Universal Human Rights vs. Regular Rights

7/1/2009

I think we need to pause and make a distinction between Universal Human Rights and the other kind of rights that we get because we live in a certain country or under a certain government. The reason is this- I've been hearing and reading lately that Healthcare is a Universal Human Right. I don't think it qualifies as such for the following reason:

Universal Human Rights are rights that should be inherent to all people, regardless of who they are, where they live, or even when they live. If something is truly a Human Right, then it would stand to reason that it should apply to people living today as well as a million years ago and those living down the street from us as well as anyone living in the deepest parts of the most secluded jungle.

I don't think we can say this of Healthcare.

Modern medicine and sanitation are relatively new to the human experience and completely unequal in st, so for us to say that people are entitled, as humans, to healthcare is a pretty ridiculous claim. It's the same thing I'd say of voting rights or a trial by jury. These are important things that may be rights and privileges bestowed on those living under our system of government, here in the United States of America, but they're not Universal to the Human Condition.

If you live under a dictator, you don't get the right to vote.
You'd have to actually be able to vote in order to claim the right to it.

This doesn't mean that Healthcare isn't important. I think it is. But it's not important in the same way as the right to life, liberty, and property. These are fundamental Human Rights that aren't contigent upon a person's place in the world or their station in history. That's what separates them out as the big ideals that must be defended for ALL people.

Nathan link

7/2/2009 11:09:34

I'm going to post more on this tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to it!

Jeff link

7/3/2009 07:49:29

I hope it doesn't look like I come here to pick fights. There's really interesting thoughts going on in this blog. I don't think I'm very good at finding interesting ways to say "Right on, I really agree with that." So if I stop by and seem to only disagree, it's perhaps a symptom of laziness on my part, that I'm not putting the effort out to find an interesting way to say "I agree" on the stuff I agree with.
At any rate:
It seems to me that much of the usefullness of the entire question of "What is a right?" Centers around bringing those rights to someone being denied them. The student protestors in Tianamin Square, China, certainly did not possess the various rights they were fighting for. American slaves did not possess the freedoms they deserved and fought for these. The British, at the time of the American Revolution, would have been quite foolish to say "Representation is only a right that belongs to people residing in England herself. We don't owe you representation." And if they did say this, the American Revolutionairies would not have bought it.
I think two seperate questions need to be teased out in this debate. The first is "Is X a human right?" The second is "How can we bring this right to as many people as possible without violating other rights?"
I think everything a country asserts as rights, it ought to assert as universal human rights. I think that There's nothing inhernent to my being American that implies I deserve extra rights in principle.
I guess, in short, I'm disputing the funamental claim that there are "universal human rights" and "other rights"
Having said all that, I do believe that we can not be expected to unhesitatingly export every single right that we have to every single country in the world at this very moment.
If we did, we would violate a variety of other rights. Other countries have rights of soveriegnity, for example. And people within our country have the right to reap the benefits of what they sew.
It seems to me that if we assert that people have a right to life, we are asserting that they have a right to recieve health care. If we had some sort of machine that instantly healed everyone, we'd be immoral to not share it with everyone in the world. I'd suggest that health care is a universal human right.
But sense health care comes at a cost, I think that a moral response to this question requires weighing the cost to us with the benefits to others.
If we simply pointed at a bunch of doctors, and said "You, over there. You're going to Guatamala to help their dying, or you go to jail." We would be violating the doctors rights to liberty. If we said "You Americans over there, you're each going to pay an extra $25 a week to build a Hospital in Thailand." We're violating their rights to choose how to spend the money they earn.
I think a debate that happened in this way would lead to some differences. Though I have earned my money I have done so in a context that was built on the backs of others. My $4.00 iced coffee would cost more if it hadn't been brewed from the beans of exploited labor. They, for example, have a right to some of the wealth that I have effectively stolen from them. My right to use "my" money as I see fit I think needs to be curtailed to some extent.
It's a very difficult thing... But I think this is the logical way to proceed, rather than claiming that some rights are universal and others particular.

Nathan link

7/3/2009 08:17:56

Jeff,

Check back today, I was planning another blog where I'll explain more about why Heathcare can't be a Universal Right, much like Food, Homes, and Clothing can't be "Universal Rights."

I'm not going to argue against the importance of these things. Each one is vitally important and we should look for ways to ensure that all people are fed, clothed, and housed (and medically taken care of).

Comments are closed.

Don't Panic

Universal Human Rights vs. Regular Rights

About Nathan