Sunday, June 07, 2015

Sunday Essay - choices, values and the question of rights

In discussion on Saturday Morning Musings - Triggs, terrorism and the decline of freedom, Winton Bates suggested that there were natural or innate rights, while kvd argued that "Rights are granted, not innate."

The evolution of the concept of natural or innate rights as compared to legal rights is well covered in the Wikipedia article on the topic. It is an important part of the evolution of Western civilization, concepts that give the citizen the right to stand against the exercise of coercive state or group power.

In considering the question of rights, it is important to recognise that they are a human construct. The arguments of the philosophers and politicians who developed the concept of natural rights created a mental or philosophical framework to support the case. They could not prove it or establish it beyond challenge, for logical refutation was always possible. In the end, the case rested on an increasingly sophisticated presentation ultimately based on beliefs and values that were unprovable, that rested on assertion.

You can argue for the natural rights based case on utilitarian grounds. This is a powerful common argument that is implicit in current arguments about the future directions of China. China will finally fail, the argument runs, because the communist elites will not give up their power and privileges to allow the creation of a rights based society in which rights might actually threaten the power and privileges of the elites. Establishment of the rule of law is an often cited example, democracy another.

I am inclined to agree with these arguments and especially the importance of the rule of law. However, in my own case I keep coming back to a simple issue. To me, questions of rights are, in the end, questions of the values that are important to the individuals involved.

As a management trainer, one issue that I dealt with lay in the difference between groups and teams. A group was a collection of individuals that in some ways identified themselves as a group that had its own values and sense of self identity. It might be no more than those who drank at the pub on a Friday night. By contrast, a team was a directed group, one with objectives and some form of governing structure.

As a management trainer, I was interested in how you moved from group to team, what made a team an effective team, My job as a trainer was pragmatic, to get people thinking and give them the skills they needed to perform. This task was independent of the purpose of the team. In structural, skills and process terms, there are no differences between the creation of an effective squad to exterminate Jews or Gypsies or to deliver IS control over a Syrian city and that required to ensure an effective sales campaign or an IT project.

All groups have processes for admitting members and asserting control. These are extended with teams where specific objectives are involved. With teams, very particular problems are involved where team objectives may conflict with human values. These are purely technical problems. How best do you strip away human restraints so that the team can do its job?

This is true whether you are building a sales force, a political force, the New Border Protection Agency or an IS team. You seek to remove the impediments that prevent effective performance. All bodies believe that they are right, that the end that they pursue is right or at least necessary..

As a technician. I could define a process that would just about give you whatever result you wanted in particular circumstances. There might be better ways of doing it, the answers might not be nice, but my solution would be workable.

Today we live in a world where ethics is actually defined as compliance with rules. There is no focus on what you should do if the rules don't fit, if you disagree with them. .

For better and worse, I entered the public sector at a time when our ethical training actually focused on principles. The Second World War wasn't that far away with its death camps, nor was the Korean War with
it's brain washing.

Taking Adolf Eichmann as an example, a quintessential team player, we asked where do you draw the line? What should you do when you get an order you disagree with? How do you avoid the erosion of values that comes with a constant series of small choices?

Taking the Korean example, why did certain national group prove more resistant to brainwashing than others? What was it about their social structures?

I entered the public service at a very particular time. There were very few graduates. Wars with their particular lessons were still in living memory. Today, neither the level of, nor direction of, our training could be justified. It was neither efficient nor effective,. but it had a huge impact on me.

It wasn't an impact that just emerged. I didn't recognise the value at the time. I needed experience, my own failures and breaches, to understand the value, to determine what was important.

 Looking at all this from the perspective of current debates, I am not a great believer in absolutes. The only absolutes that we can determine lie in our own beliefs,  the things that mark out personal lines in the sand.

As a member of a group, we accept certain constraints. But we need to remember that those who lead groups or teams will always conflate their objectives with the interest of the group. We have to be aware that the only thing that we can control are own own beliefs and our responses to those beliefs. Sometimes, we have to draw a line.

Postscript

In a comment, Winton pointed me to a quite fascinating article on the Magna Carta, a document whose symbolic significance endures.                


32 comments:

Winton Bates said...

Jim,
This might be slightly off topic. I am still wondering what legal protection you might have if the government went far enough down the slippery slope that it sent you into exile. Perhaps the Magna Carta might help. The relevant provision reads:
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. - See more at: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-in-the-modern-age#sthash.YOpewVi0.dpuf

Jim Belshaw said...

That's a fascinating piece, Winton. I will bring the link up in the main post. One problem lies in the words "or by the law of the land." If I were sent into exile according to the "law of the land" and if there were no court redress open to me, I guess that I would have to go or to go to jail for protesting while pending deportation to wherever.

One of the issues in out system is that ultimate power rests with parliament and, to quote from the article you cited, parliament cannot be bound. Normally I think of this as a good thing, but it does create a problem where parliament is controlled by the executive.

Anonymous said...

Jim, I came to comment and see Winton has beaten me to it. I will (or may) come back to his thoughts later (they are always worth fair consideration), but just to set down first what I was going to say:

On the subject of 'innate rights' I won't go all Immanual Kant on you ("There is only one Innate Right, the Birthright of Freedom" - which I obviously disagree with) because every time his name comes up I get waylayed by that catch Monty Python tune :)

Instead, following your wiki reference, I see a discussion of rights as either legislated for (UN), or claimed as justification for (US Declaration of Independence), but very little about "innate rights"?

So, what are these "innate rights" of which Winton speaks? And by that I specifically mean a right attaching to my mere existence on this planet as a human being. I can think of only one: the right to breath air - and note that I did not say "clean air", because that presupposes a whole raft of legislation.

I am a huge fan of the ideals incorporated in the Declaration of Independence, which is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - except:

1) this was constructed as a rally point for one group of humans to throw off the yoke of another
2) "all men" referred quite specifically to white males over the age of 35 who owned property
3) that "self-evident" bit did not apply to women or slaves until a bit more argy bargy.

So, to get back to my honest query: what specific 'rights' (apart from breathing) do you consider to be 'innate' - i.e. not subject to either pro- or pre- scription by 'the State'?

kvd

Winton Bates said...

The problem is that these days the law of the land is what the government is able to legislate, rather than the common law. Legal positivism seems to rule the roost.

Regarding public sector workplaces, the question of accountability was much more open when I first joined the public service. We were encouraged to feel that we being appointed to serve the public rather than the department head or minister. However, I'm not sure whether that was in accord with the legal position. The Crimes Act prohibited unauthorised disclosure of information and I expect the master servant act also applied i.e. if you were given a lawful instruction from the boss you had to do as you were told. Conscientious dissenters and whistleblowers probably had less legal protection than at present.

Jim Belshaw said...

My daughters were very fond of Monty Python and used to sing that song. To quote one line for the benefit of readers: Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable."

On innate rights, protection of life and freedom from oppression. All other rights and qualifications on rights come back to that. In my own thinking, I don't focus so much on rights (I find the current focus on rights problematic), but on removal of or restrictions on rights. We live in societies. That implies restrictions as well as gains. It also requires scrutiny of the restrictions.

Dominant groups will always assert their view of what is right. They will always tend to protect or sustain restriction that protects their view of what is right.

Jim Belshaw said...

Winton, I'm not going to be able to respond properly now. On the public service, under our system we were accountable to Government and beyond that Parliament, not the public. That's very important. It also conditioned the ethics discussions. A specific question we addressed, and this was informed by the case studies, was what do you do when you disagree, when you think that a wrong was being done? How do you avoid becoming another Eichman, who did efficiently end effectively what he was told to do?

Winton Bates said...

kvd: I see natural rights as innate. Humans have certain rights by reason of the fact that they are humans.
The stuff in U.S. Declaration of Independence has links to some themes/ ideals that seem to be linked to development of canon law as a fusion of Roman law and Christian values. Although the founding fathers of the U.S. were not all particularly religious, it is reasonable to argue that they were strongly influenced by Christian values. It is a bit awkward for a secularist like myself to acknowledge but a lot of western thinking about the value of the individual human seem to stem from Jesus and St Paul. I have been reading some stuff lately about the history of these ideas within Christian churches. A review of one book that is slightly relevant is here:
http://wintonbates.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/did-christianity-invent-individual.html

While the U.S. Declaration was constructed as a rallying point, as you say, the views it draws upon about the right of oppressed people to overthrow a despot seem to come from John Locke and previous contributors on questions of freedom of conscience.

Anonymous said...

kvd: I see natural rights as innate. Humans have certain rights by reason of the fact that they are humans.

Winton, seriously, and most politely, and for now maybe the third time - which specific rights are you referring to?

I just think both you and Jim are skirting around the basic fact that 'rights' per se are created by the recognition and respect granted by whichever community and time one happens to inhabit.

This is a very minor point; I'm wondering why it seems so hard to either enunciate or accept?

kvd

Winton Bates said...

kvd: I suspect a trick question. Without thinking too much about it, natural rights include the right to life, property and liberty.

I see these in terms of "thou shalt nots" rather than positive rights. No-one has the right to deprive another person of their life, property or their liberty. That doesn't mean that anyone has the right to insist that you share your food, clothing, water or air with them (assuming that you didn't steal them from them in the first place). You may have a moral obligation to help, but they have no right to insist that you help.

Anonymous said...

Winton, no trick to my question - I promise. So you nominate life, property, and liberty - as natural or innate rights?

I think I accept 'life', except for the endless morass this has produced in the US regarding abortion - where 'life' begins, and which 'life' is more important.

Property seems to me to be a classic example of what I was suggesting: it is mine only if it is recognised as mine by others. I don't think that could be termed as either 'natural' or 'innate'?

Liberty is (to me) always and only a permission granted by those more powerful than me. Manus Island is an example of liberty so constrained; Jim's citizenship likewise.

Anyway, this could all be solved, and passed over, if you would speak of something like 'aspirations' rather than 'rights'. If you would, well then I would agree.

kvd

Winton Bates said...

kvd: Nope I could never agree to talk of aspirations as a substitute for talking of rights.

To accept that the idea that liberty is only a permission I would have to accept that might is right. Never!

Regarding property, if it is recognised as yours, that is about as natural as you can get. The neighbouring tribe recognise the boundaries of your traditional hunting grounds. That means they recognise your property rights

Regarding life, we are on the same page. As with other natural rights, there is room for discussion about where they begin and end.

Regarding the right of Jim to live in Australia, it seems to me that the force him to live in exile would be a massive infringement of his natural rights.

Anonymous said...

"Nope"?

Despite (or possibly because of) recent well publicized use I do not think that qualifies as a reasoned answer :)

kvd

Winton Bates said...

Good point kvd, a simple no would have sufficed.

Jim Belshaw said...

I think that you are on slippery ground, kvd. I have been careful about innate rights because that is a philosophical construct. You seem to assume that rights are granted. Wouldn't be more accurate to say that in the first instance they are actually created or seized or fought for and then protected?

I say created because the first human groups occupying new territory created certain rights that they then protected. I say seized or fought for because many of the key rights that we now take for granted were not granted as an act of grace and favour but were fought for.

Anonymous said...

Jim I don't see the slippery ground you speak of. It was Winto n who raised the concept of innate rights. I do not assume rights are 'granted'; I simply said they were only so useful as their societal or community recognition allowed. The summary you give is fine by me, but I remain confused by Winton's nomination of property as an innate right. I can almost accept freedom but not property.

kvd

Jim Belshaw said...

Hi kvd. Will come back on this a little later.

Jim Belshaw said...

I thought that you had used the word granted at one point kvd.

You wrote: "I simply said they were only so useful as their societal or community recognition allowed." I have problems with this construct. Some of the rights we most value had to be fought for, emerging over extended periods. They weren't seen as useful, but as a threat to the social order.

Property is an interesting one, one that's very ideological, one that essentially emerged to protect the status quo, to facilitate social and economic life as well as the preservation of privilege. There is a post there if I feel strong enough!

In the end, rights are an expression of values with (as you have noted in the right to life case) inherent tensions and conflicts.

Winton Bates said...

I've: I suppose the question amounts to whether the Commandment against theft reflects cultivation of an innate moral sense or whether it is just a cultural institution that most societies have found to be useful. I understand that the social intuitionists (Haidt et al) still have this under consideration. I think I can remember reading somewhere that other primates have shown some recognition of property ownership, but I can't cite a reference.
Even if respect for property ownership is not innate, it is very very often supported by an innate sense of fairness e.g. I respect your right to own those tools because you made them.
The argument for not taxing superannuation savings is a current example of an attempt to claim that it is grossly unfair to tax a particular form of savings. Proponents of this view would be on stronger ground, in my view, if they extended the argument to cover all forms of saving.

Winton Bates said...

Sorry kvd, my iPad guessed that I wanted to write I've instead of kvd and I didn't check properly.

Anonymous said...

Jim, thanks - I do agree with your latest comments, but what is getting lost (probably through my badly expressed questions) is my personal interest in what are thrown about as "innate rights". It is that, and only that definition that I am stumbling to understand.

Winton that's a good answer; I am not seeking to attack your views - simply trying to settle my own.

kvd

Jim Belshaw said...

The conversation has been shifting as we talk, kvd. That's normal! Rights always have to be set in a societal context as you have noted. Further, rights are balanced by responsibilities.

On the citizenship one, I have never regarded my citizenship as other than a fact. Trying to objectify it as a right that can then be taken away is an argument I don't accept.

During the discussion my views on "innate rights" have been slowly shifting. Rights are still a human construct. However, is it the case that there are rights that are just so important that they should be classified as "innate rights"?

Winton Bates said...

Jim, I stumble a little over "human construct" because it seems to attribute too much to conscious intellectual endeavours and to leave too small a role to evolutionary processes (including cultural evolution) and accidents of history. Perhaps I misinterpret your meaning.

Jim Belshaw said...

No, you haven't misinterpreted my meaning, Winton. Evolutionary processes may lead to behaviour patterns designed to protect the herd or species, but I'm not sure that those behaviour patterns involve rights in the sense that we would normally use the word.

Anonymous said...

Yes, what Jim said. Gets back to my musing about 'the right to breath' but as I think about Winton's comment, I'd possibly now replace that with 'the right to procreate', I think. But do we really seek to compare ourselves to those species of spider many times illustrated where the male is part of the food chain, after the act of mating?

I think, if the discussion is to have much meaning, it needs to be focussed upon human behaviour. And I am beginning to think that a concept of 'innate rights' is not of much use - except as some sort of righteous throwaway.

Thinking I will stick with my first thought that 'rights' per se, are a product of human interaction - and always subject to tacit or explicit agreement by or within whichever society they are claimed to be such.

kvd

Winton Bates said...

I don't think enough attention is paid to evolution of social norms. For example, groups of people who have a reputation for being trustworthy trade partners tend to prosper relative to those who have a reputation for plundering strangers. So, the norms of the successful traders, including respect for life and property, tend to prevail.
Plundering is a less successful strategy than mutually beneficial exchange because it adversely affects the incentives of the people who are plundered. Even warlords who live off taxation have an incentive to show some recognition of property rights in order to give the people an incentive to produce.

Anonymous said...

"The fact that we do not posess a sense of morality gives us an evolutionary advantage".

Latest Superman movie, just now. But was pleased to see he won, even on second viewing :)

kvd

Winton Bates said...

kvd: How could I respond to that :)

Anonymous said...

Response is not required; merely submission. "All your ethics belong us" :)

kvd

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking of ISIS or, whatever they're called this week.

kvd

Winton Bates said...

I see Amanda Vanstone has come out in support of the rights of citizens:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-08/amanda-vanstone-scathing-tony-abbott-citizenship-policy/6529278
Sorry, you will have to cut and paste the link. Blogger needs to update its technology.

Jim Belshaw said...

Thanks, Winnton, picked it up.

2 tanners said...

Your rights to property have never existed while Australia has existed. Constitution s51(xxxi) makes the Government pay just terms for acquiring your property, but you don't have a choice. If the Government destroys the property rather than acquiring it, or if you live in a Territory, that section does not apply. Likewise you can be cheated out of property. Where does this right exist?

A right to life, to be meaningful, must surely prevent at least the Government from legally deliberately killing you. Capital punishment is now banned (in Australia) but not in many other places and not for all our history. Was this right created, or is it just another limit on punishment?

I could go on but I see no rights as innate and probably most things that people take as rights as normative more than anything else.