|>> || >>207826 |
I said it was a social construct that is based on philosophical absolutes, which is why its content isn't arbitrary. But please, go ahead and use the tactic you always use, of making assumptions about what someone else is saying and then getting butt hurt when they say what they're saying doesn't match your made up definitions.
Philosophical absolutes are a priori principles. They are absolute because they are not contingent on other phenomena like a posteriori principles. This is a very subtle and abstruse concept which I'm sure you will try to misunderstand, but what I am suggesting is that fundamental conceptions of rights, like 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' emerge from a priori facts about what it means to be a sapient, subjective consciousness. Life is important because we are organisms, liberty is important because we have self-awareness over our own conditions, the freedom to pursue happiness is important because our internal subjectivity produces vast diversity that no one definition of happiness can fit.
My point being that a sapient beings rights aren't random, or arbitrary, or generated purely by consensus. They may be protected or agreed upon by a group reaching consensus, but they emerge from the properties of sapient beings a priori and are merely recognized after the fact a posteriori, in the same way that a group of scientists may have to get together and reach a consensus to publish a paper that declares a new scientific law, but the law already existed as an inherent aspect of reality and was merely waiting to be discovered.
To provide a counter-example to show why rights aren't purely consensus based, imagine a society that by consensus determines everyone has the right to throw people in the volcano. For a long time this might continue, simply because everyone believes that it is so, but eventually there would be someone who would refuse. After a long enough time, someone might refuse loudly enough that someone else heard them before they got chucked in, and people reflecting on their refusal would cause discussion of the event to spread. People would eventually begin to question why the consensus was reached in the first place, and the whole thing would unravel, because the 'right' was not built on any kind of reasonable foundation that stems form the needs of subjective being, and is in fact contrary to a more fundamental, actual right. It might take centuries, especially if the right has a religious justification, but eventually the rights a society offers will progress in the direction of these kind of basic, universal rights (the long arc of justice.) And it almost never goes in the opposite direction, where a society that once offered people say, the right of freedom of movement, to rescind that right, and if it does it almost always leads to a societal collapse. If the social contract were truly arbitrary, we wouldn't expect it to have these properties, we would instead expect societies to have completely random compositions of rights, and for there to be no consistent pattern in their adoption and removal.