Here are few pictures from my trip to Paris this summer. The first collage is of the Palace of Versailles, specifically the Hall of Mirrors, where the General Estates convened. The following photos are of the Pantheon, which houses the burials of many of the most famous and influential Enlightenment thinkers of France.
What are Rights?
Rights…what to say about rights. Well, I think the idea of human rights, or more specifically natural rights, is a beautiful concept, but an unrealistic one; kind of like the whole “world peace!” in the movie, Miss Congeniality, thing! There are several problems with the notion of “equal rights for all.” For one, it’s vagueness. What are rights? Defining just exactly what human rights entails has been a problem plaguing the greatest thinkers of not only our time, but for centuries before us. Such as Lynn Hunt states in her text, “The French Revolution and Human Rights,” when the General Assembly in France of 1789 commenced, they had every intention of formulating a constitution, rights and all, but ran into so many issues that they ended meeting with the 17 articles of “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” and never reopened the discussions.[1] If 500 men could not determine terms on what exactly human rights were and what the job of the government was in protecting those rights, it shows just how complicated of a matter the subject is…although maybe if it would have been women making these decisions…! (;
Plenty of other questions arise when discussing rights mainly due to the subjectivity of the topic. During the 18th century, for example, the conviction that all of us are equal by nature was extremely prevalent. But once again, this idea was vague. What exactly was/is nature? According to Professor Wright’s lecture, when rights are based on moral grounds, what constitutes something as right or wrong, and good or bad?[2] And really, when it comes down to it, rights are fundamentally moral and ethical, i.e. everyone is created equal. I don’t know how greater of an example of a value judgment you can get.
Lastly, how can you bestow a right on someone without restricting, or flat out revoking the rights of another? The right stated in, The Declaration of the Rights of Man, for example, notes that the “law is the expression of the general will …”[3] And back to my argument of vagueness, what is the general will? How many? Who? The article says “all citizens,” but what makes someone a citizen? And the article itself blatantly shows that at least one person will lose out on his or her rights to the “general will.”[4]
Anyway, most of you are probably wondering what the heck I am talking about. Obviously the whole notion of “rights” is something I can honestly say I haven’t thought too deeply about in my lifetime, and is rather apparent in my whole argument. I hope that maybe I made a few valid and clear points though and that you get something out of it!
Toni,
ReplyDeleteYes I agree with you that defining “rights” and “general will” as described in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and defined in Diderot’s Encyclopedia is extremely general and seems almost too vague to be taken seriously. I do still wonder however, why this idea of “equal rights” proved to be so powerful during the French Revolution? I like how you pointed out that it relates to the popular saying of “world peace” that people laugh at in movies because it is something so general and seems very unlikely with how our world functions today. I have another question however; maybe these lofty ideas are a processes rather than a final destination? This would explain why 500 men, as you put, could not figure it out over a few years of time. Just because something seems out of reach or unrealistic does not mean that it isn’t profitable and worthwhile. For example, I like you am married and have children. Talk about a constant adventure right? There are ideals that I would like carried out in my home, such as not hitting your sister or everyone talking respectfully. I would like a marriage where my companion and I are always on the same page and never argue. Unless you have miracle children and miracle spouse, finding “family peace” seems far reached, but I have found if we as a family must constantly working for this “family peace”, such as teaching manners, talking with our children, spending time together, trying to keep a good attitude, or else our home becomes a war zone. You may not agree with me, and that is fine because every family is different, but I find it hard to not work towards a better home (that is a peaceful loving home where everyone feels accepted and loved---in general terms) since we are with each other every day. This, I think can relate to a nation as well. These things take years and even decades (and possibly more) to develop, particularly with such a variety of people.
I think vagueness is what has given documents like the Rights of Man and the Declaration of Independence such longevity. They were created by men who were striving to define their ideals in such a way that they would be useful tools into the unforeseeable future. Ideals are the ultimate perfection of an idea. As very practical people, we both see “rights” as a useful construct of society. Laws come and go, but these documents were meant to inform the creation of those laws by holding up the highest standard. They provoke discourse and debate about what those ideals mean to the people of our time, and that can only be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteToni,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! It is definitely hard to define anyone's thoughts on human rights. As you mentioned in your post there is a vagueness involved in human rights. I also liked your comment that if one person is given a right, someone else surely will lose a right. It was a great idea to bring up Professor Wright's lecture on this matter, especially having to do with nature. As you mentioned above, if rights are based on moral grounds then whose morals are we leaning towards. No one person's morals are exactly the same. Every person has different ideals and different ideas of what is right and what is wrong. The only way for all rights to be bestowed equally and for every person to be happy with them is if everyone in the entire world thought alike. Seeing how that is never going to happen, how do we determine rights? I had an extremely hard time wrapping my thoughts around this in my own blog. It was all over the place. You did an excellent job!! I think that the Declaration of the Rights of Man did a great job of defining rights, but yet again you have some articles which will cause problems. You picked a great article to point out, on page 78 in the Declaration of the Rights of Man they talk about the "general will" and you are right in saying whose will is it? This goes back to the same idea as moral grounds. Who is the general will and what group of people or person are we using for moral grounds? Excellent post!! You defined your ideas well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood post. I agree that rights are vague and they are hard to define. And just like "world peace" it may not be something we'll ever have universally. But, just because they are messy and difficult doesn't mean it's not real. World peace and universal rights have potential and in a perfect world they would exist. The problem is that humans are deeply flawed and it's because of that, that things like equality aren't achievable. I disagree that you have to restrict one person's rights to give someone else theirs. In a perfect world where equality existed we'd all have the exact same rights and no one would have their rights taken away.
ReplyDelete