The word "right" has devolved into a a politicized word. What was once a moral word of the highest degree has now become a mere rhetorical device of politicians and political meme makers who do not do justice to its mother word iustitia ("right" is "ius" in Latin, shortened iustitia). As it is with any politicized word, it is emotivized. Of course, when a word is emotivized, people start to use the word because it feels right to them, that is to say they use the word as a method of expressing what they feel about an issue as opposed to a reasoned and tempered rationale.
To briefly [re]introduce reasoned and tempered rationale behind the term "right" is the aim of this post.
Many throw around the word "right" to assert a moral and/or moral basis behind their political belief. A right is a moral and legal concept that ought to be necessarily due to a human being, and thus mandated to all human beings. Right to life is one physical example. By nature human beings have life, and thus all are due life and the taking of which is a grave crime. Right to freedom of thought and action are metaphysical examples. We of the free world assume that a human being cannot live to the fullest if one does not choose one's path of life willingly. So we allow freedom of thought and action even when one's thought can lead to one's own ruin. The only exception would be when a mandated right is taken from another such as life. Here, we assume that freedom of thought is an ontologically binding right, and thus one which ought to be protected and duly given to all human beings.
Metaphysical assumptions are further more authoritative than the physical observation. We by necessity assume that a right exists. But no scientist can point to one object and say, "this is a right." Rather, it is intangible. Therefore, the concept of "right" must have a metaphysical basis.
Moreover, we consider rights to be objects that are subject to enforcement, through monetary coercion or otherwise. Let's say hypothetically that a racist mayor of some town orders the voting centers to not admit blacks. The state or the federal government would send in their troops to enforce the equal protection clause. Indeed, 101st Airborne was deployed to Alabama to ensure the enforcement of Little Rock Nine's rights to equal treatment.
However, recently, there has been a dangerous pattern of thought with regard to rights. This dangerous thought patterns occur mostly among Progressives. The critical flaw in their rhetoric is the fact that a right must exclude any form of object that is necessarily contingent upon another's act: service. For Progressives, healthcare would be one example of service.
Healthcare is an object that is partly contingent on another's act by necessity. It is true that we can take care of our own health through taking care of ourselves. However, in cases of debilitating illnesses, we require a specialist's act.
If we go on to say that healthcare is a right, an object that demands enforcement, through monetary or forceful coercion, we would subject certain individuals to servitude, and not a voluntary one. By that I mean the possibility of de facto slavery. Surely, this will not appear so when the times are bright. A government might have enough money to pay to insurance companies and keep the healthcare system going. At that instance, the doctors would not be involuntary servants. But when the times are hard and funds run dry, what will the government do to enforce the right that is healthcare? Either they will ignore it and treat healthcare as a privilege, not as an absolute mandate, or they will enforce it, the only way being forcefully having healthcare providers to work, without the option to quit the profession.
Education is another example. We can teach ourselves many things. But highly specialized fields require us to be taught by a skilled educator. Education thus includes service. When funds are low and emergency occurs, the government will again do either nothing, retreating to treating it as a privilege, or enforce the right of education. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to consider education as a fundamental right.
Moreover, the understanding that enforceable rights ought to include objects that are dependent on others' service has no physically observable or ontologically reducible principle to derive the conclusion from.
Thus, the understanding of "right" that includes service subjects those providing service to de facto slavery. A more humane understanding of any type of service ought to be understood as privileges. For such vital professions, the government could ask persons of those services to sign a binding contract to work even when times are hard.
No comments:
Post a Comment