RIGHTS EXIST BECAUSE MEN AGREE TO THEM
Rights exist by an act of will. Rights exist because of a declaration, an assertion, a postulate. They exist because they are asserted to exist. It is true and real because it is asserted that it is true and real. The prime case of creating something by an act of will is the third verse in the Bible: “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”. Rights are created in the same way.
In my “LAWS OF POLITICS” (http://www.lawsofpolitics.com/), #19, I say, “Rights are agreements about what men are allowed to do. To say that some right does or does not exist means that that is what the agreement should be.”.
This is actually two definitions. First, a “Right In Practice” is an agreement that men are allowed to do something which people really do agree to and which they really are allowed to do.
Second, a “Right In Principle” is an agreement that men are allowed to do something which some person or group says should be really agreed to for some reason. Such a person will say “Men have the right to do X.”, even when in practice they are not allowed to do X. What he means is that men should be allowed to do X.
Rights In Practice = Men really do agree. Rights In Principle = Men should agree.
The King may have the Right In Practice to do Y. But someone might say, “The King does not have the right to do Y.”. What this means is that the King does not have the Right In Principle to do Y. The King should not be allowed to do Y. He should not have the Right In Practice to do Y.
In earlier times, the best fighter got to be King. The King said “I have the right to do what I want and to make laws.”. Everybody agreed because if they didn’t, he killed them. Then kings and nobles killed and stole from the peasants. The peasants did not like that. Then someone said, “Kings and nobles do not have the right to kill or to steal from peasants.”. Maybe he got agreement from others and maybe he did not.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence says that “all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. This was a declaration, an assertion, that people should agree about these rights. The British did not agree, and that’s what the American Revolutionary War was about. This declaration of rights was justified by saying that God gave these rights to men.
Rights are a matter of ethics and a matter of law. A law exists because it is asserted by a king or a legislature. A principle of ethics is asserted by some philosopher who gives his reasons why this is how people should behave. Or a principle of ethics may be asserted by a religious leader, like Moses, who said these are the rules because God said so.
RIGHTS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED WHICH CREATE HAPPINESS
The U.S. Declaration of Independence says that among the self-evident rights given by God to all men are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. The pursuit of happiness is not really a right. It’s really a purpose. It’s what men will do if given Liberty. And that’s why they need Liberty, so that they can pursue happiness.
In my “LAWS OF POLITICS”, #2, I say, “Ethics depends on the nature of man. It is the nature of man to seek happiness. To seek happiness, man must be free.”.
#15. “The purpose of life is to pursue happiness.”.
#24. “In the absence of liberty, the purpose of life is to achieve liberty, as the first step in the pursuit of happiness.”.
One might argue that men should agree to some right or to some set of rights because God said so. However, this will not be persuasive to those who do not believe in the God who allegedly said so.
One might argue that men should agree to some right or to some set of rights because it is the decent, sensible, warm-hearted thing to do. Because civilization will prosper and men will be happy. Because it is the nature of man that these rules of Liberty will create prosperity and happiness.
Saint Paul, in Romans Chapter 2, talks about “the law written in the hearts” of men. This means that it is the nature of man that living this way brings happiness, and that sensible people can tell that this is true without having to be told or threatened into compliance.
In my “LAWS OF POLITICS”, #125, I say, “Liberty is a right that can be agreed upon by all decent men.”.
SEX IS GOOD AND DESIRABLE
Music, dancing, and sex are good
There is no doubt that creating a good, successful, and happy life often calls for self-discipline.
However, it is equally certain that a hostile attitude toward anything which is fun or pleasurable or playful will create a life without love or joy or friendship.
Joy, love, romance, and pleasure come in large quantities from sex. For most people, the greatest pleasure, and the greatest joy and love, come from sex and from a sexual relationship. There should be a positive and affirmative attitude toward sex – like music and dancing.
People should be free to have sex and to enjoy sex without having to worry about unwanted children and about possible execution for murder.
In Hinduism, the most important incarnation of God – “avatar” – is Krishna. Krishna dances. He plays the flute. He wears a peacock feather in his hair, symbolizing God’s play. He even has a girlfriend, a milkmaid named Radha. This is a positive attitude toward this world.
PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEXUAL PLEASURE AND LOVE
It is hard enough to find and to create a workable sexual relationship, without adding the major stress of possible prosecution and execution for murder in the event there is a failure of contraception.
Does having sex impose a moral duty to have and to raise children? I think not. Does failure of conception create the duty to raise children? I think not.
Men and women have, as part of the Right to Life, the right to the love, joy, happiness, and pleasure of a sexual relationship. Such relationships are a very large part of what makes life desirable and worth living. Almost everyone has the creation or maintenance of such a relationship as a very high priority in his or her life plan.
Outlawing abortion is a major encouragement to homosexuality. Homosexuality does not involve the risk of being executed for murder.
* * * * * * *
Comments