We had quite the contentious discussion in class today, and the question of the removal of human rights I find very interesting. Can someone's human rights be removed; what if that person is a psychopath of sociopath? I think that the answer is no, and hopefully I can explain why.
Understanding Human Rights is a two part issue. The first is the concept of inalienability. Inalienable means unable to be transfered. By this definition, the rights that humans have cannot be transfered away from said person. Furthermore, Human Rights are an essential component of what it means to be human. By this, I am saying that by the very virtue of being human, someone is imbued with these rights: they are not earned. When the two concepts are taken together, it is impossible for someone to lose these rights.
When I discussed this topic outside of class with someone, they brought up whether sociopaths or psychopaths could have their rights removed. We said in class, however, that there is not enough information on these conditions to pass judgement. Well, I think I have the answer. Being a psychopath or a sociopath makes a person no less human than you or I. Last time I checked, if you were born of two human parents...you're human. End of story.
This is a very complicated topic for me. Yes human rights should be inalienable but what happens when a person violates someone else's rights? if those rights are not transferable one person shouldn't be able to take away another's and yet it is done all the time. The fact that someone is human cannot be taken away from you and that is undoubtable, however I disagree on the grounds that someone's rights cannot be removed especially if they take it upon themselves to take away another humans rights. I believe it is a very circumstantial matter.
ReplyDeleteI have to respectfully disagree. The fact that rights are inalienable means that they cannot be transfered, as I said. Therefore, they can also not be taken away. It's tough to state that we should give human rights to the most horrid members of our society, but they deserve them from virtue of being human.
ReplyDeleteI guess, in simple terms it does not work like this-
1. You are born a human.
2. Because you are human you acquire human rights.
3. You commit a heinous crime and those rights can be removed.
Instead, it works like this-
1. You are born human, and by being born human you are imbued with inalienable rights by virtue of
your existence as a human.
2. Because your rights are not acquired, but are an essential component of being human, they cannot be removed.
I hope this clarifies!
I almost agree, Stephan, but I'm afraid you might reductively confuse biological humanity with the moral standing of a person. The reasonable question Helena and others raise is whether one might abrogate one's personhood by a heinous enough act (or an extreme enough lack of the normal range of human emotions, such that you can never be trusted not to harm others).
ReplyDeletePresumptively, perhaps we must treat all suspects, and even convicts, as persons deserving respect, if only because our knowledge of their criminality is never absolute (and there have been hundreds of criminal vindications through DNA evidence in the past 20 years, many of them from death row, so we have good grounds for epistemic humility).
The harder case to make is why, even if they really are the monsters we take them to be, we owe them respect and dignity. I suspect we do, but I don't think we yet know why, or how we can express that.
Awesome post, this issue has been stewing in my mind as well.
ReplyDeletePart of me agrees with you, Stephan, when you make the point that the rights of a human are remarkable in that they are nearly invulnerable to any form of removal, under any circumstance. Even if a human subjugates another and effectively eliminates their 'inalienable' rights, I still believe they are to be given those rights which they so willingly ignored. However, I am not willing to equate all biological humans on a moral scale, as Professor Silliman suggests. As I mentioned in class, after reading cases of serial perpetrators like John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dalmer and watching footage of interviews with Ted Bundy and Charles Manson, I fail to categorize these dark creatures with the likes of myself or my mother, for example. Biology does NOT necessitate morality and thus the word human and the subsequent rights that go along with this word must be defined in two parts, one of biology which obviously the Bundy's of the world possess AND of morality which I firmly believe the Bundy's of the world are lacking and as a result are responsibly denied the same rights as you or I.
Matt, I suppose that I had a meaning behind the biological element of humanity that I didn't explain.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's dangerous to use any other measure of humanity. When we give a mental definition of what is a human, I fear there is a potential to neglect other members of the human race that may not have full mental faculties who also may not know right or wrong. Therefore, I believe that by being a human biologically, you are imbued with human rights.
My two cents worth:
ReplyDeleteI was a believer in the alienability (?) of human rights. I understand the concept that humans are imbued with these rights, and that we can't take them away. However, this isn't my point. When I spoke of someone having these rights taken away, I would say they take them away from themselves more so than we judge them unworthy of the rights. At some point the actions a person takes defines them, and and even more, defines the way others should treat them. After enacting awful things for so long (someone like Bin Laden or Hitler) they themselves have instructed humanity to treat them differently, and as such I don't think their rights are "inalienable".
Don't destroy me too horribly mentally please.
Haha, I'm not going to destroy you, and I can really understand where you're coming from. I think your objection does have an answer, and that answer isn't convoluted.
ReplyDeleteHitler, Bin Laden, Pol Pot...whomever you want to mention, we all know these are the most depraved of the depraved among us. However, even though they have violated someone else's rights doesn't mean that theirs can be taken away.
These people cannot be judged and indeed we've done that. However, their human rights are an essential aspect of who they are as human beings. The rights are inseparable from what it means to be human. You can't be a human without human rights nor can something have human rights without being human.
Your concept of "inalienability” is religious as in “God given”. Our humanity evolved in us. Morality is an evolved trait. Our morality does not come from religion; religion comes from our innate morality (at least the rare moral part of religion). Ask someone if their religion is moral. How do they know? It was already there. Human beings usurped intelligence and cognitive ability evolved for pattern matching in the wilds of the African plains for the thought that led to the development of societies. These societies improved with the application of that usurped intelligence and were passed down through generations. For example the Judeo-Christian texts have no admonition against slavery (actually tacit and explicit acceptance) but that is something that is almost universally considered immoral and unacceptable in modern society. It is our development of society that makes it acceptable to remove the “God given” rights of a sociopath or a psychopath. I often hear people refer to someone like a child molester or serial killer as “evil”. These people are not evil, they are broken or dysfunctional, and it is completely acceptable to remove them from the opportunity to harm more people.
ReplyDeleteHm, I'm not sure about using biology as the basis of moral standing. What is it about having 46 chromosomes that results in inalienable rights? It's hard to see.
ReplyDelete