Sans Fig Leaf
w
"The nature of rights"
3 April, 2008
We've all heard it many times: "I have a right to [fill in the blank]!" Though it isn't always clear just which kind of "right" the speaker is talking about. Most people understand that not all rights are protected under the law. And some people try to make a political hay out of the oxymoronic phrase "special rights." But that doesn't really define the full spectrum of meaning that should be under consideration.
For example, I am not an inhabitant of the eighth congressional district of the state of Pennsylvania. I have no clue where within the state the eighth district is or what issues concern its inhabitants, let alone who is running for the district's congressional seat. The only reason I even know it exists is because I happen to know how many electoral votes the state of Pennsylvania has (23), and I know the Constitutional formula for determining those votes (number of Representatives plus the number of Senators), from which I infer the existence of districts number from 1 through 21.
Not being an inhabitant of the district (or even the state), I have no legal right to cast a vote for who ought to represent it in Congress. Legally, under the U.S. Constitution, I have the right to express an opinion on the representative chosen by the inhabitants of the district. I even have a limited right to donate money to organizations seeking to influence the outcome. That is usually justified by pointing out that once elected, the Representative can vote to enact laws effecting everyone, not just the people living in his or her district.
However, since I know absolutely nothing about the district, its problems, strengths, or inhabitants, from the standpoint of intellectual integrity or ethics, I do not have a right to an opinion on the subject of who represents it. It's perfectly acceptable to hold a generalized opinion, such as "it ought to be someone who looks after the interests of the district," but getting much more specific puts one on shaky ground, ethically.
We can dig deep into the whys and wherefores of various aspects of the political system, but my point isn't really about politics. My gripe is that both the word and concept of "I have a right" gets misused a lot. The differences between legal, ethical, logical, and other meanings of the word get all slopped together. Or people try to assert their right as a way of minimizing or doing away altogether with the rights of other people. And they completely overlook the concept of one's right to be wrong. In other words, while everyone has a right to an opinion, having that right says nothing about the validity of the opinion.
There isn't a single litmus test that can determine what constitutes a valid or appropriate opinion. For instance, I don't have to know the chemical structure of chocolate in order to have an opinion about whether it tastes good. However, knowledge of some scientific aspects of chocolate, how food is processed in the human body, and so on, would be very helpful in forming a valid opinion about the health implications of consuming chocolate.
Even the opinion on the taste of chocolate has some minimal requirements before it is valid. We need to have tasted it ourselves before we reach a conclusion about whether we like the taste. We need to understand that just because we like it, and even if an overwhelming majority of people surveyed express a preference for it, that there may be some people who dislike it. There will even be people who have never tasted it, but are convinced they will dislike it for some other reason.
The folks who have never tasted chocolate but dislike it anyway have a perfect legal right to express that opinion. They have a legal right to declare that chocolate tastes awful. They can also proclaim it poisonous, explosive, or part of a vast alien conspiracy to subjugate our planet. Depending on how and where they make these declarations, that might get them ridiculed, sued, or locked up in a mental hospital.
Because having a right to speak doesn't also grant one blanket immunity from any and all consequences of your exercise of the right. Some of those consequences may be morally or ethically (even legally) suspect, but they have to be judged on their own merits, because a right isn't always right.
Consider the rights of others before your own feelings, and the feelings of others before your own rights.
--John Wooden
.