 |
| Porspoder, France-On Rights (Brief) |
Preface
March 13 2013 article revised for an article version on academia.edu, August 11, 2023.
Rights according to Wellman
Therefore, to play 'Devil's Advocate' as someone that favours a Biblical worldview, and is a moderate conservative, I realize, with libertarian leanings that I do not have the right to force my views on the non-Christian majority, nor do I have the desire, nor do I think it ethical or moral.
Philosopher Carl Wellman describes 'rights' as 'advantageous positions conferred on some possessor by law, morals, rules, or other norms'. Wellman (1996: 695). It is noted that 'will theories' hold that rights favour the will of the possessor over the will of some other conflicting party. Wellman (1996: 695). 'Interest theories' maintain that rights serve to promote the interests of the rights holder. He notes that Hohfeld stated four legal advantages, 'liberties, claims, powers, and immunities'. Wellman (1996: 695).
Wellman writes that the philosophical concept of rights arose in ancient Roman law and was extended to ethics by an understanding of natural law. Wellman (1996: 695). Rights are classified via different sets of rules from various sources in context. Interestingly, Wellman explains that some view a connection between natural rights and moral rights, natural law being connected to moral law, while others limit natural rights to most fundamental rights (and of course these would be debated I reason within a society) and contrasted them with moral rights. Wellman (1996: 695).
Others deny moral rights are natural because they are cultural and societal. Wellman (1996: 695). Wellman notes for example in regard to human rights as natural rights, that many in modern thinking now doubt the existence of God and therefore doubt divine commands would relate to natural law. Wellman (1996: 695). In my view, this could also be noted as reasoning appeals to secularism, naturalism and empiricism within western worldviews.
Rights according to Blackburn
British Philosopher, Blackburn reasons rights exist in virtue of positive (historical) law, and moral rights are significantly independent of them and provide a platform by which 'legal arrangements may be criticized'. Blackburn (1996: 331). He too notes the four distinctions of Hohfeld. Rights are frequently held to 'trump' other practical considerations not simply in the interests of the rights holder but viewed as arriving via a virtue owed to society. Blackburn (1996: 331). Blackburn mentions the theological assumption by some that natural law can be used to devise a set of natural rights via natural law. Nature can therefore create moral imperatives. Blackburn (1996: 331).
British Philosopher, Blackburn reasons rights exist in virtue of positive (historical) law, and moral rights are significantly independent of them and provide a platform by which 'legal arrangements may be criticized'. Blackburn (1996: 331). He too notes the four distinctions of Hohfeld. Rights are frequently held to 'trump' other practical considerations not simply in the interests of the rights holder but viewed as arriving via a virtue owed to society. Blackburn (1996: 331). Blackburn mentions the theological assumption by some that natural law can be used to devise a set of natural rights via natural law. Nature can therefore create moral imperatives. Blackburn (1996: 331).
Briefly my take on Rights
Rights are human made, societal, cultural and via the ethics and morals of a society.
Biblically speaking, the rights of citizens of the restored Kingdom of God, as in the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21-22 would be reflected in ethics and morality and moral law of resurrected (1 Corinthians 15) believers that are to follow under the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the eternal triune, God. Although I reason there will be limited, compatibilistic (soft determinism) and significant free will brought about through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, applied to regenerate believers; the rights will be reflected in the ethics and morality of the King, Jesus Christ. Citizens that I reason shall be guided by God, and most likely the Holy Spirit.
In today's Western society, ethics (external) and morality (internal) generally determine what should be deemed as rights and especially in legal contexts. Both the Wellman and Blackburn articles mentioned the theological connection to natural law and natural rights and the Cambridge article correctly stated that many now doubted the existence of God in Western society. Western society is also primarily post-Christian and this shall reflect the decisions of persons that vote for political parties and politicians, and the laws made by those politicians. Judges brought to power shall, for the most part, reflect modern thinking.
Rights are human made, societal, cultural and via the ethics and morals of a society.
Biblically speaking, the rights of citizens of the restored Kingdom of God, as in the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21-22 would be reflected in ethics and morality and moral law of resurrected (1 Corinthians 15) believers that are to follow under the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the eternal triune, God. Although I reason there will be limited, compatibilistic (soft determinism) and significant free will brought about through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, applied to regenerate believers; the rights will be reflected in the ethics and morality of the King, Jesus Christ. Citizens that I reason shall be guided by God, and most likely the Holy Spirit.
In today's Western society, ethics (external) and morality (internal) generally determine what should be deemed as rights and especially in legal contexts. Both the Wellman and Blackburn articles mentioned the theological connection to natural law and natural rights and the Cambridge article correctly stated that many now doubted the existence of God in Western society. Western society is also primarily post-Christian and this shall reflect the decisions of persons that vote for political parties and politicians, and the laws made by those politicians. Judges brought to power shall, for the most part, reflect modern thinking.
Therefore, to play 'Devil's Advocate' as someone that favours a Biblical worldview, and is a moderate conservative, I realize, with libertarian leanings that I do not have the right to force my views on the non-Christian majority, nor do I have the desire, nor do I think it ethical or moral.
Briefly my take on Full Rights and Equal Rights
But let us consider ideas of full rights and equal rights, briefly.
Hypothetically and philosophically, theoretically, in regards to marriage, full rights and equal rights would not just be for same-sex marriage as being equal to in every way heterosexual marriage, which is not my theological position. But I realize this position has support in Western society, but what about the right of any adult to marry any adult? Brother to brother, brother to sister, etcetera. What about the right to plural marriage?
Yes, these do work against Biblical ethical and moral standards, especially the New Covenant of the New Testament which offers further, progressive revelation on such matters, compared to what is found within the Hebrew Bible and Old Covenant (Mosaic Law meant primarily here). However, even philosophically with present Western secular standards, if one is going to be intellectually consistent in demanding full rights and equal rights, then reasonably this is where the rights movement should lead.
And of course there are other more distasteful possibilities where a full rights and equal rights movement are concerned involving persons that are non-adults, or persons lacking full metal competency. In my humble opinion, this can happen, if successful lobbies convince enough within society and importantly, lawmakers, in the future that these laws should be changed.
A key point is that rights, or lack of rights, full rights and equal rights, or what is viewed as types of discrimination are tied to, and are the results of the worldview, ethics and morality/moral laws of a given culture and society. Those that demand full rights, or equal rights in present Western society need to philosophically realize that 'rights' do not equate to ethics and morals, but rights come from within ethics (external) and morality (internal) that arrive from worldview.
My views are Biblical, Reformed and moderately conservative. My work is primarily gospel focused, as opposed to primarily or even largely culturally focused in attempts through legal and societal means to maintain the power and influence of the Christian Church in British Columbia, Canada and Western society. I am significantly, on occasions only, politically involved, but it is not a ministry focus. I have at times written letters to politicians and signed petitions.
Hypothetically and philosophically, theoretically, in regards to marriage, full rights and equal rights would not just be for same-sex marriage as being equal to in every way heterosexual marriage, which is not my theological position. But I realize this position has support in Western society, but what about the right of any adult to marry any adult? Brother to brother, brother to sister, etcetera. What about the right to plural marriage?
Yes, these do work against Biblical ethical and moral standards, especially the New Covenant of the New Testament which offers further, progressive revelation on such matters, compared to what is found within the Hebrew Bible and Old Covenant (Mosaic Law meant primarily here). However, even philosophically with present Western secular standards, if one is going to be intellectually consistent in demanding full rights and equal rights, then reasonably this is where the rights movement should lead.
And of course there are other more distasteful possibilities where a full rights and equal rights movement are concerned involving persons that are non-adults, or persons lacking full metal competency. In my humble opinion, this can happen, if successful lobbies convince enough within society and importantly, lawmakers, in the future that these laws should be changed.
A key point is that rights, or lack of rights, full rights and equal rights, or what is viewed as types of discrimination are tied to, and are the results of the worldview, ethics and morality/moral laws of a given culture and society. Those that demand full rights, or equal rights in present Western society need to philosophically realize that 'rights' do not equate to ethics and morals, but rights come from within ethics (external) and morality (internal) that arrive from worldview.
My views are Biblical, Reformed and moderately conservative. My work is primarily gospel focused, as opposed to primarily or even largely culturally focused in attempts through legal and societal means to maintain the power and influence of the Christian Church in British Columbia, Canada and Western society. I am significantly, on occasions only, politically involved, but it is not a ministry focus. I have at times written letters to politicians and signed petitions.
Philosophically, I hold to the view that within Western democracy, as long as in obedience to the law of the land, people have the freedom and rights to do as they please. I will not always agree with each law, and I will not always be in agreement with ethics, morality, acts and actions. I attempt to demonstrate love for others and as well, equally important, are concerns for justice and truth.
At the same time, I maintain within the Western democratic system, the freedom and rights, for me as an individual, to reason that God is infinite, eternal and revelatory in Scripture. God will definitely, as the only entity that exists by necessity, maintain his freedom and rights to judge humanity, his creation, accordingly. Both is this temporal life and post-mortem (Revelation 20-22, especially).
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
WELLMAN, CARL E. (1996) ‘Rights’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
HOHFELD, WESLEY NEWCOMB (1946) Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, Yale University Press (1946). The article appeared earlier at 26 Yale Law Journal 710 (1917).
HOHFELD, WESLEY NEWCOMB (1978) Fundamental Legal Conceptions, Arthur Corbin, ed. (Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press (1978).
HOHFELD, WESLEY NEWCOMB (1913) Hohfeld, Wesley. "Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning," 23 Yale Law Journal 16 (1913).
