People like to use the term "right" far too freely when regarding marriage, choice, and lifestyle.
Some who are more savvy distinguish between human rights, civil rights, and constitutional rights, though in the end many just identify where this or that applies and add "right" to the end of it.
Some call marriage a human right, others a civil right, and still others a constitutional right.
Rather than just argue about rights needlessly, it would stand to reason we need to come to an understanding of what rights actually mean. Those of you who rely on Wikipedia or some online dictionary probably don't realize (or you don't want to realize) that even encyclopedia entries are written by men who sometimes have an angle or agenda. I'm not saying they always do, but the 'devil is in the details,' as they say.
Therefore it would be better if we used some critical thinking in this manner starting with a few questions.
1) What is a 'right'?
2) Does a government, state, or law grantrights or protect rights?
3) Whichever way you answered [2], why?
4) Where do rights come from?
*I only offer my answer as a guide, you don't have to read it.*
======
Perhaps these questions will help guide our understanding in this matter. I won't answer my own questions in great detail just yet, only briefly:
1) A right is a term applied to some truth about the human person. It is somethings that is deserved or 'owed' to a person by the very nature of his being. This is called a "natural right" and is the foundation of all other rights.
Natural rights are, by definition, something that puts into word and formula something of the nature of an individual that is an essential aspect of it (e.g., the right to life).
2 and 3) Government cannot grant rights because rights do not come from man, per se. They are formulated in human terms and understanding, since human reason orders human experience. But experience precedes observation and formulation. Government is required to observe carefully throughout human history what is essential to individual and group flourishing and protect it.
But what is considered "good" and "essential" is subject to change if it is left up to the whims of individuals. Only the test of time and the collection of human wisdom and experience can accurately procure practical truths. Government, leaders, and others should humble themselves to the results of practical knowledge while being prepared to confront new challenges.
4) For me, rights ultimately come from God alone, the source and author of all being. Existence as it is cannot provide us with an adequate answer to what life is beyond chains of causalities (and mechanisms). Consciousness and personhood existed before our individual existence and without it rights would be meaningless exercise.
Rights are connected intimately with an understanding of teleology, for without a clear sense of what the ultimate good for man is our discussion of rights cannot protect that which will direct him there. Without a sense of our ultimate end, talk of rights degenerates to conversations about preference and emotion.
==============
A little longer than I anticipated, sorry. Give it a try yourself. I hope we can generate some good discussion.
Wouldn't same-sex marriage be considered under the category of "individual and group flourishing" that governments (or politicians more accurately) observe?
ReplyDeletePeople are "happier" when they are allowed to do what they want - most people would agree with this statement.
That depends. In this case it would do us well to discuss what 'flourishing' means. Now, even if we were to give a general definition, we could easily apply it to anyone if we twisted the words enough, so there needs to be a method by which we determine it.
DeleteOne manner, as I mention above, is nature: what leads to natural flourishing, and are the actions one person does conducive to that flourishing?
May I ask how you feel same-sex marriage leads to flourishing, or how marriage in general leads one to flourish?
Leaving that at this stage for the time being--
**
"People are "happier" when they are allowed to do what they want - most people would agree with this statement."
**
Maybe at face value. We are all often happy for a time when we indulge ourselves--perhaps pleased with ourselves would be a better term.
Many will do what they want and consider it happiness. We can spend crazy amounts of money until we have to pay it back--then we're not so happy. We can eat a lot of really good food until we get sick. It would seem that mantra leads to short-term happiness, then pain, suffering, or discomfort.
Some people choose to get married because they think it guarantees happiness. They didn't properly consider the relationship, the responsibility, or the charm of a romantic period gave way to day-to-day struggles. Many divorce. In this case too that person was "allowed" to do what they wanted and it didn't result in happiness.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that we look more fondly on regulations, rules, and boundaries insofar as they make us happy. For one example, take a relationship.
When someone is in a relationship with someone (e.g., a woman), she expects her boyfriend/husband to be faithful to her. This includes not sleeping with other women, not replacing her with pornography, substance, or something else for fulfillment. When both understand these boundaries there is a sense of trust, commitment, and stability that those boundaries and restrictions bright.
If, in this relationship, the husband/boyfriend could cheat, look at pornography, etc. because it would make him happy, could a woman say that she was fine with it since A) they didn't want to infringe on his happiness, B) his choices were making them truly happier.
I can tell you that 99% of the time a woman will be made to feel inadequate, used, and neglected if her husband or boyfriend acts in this way. But if he's allowed to do what he wants, should we consider him happier... or even truly happy?
Our own personal happiness sometimes comes with the price that it will hurt others, if we're not careful. But at the same time, we would disallow someone from doing something because it might not really make him happy, or it's not truly conducive to his happiness or the happiness of another.
Just how I'd start answering this, I suppose.