The United States Constitution guarantees certain rights--the right to free speech, the right of free association, the right to worship in the way you want, etc.
These are different than the "inalienable rights" discussed in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As discussed in class, we don't all define those rights in the same way and that leaves us with the question, do human beings have any inalienable rights?
In the Social Justice video (http://animoto.com/play/qV2S8JWtG21GIhkcVamWow), students name things like food, education, and dancing as inalienable rights. What do you think? What do people have a right to?
How does the piece by O'Neil complicate those ideas?
What do people have a right to? How does guaranteeing those rights infringe on the other rights?
What other limitations might there be?
7 comments:
There are definitely inalienable rights that humans have. As a human being such rights as freedom of speech, the right of a trial before prosecuted as guilty are a select few of these rights, although these are mostly rights that apply to Americans and a few other countries. The people in the Social justice video portray that everything that a person wants such as ice cream, dance, free education and so on are for the most part are things that are wanted rather than needing. Although the only reasonable one to me in this list is free education but in reality tax payers pay for the public schools around the country. These individuals as O’neil explains in his article do not make a distinction between needs and wants. For example, one of the people in the video say that every person has the right to ice cream which is definitely a want more than a need. In colonial times they didn’t need all this extra stuff that the modern world has and they did perfectly fine without it. Ice cream has nothing that is going to help a person better themselves or anybody around them. These are certainly “rights” that people need to have a simple and typical lifestyle that is very tolerable and comfortable.
O’Neil’s article complicates the rights that these individuals feel that are inalienable rights because he explains how people in previous generations did not have these certain rights and they got along just fine as I had explained up above. He also states that a person has the right to a need necessary for life opposed to wanting something that is an extra or better yet a luxury. In other words inalienable rights are the rights that no overtime still apply in order to have a a functional life. People should consider inalienable rights such things as expression, right to a trial, the right to vote for representation and so on. Although these rights are the ones that should not be stripped from humans there are such laws that stop something’s like these from being pursued. For example in the state of California marijuana is legal but yet of the federal government goes to a dispensary they could shut them down for selling and being in possession of an illegal drug on a federal level. So sometimes these laws overlap and do not let humans exercise them to the fullest of their abilities. Limitations in my mind are such things that are excess and luxuries and I completely agree with O’Neil and his beliefs in his article.
Watching the Social Justice video and seeing the student’s complete the sentence for “Everyone has the right to ____” allowed me to think and even agree with many of the inalienable rights they used to complete the sentence. I agree that everyone has the right to water, food, and healthcare, but thinking realistically about the conditions of the world outside and inside of the United States, it seems difficult to grant everyone these essential rights.
I believe that everyone has the right to expression and being able to form their own opinions. Being able to express ones feelings can make things less complicated. I believe that having the right to express one’s joy, anger, sadness, or frustration, without being judged, would make for a more civil community. Most of the time people feel they do not have that right to express what they feel internally because they feel as though no one will listen or they are afraid that others will critically judge them. If everyone was given the right to express their feelings and pose their opinions without being attacked, I think there would not be so much raucous or frustration going on in our societies.
Ben O’Neill’s “The Injustice of Social Justice” seemed to differentiate the terms of what he felt was being compared, right and desire. He shows how all of what was listed in the video as rights are “supplied by the efforts of others,” rather than something that everyone can just seek out for themselves with no problem. I understand that there are those, like myself, who are fortunate enough to have nameless resources, but others who live in some of the poorest countries or just those without such resources of what should be considered rights (e.g. food, water, healthcare) cannot access them at their leisure.
Nonetheless, I believe that people have the right to what allows them to be happy and healthy human beings, which includes the essentials like right to food, clean water, healthcare, speaking, justice, happiness, equality, free education, and to civilly fight for what they believe and make these rights accessible to everyone.
Adrianna Boles
After watching the video “Everyone has a right to _____” I quickly noticed that many of the rights individuals considered universal rights were desires rather then natural, or inalienable rights. O’Neil offers a similar belief within his article “The Injustice of Social Justice”. He mentions statements such as “Everyone has a right to ice cream, rock and roll, and lollipops” as claims that infer desire rather then valid inalienable rights. However, after contemplating the said “rights” mentioned in the video, I realized that all though many of these goods seem as simple desires, they allude to something greater. In saying this I mean that by stating, “Everyone has a right to lollipops” it is rather the overall concept then the actual desire to attain this good. In saying this, I believe that by having the ability to have the right to attain a good such as lollipops allows people the freedom of living without limitations. That being said, I believe an important inalienable right that individuals around the world should have, is the ability to live without restrictions. Often times, people’s culture, religion, and government limit the rights they have, these individuals live by restrictions and are in constant fear of stepping beyond their rights as they are held back due to the consequences attached to these “rebellious actions”.
O’Neil offers that any type of desire should not be considered a genuine right, since often times these said “rights” do not consider the larger picture, the individuals which contribute to the ability to attain these rights. However, people should have the right to attain healthcare and education, as these are moral claims. Is it right to allow people to suffer when adequate healthcare is available in other parts of the world? Why should people be limited in their intellectual capabilities when others have access to fulfilling higher education?
However, a significant limitation involving enabling rights to everyone is the social constraints that hold back individuals from enjoying their absolute rights. In these situations, I believe people have a right to their own ideals, religion, and way of life. Nobody should be dictated or limited by their government. Everyone should have the ability to speak their mind and express him or herself. However, this aspect brings up another dilemma, is it better to conform to the ideals that limit your rights? Does this eventually allow you to live a more comfortable lifestyle?
-Gurpal Grewal
Ben O'Neill claims in his acticle "The Injustice of Social Justice" that people use the term "right" as an expression of what they desire or what people think they deserve. He harshly criticizes the social justice video for the participants' naivety in what they "think" everyone has a right to, things such as free education, healthcare, rock-n-roll, and ice cream. Although I believe O'Neill's argument is a valid one, I also think he uses the term "rights" a little too restrictively.
I believe people have the right to self expression, freedom, and to love and be loved. Yet, the term "right" is relative. In reality the only rights we do have are that which the government created for us and whatever rights anyone else would have would only be someone elses opinions of what human rights should be that are being endowed upon them. So ultimately, are there any rights that are indeed true?
Andrea Fiorito
I believe and agree that everyone has inalienable rights and some of the rights that were mentioned in the social justice video are fundamental for everyone, such as the right for food, clean water and education. These rights are fundamental for everyone because without clean water or food people would not be able to survive and without education it would be difficult to express our needs. But O'Neill states in his article that the video "demonstrates the attitude towards rights that pervades the modern political discussions" meaning that most people believe that we have the right to have anything that we desire. But O'Neill makes a distinction between what a real right is and what people consider a right to be. He explains that "genuine rights exist as eternal truths" and some of the rights that I would consider as "eternal truths" is the right to speak because if no one ever spoke for what they believed in society would not have been able to progress. Another would be the right to education because as the world progresses people learn new things and if no one had the right to education no one would have been able to invent all the new technology that we have today. Education also allows us to communicate our ideas and express ourselves and our needs to others. Although these are just some of the inalienable rights that we posses sometimes they have limitations such as the right to speak. Sometimes we feel that we have the right to say whatever we desire whenever we desire, but in reality there are restrictions on what and where we are allowed to speak. But as the saying goes there is always a moment for everything, so we may not be able to speak our minds exactly when we want but there are always opportunities where one can express themselves and their thoughts without any reprimand.
The video produced by Rhodes College explains that we have a right to several things, as listed such in the video. We have a right to speak, ice cream, rock and roll. While many of these things may be pretty trivial or some may be very empowering as a person, these individuals still consider everyone to have a right to these certain things.
Of course the video is something innocent. But to say that each and every one of us has a right to these things is absolutely absurd. What I think is that we don’t have a right to these things directly, but as a person, we have the right of power to pursue these things. The Declaration of Independence describes our inalienable rights as, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That pursuit is what gives us the right to go after these things. After all, how can these different objects, whether physical or conceptual, on any magnitude, just be granted to us? They can’t be. It is just impossible for us to be born with these things right in front of us without at least someone making an effort to retrieve such a thing.
Ok yes, we have the right to free education; but who fought for that right? That person or group of people fought long and hard for certain rights like these that benefit the well-being of future generations. The Declaration of Independence merely states that each man is born with these certain rights. For us to put these powers to good use to receive what we truly desire out of life is entirely up to us.
I agree with Ben O’Neil’s argument about the situation. Yes, he complicates the meaning of what these students are saying very much, but for good reason in my eyes. He points out in the video that these students are implying that “anything desirable is a right.” When clarified in that manner, I can’t see any other possibility for what the video truly means. Maybe that was not their intention, but in a literal sense, that is what is communicated.
After watching the “Everybody has the right to ____” video I’ve realized that the rights we speak of are mainly desires. What we constitute as rights may not be the same in other areas of the world. As our reading written by Ben O’Neill states that “young people assert rights willy-nilly, without any apparent regard for where their desired goods would come from…” (48). It made me realize that everything we want and believe should be a right, has some kind of consequence. I believe that our rights should be created by our surroundings and culture. In our society we may believe that women are equal to men, but in other countries and societies they may have the belief that women are sacred and are below men. We are not in the position to argue with them that what they believe is wrong. The fact is that we have different views in life and what we may believe should be a right.
In the reading, I also agree that our rights are not earned but also forcibly taken. We were able to gain rights through hard work. Relating this back to Somalia, I believe that for Somali’s to have the right to clean water, education, shelter and homes, and other things, they would have to go through a lot to receive these rights. But these rights cannot be only applied in this time. It has to have the potential to be applied in the future. They have to be “genuine rights [that] exists as eternal truths of moral philosophy. They are principles that hold true regardless of time or place and regardless of the state of present inventions” (O’Neill, 47). If people want the government to provide these rights, then it is true that things would have to be forcibly taken for the rights to be administered.
I agree that the right to rock and roll and ice cream may be silly and ridiculous, but the desire for that right is the same desire for any other right. We want the right for what we desire and want, without really thinking about how our rights are provided. This article makes me think in a bigger picture about how we got to where we are today and from whose expense.
Post a Comment