Now, Kyle is a very intelligent fellow, much more so than I, and he has an ability to make reasonable arguments for or against controversial topics or opinions. I suspect that he was not the first guy one would have chosen as an adversary in Debate class.
Worth noting is Kyle's enjoyment of language and its use, and it is of the use of "rights language" that he says, "I wouldn’t shed a tear to see it become a dead language."
And it is of this language that Kyle states, "but it’s much more abstract than, say, the concept of virtues (habitual dispositions toward the good) or the concept of moral obligations that arise in certain circumstances and situations." He continues, "You can at least point to what those concepts refer to in the real world; you can’t show me a natural or human right."
My own deficiencies and mental inferiority previously noted, I disagree with this line of thinking.
First of all, Kyle is comparing apples and oranges by comparing what the "concept of virtues" refers to with not being able to "show" him "a natural or human right". One can also not be "shown" temperance, prudence, courage, or justice any more so than a right. Moreover, I believe that the use of these words are closely related and perhaps even interwoven with the use of the word "rights".
For instance, show me "justice". Try to describe what "the concept of" justice refers to without at some point using the word "right" or "rights". It seems a bit tricky at the least.
I could ramble on I guess, but I think it comes down to the fact that "rights language" has been distorted, misused, and abused much like the use of "freedom language" has.
True freedom has been given to man from God. True rights have been given to us by God. Here also, the language is interwoven as it is our proper or improper use of the freedom God has given to us that affects the rights of others. In fact, the "language" of rights, virtues, and freedom are all interwoven together.
Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God.
Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. (from the Catechism <teaching> of the Catholic Church)
Oh, it's on now, George!
ReplyDelete"One can also not be "shown" temperance, prudence, courage, or justice any more so than a right."
You can't show a concept, sure, but I can show you instances of prudence, courage, justice, etc. Virtues are manifested in actions and persons. Rights, on the other hand, if we're speaking of natural rights attached to human beings as human beings (X is human; therefore X is this right), have no concrete manifestation other than in language. They are fictions created by language. Useful, in some ways, but still fictions. They exist in neither a Platonic or incarnational sense.
"Try to describe what "the concept of" justice refers to without at some point using the word "right" or "rights". It seems a bit tricky at the least."
Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give to other persons and to the community and to God what is their due. We needn't reference natural rights as defined above in order to explain or describe this. St. Thomas Aquinas managed to define justice just fine without appealing to these alleged rights.
"You can't show a concept, sure"
Delete- Thanks for agreeing :-)
"Virtues are manifested in actions and persons"
-as are vices. it is the God-given freedom of the person to act for or against one's self or upon another which illuminates the essence or "rights", just as you rightfully assert that "instances" of virtues may be identified. However, even the identification of such depends upon one's understanding of "rights" through a properly formed conscience. For instance, "justice" without a true understanding of God-given (not man-made) rights becomes relative to one's point of view. That's dangerous.
"Rights, on the other hand, if we're speaking of natural rights attached to human beings as human beings (X is human; therefore X is this right)"
- in my opinion, that is a false formula, since something "attached" to something does not necessarily mean equality of terms. For instance, pro-abortion persons long argued that a woman had the right to do with her body as she pleased. At one time, their argument was that your formula could apply in that x was the woman and x was the baby. We know this is not true.
"Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give to other persons and to the community and to God what is their due."
- this was my favorite as you used the word "due" which further unravels the original argument against "rights language". Even WEBSTER disagrees: owed or owing as a natural or moral right
Thanks my friend. It's always a pleasure being forced to think a little harder. Even if it means a few more bumps from banging my head on the wall.