rights. A core principle of a democracy is respecting the rights of others. By acting with compassion and empathy, we can create a society where everyone's rights are respected.

Understanding Rights: Permission VS Entitlement

A right, whether civil or otherwise, is fundamentally a permission. When that permission, which you are entitled to is violated then your right is either ignored or abolished, but certainly disrespected. When you have a right to free speech, you have the authorization to express yourself verbally or in writing. When you have the right to remain silent, you are granted the liberty of refraining from saying anything that could be used against you in court of law.

A permission must be granted to be considered one. And for it to be considered, it must be recognized. A privilege is a permission that is exclusively reserved for a select few, while a right is a permission that is more widely accessible.

And as such, rights are not necessarily inherent to your existence. Some rights may be perceived as objective, but that is solely because they are broadly accepted and held in high esteem. Like many things, they are subject to perception. As I have mentioned previously, intersubjectivity isn't objectivity. Objectivity, after all, exists independently of opinion, and opinions that are widely regarded as true are not necessarily the truth for that reason alone. The world beyond our mind does not necessitate our existence to in order to exist itself. This does not preclude democratic elections, and not even the most essential of human rights. We are only entitled to what we are permitted to, by forces stronger than us.

The Role of Compassion in Maintaining Rights

For that permission to endure, that permission needs to be enforced, maintained. Should you not have your permissions supported, you might either have to give them up, or struggle to preserve them. Because if no one will bother doing so, then you might have to do so yourself. As such, rights are not without their enforcers, and sometimes, these enforces do not have to be in uniform, nor armed with anything... but their hearts.

Rights are something that can easily be violated by just about anyone, and not only in war-torn countries or in dictatorships. You might not always have the right to express yourself freely, and you might not always have the right to move anywhere you want. People can slander you publicly, thus ruining your good name, and people might not respect your right to preserve your religious faith, or abstain from one altogether.

Understand that rights are conventions. They are different from norms, even though these are conventions as well, but the point is that we simply agree that they exist, so we act in accordance to their recognition Whether they actually exist, physically, morally, and so on, is up for debate. And yet, the recognition alone fruits practical impact on reality. We can't exactly be certain that they exist beyond our minds, correct? Not as, let's say, a physical object such as the device you're using to read this article.

You may be surprised, but logically, these rights are also your responsibility, as well as mine. If you believe in the worth of the right for respect, you may act hypocritically if you constantly disrespect others. Strangers, people you know, or both. A person who truly respects this right will not make a mockery of others so frequently. But because people like to have a laugh whenever they'd like, their constant mockery of others and of you becomes obvious. Fun is a poor excuse to disrespect someone, but should you ask them about the right for respect, they might say that they value this right, regardless of their actions.

It's hard to be consistent when you've yet to become a logical being.

Rights aren't exactly absolute and they may be limited with justification. Whether or not that justification is a logical one, is another matter. They are often justified soundly when a right is sacrificed, partially or completely, for another. For example: You might not be permitted to protest because of a security threat. In this case your right to protest is minimized in favor of your right to safety.

And speaking of safety, it is quite obvious that it is anyone's moral obligation to keep other people's from harming them. That is, if they really care to be safe from abuse. Physical violence, bullying, and other such acts are examples of those who take away your right for safety, whether they value it, can easily lead to dishonesty. How? Those who inflict violence may not like to receive violence themselves.

Don't expect everyone to care for your rights. That is unrealistic. People with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, for example, don't care, unless it may be useful for them to do so. To expect a sociopath/psychopath to show compassion is like expecting a cat to become a dog. Rights, as such, have compassion as an element: A caring for other human beings, as human beings.

Tyrants may abolish people's rights constantly because many of them are either psychopaths or sociopaths. They lack the emotional capacity to care enough to permit rights to their subjects. Not as much as in democracies, at the least. If all humans were psychopaths, civil and human rights wouldn't exist. Instead, we would live in a world where the strong has any right to rule over the weak, simply because there would be no stronger bodies to oppose them. Also, ruthlessness and power over others, would've been virtues, far more.

I once read the words of such being, who denounced the objective existence of any rights. Unfortunately, I agree with him. His justification was: No right will necessarily prevent one from death, like in murder, but also other forms of death. And indeed, with the lack of regard to other human beings, the only force capable of someone pulling the trigger on something else, is a force stronger than them.

Therefore, in order to fulfill our moral obligation for others' rights, we must grow our compassion and empathy. Decreasing them might make us become.... monsters, permanently. I will not tell you what I mean by that, for I wish to be more discreet. I will only tell you, for now, that it is possible, as evil can corrupt. Disregard morality completely, and you can become such monster as well, with no cure at hand.

It is unrealistic to expect everyone to be compassionate and empathetic, as some people became these monsters I'm speaking of... a point of no return. It is still realistic, I believe, to have faith in many of humanity, who have yet to have fallen to what I'm speaking of.

I believe they can be better beings, through redemption. And perhaps you should believe as well, necessarily for them, or for your own interests. For democracy. Either for its establishment, or for its continuation. Democracy doesn't end in the voting ballot. If anything, it ends where our empathy does. The empathy that is not only of leaders, but of citizens as well. Of anyone with enough heart left.

In Praise of Rights and Civil Behavior: Pillars of Philosocom

I am not advocating for loving strangers. Rather, I am emphasizing the importance of safeguarding their rights, by not allowing yourself to violate them. Respecting them as individuals equal to you by right, can equal to valuing democracy itself, not just the individuals themselves. If they mistreat you, it's perfectly acceptable to remove them from your life, provided it's crucial for your well-being and well-adjusted existence.

(Loving others can offer great comfort, particularly to those who feel isolated and those who aren't morally compromised by the darkness within them).

Democracy grants you the liberty to behave like an anti-social jerk, but for the greater good, you can also choose to be the antithesis of that. Isn't that right? The choice is yours.

While Philosocom is not a democracy, like with any virtual administration, I respect your rights and expect you to respect mine as well. It's called a benevolent dictatorship. I permit you to express yourself as long as it's done respectfully and refuse force you to reveal your true identity in order to comment. Similarly, I welcome criticism and evaluation of my work because you have the right to do so. The high tendency of disrespect online doesn't deter me. Here, it's different. And it will remain so, at least until my demise.