How Do You Define "Right", And How Do You Define "Privilege"?

[otters]

Some (particularly US Americans) use the term "privilege" when (IMHO) the term "right" would apply, and others use the term "right" even in cases when (IMHO) the term "privilege" would be accurate.

Is there a difference?

If you think so, please describe in detail.

 

[eddielee]

A right is something that is gauranteed by the constitution. You don't not have to earn anything or qualify to have a right. A privilege is something that in not gauranteed. People have the privilege, but not the right to vote. They must meet certain critiria and the privilege to vote can be taken away. No person is born with the right to drive. It's a privilege that you earn by passing a test and proving you can drive. To sum it up as best I can, a right is something you are born with, and a privilege is something you earn and it can be taken away.

 

[vidarr]

I would say all rights, beyond personal ones that is, are a privilege.

The only rights you have are ones that can't be taken away by others. The right to make your own choices, express your own thoughts, etc.

EDIT: I would like to add too that rights aren't always necessarily a good thing. Religious freedom as we all know, was used as a weapon against the gay community and disguised as a right of religious expression.

 

[otters]

I agree with you, eddielee, there's a huge difference.

I want to give two examples which particularly boggle my mind because there are the terms (willfully I suppose) mixed up, or misused:

1. Evidently, so called "Men's Rights Activists" usurp the term "right" — since their aims aren't "rights", their aim is male supremacy.

2. Evidently, the term "White Privilege" doesn't talk about privilege = something that would be earned — since one's skin colour isn't a subject of (individual) merit so to say; I must suppose, this term is a weird satire.

 

[otters]

I would say all rights, beyond personal ones that is, are a privilege.

The only rights you have are ones that can't be taken away by others. The right to make your own choices, express your own thoughts, etc.

This is an interesting, but IMHO a very problematic definition since in the USA (and some other countries) the so called "right to life" can be taken away comparatively easily (death penalty OTOH, abortion OTOH).

Would you suggest that one should speak about the "privilege to life" instead of "right to life"?

 

[NotHardUp1]

Methinks there is too much reliance on law as a definer of the term "right."

A right, as conceived in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and preceding source documents, is an inherent in innate entitlement to a human (and more recently, in the view of some, to animals for whom we care enough about to personify.) The rights are basic, even when defined in the Bill of Rights or by subsequent judicial reinterpretation.

A fundamental right historically has been life, that is, unless one abrogates the laws of the State to the degree that the State exercises its right of execution. Another is the right to have representation in legislation, and in due process of adjudication. Yet more abstract is the right to the "pursuit of happiness," likely meaning free from generally perceived and commonly defined "oppression."

On the other hand, a privilege is a opportunity or status not guaranteed, such as wealth or happiness. A privilege is either bestowed arbitrarily by fate or earned by work. Home ownership is and has long been a privilege in the U.S. The poor were excluded from it as a policy more and more as populations grew, inheritances waned, and the upper classes rigged the banking system to turn home ownership into sort of an investment game. At the same time, property owners began exploiting the situation to drive rents even higher than house payments. Their privilege to exploit the masses was granted by the State that they purchased when lobbying Congress with vast amounts of political contributions.

A similar situation exists in the gun industry. Americans have the right to bear arms, ostensibly to protect the individual against illegal search and seizure and to act as a hedge against unreasonable tyranny. But, due to the self-interest of the NRA and gun manufacturers, many have the privilege of killing dozens or hundreds of citizens with fully automatic weapons that Congress has repeatedly sanctioned. One presumes it is to enhance the video gaming industry as well, both converging to support the view of militarism as patriotism.

For the long trek of history, there has almost never been a "right to life" granted by the State that involved the State surrendering its right to execute in cases of treason, sedition, murder, and capital crimes like rape.

 

[kallipolis]

It is my privilege to post on this site, knowing that this privilege is never my right, to abuse those who abuse me.

The nature of human rights is highly complicated, even beyond the controversial debtates, reaching back to the dawn of human civilisation over who is deserving of such rights. A worthwile debate continues to this day, this thread being one of many examples, over what is meant by human rights.

The universality, and inalienability of a human right is arguable on the character of the perceived right being discussed.

The Golden Rule speaks wisely on the matter of human rights, with my own reading preferences on this topic haracterised by the wise words of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke.

Each of us brings to this discussion our own life's experiences, prejudices, and beliefs that speak of our desire to change the world, for the betterment of the human race.

It has been my privilege to post these words, hopeful that my right to live my life, my way will never be compromised by those in privileged positions.

 

[kallipolis]

Methinks there is too much reliance on law as a definer of the term "right."

I agree...and for this reason, the right to life should never be a privilege attached to anyone, or state to remove.

 

[tarallucci]

I have the privilege to eat lasagna today, because circumstances allow me to do so, so I am "lucky enough".
I have the right to post this fact here, even if no one cares, because "I am free" to decide whether to share it or not.

 

[Benvolio]

If the "right" is not enforceable, as by law, it is meaningless. It is easy to say, I have the right to free health care, or food, or shelter. I can assert the right to almost anything. But if I cannot actually enforce the right it is just "talk".
The authors of the Declaration of Independence relied upon the theory of "natural rights" endowed by the Christian/Jewish creator, with the right to life, and the pursuit of happiness, at least, being enforced, it was believed by the Creator. Many northern Americans did believe in the right to liberty as well while many believed in slavery and obvious denial of the right to liberty.

 

[kallipolis]

If the "right" is not enforceable, as by law, it is meaningless.

The New England colonists exercised their right, not by legal means, but by military action to not be dictated too, by King George's government.

When laws are insufficient to ones needs, there are other means at the disposal of those who seek liberty.

 

[NotHardUp1]

If the "right" is not enforceable, as by law, it is meaningless.

No, not meaningless, just not assured.

It took societies many thousands of years to get to the point where commoners had significant rights, but they were always there, just not realized in most cases.

But, the Declaration was explicit: the rights had always been there, even when usurped, just like those buried ships by the Martians in Independence Day.

And, in truth, enshrined in law isn't any guarantee, as we know from the treatment of minorities and women. Furthermore, "liberty" is constantly being taken away by our police state, so even when the law promises the right, it doesn't assure it. It is the basis for argument, lawsuits, protests, or whathaveyou.

 

[kallipolis]

N
And, in truth, enshrined in law isn't any guarantee, as we know from the treatment of minorities and women. Furthermore, "liberty" is constantly being taken away by our police state, so even when the law promises the right, it doesn't assure it. It is the basis for argument, lawsuits, protests, or whathaveyou.

Rightfully, expressed.

 

[Benvolio]

In that case, I have a right to a free automobile each year. I have a right to a new house. Or, if you prefer, we all have a right to a free house and auto.

 

[NotHardUp1]

No. Arbitrarily declared "rights" to privileges do not a valid claim make. They are sifted out over time until they are more or less supported by a consensus.

Rights have evolved over time, which is at the core of some of the comments in this thread. Some governments now have constituencies that define the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, but it is by no means a universal view on this planet, even among Western civilizations.

 

[kallipolis]

In that case, I have a right to a free automobile each year. I have a right to a new house. Or, if you prefer, we all have a right to a free house and auto.

The rational thinker would propose the thought that ones efforts, afford one the right to use the rewards of ones labour, to satisfy ones needs.

Ones choice how to spend the benefit of ones labour, becomes ones freedom to choose.

...nevertheless, ones right to choose, is not evidence of having made a wise choice.

 

[kallipolis]

No. Arbitrarily declared "rights" to privileges do not a valid claim make. They are sifted out over time until they are more or less supported by a consensus.

Rights have evolved over time, which is at the core of some of the comments in this thread. Some governments now have constituencies that define the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, but it is by no means a universal view on this planet, even among Western civilizations.

We agree.

The rights of man are afforded to all, when those rights serve the common good....but, human nature often reminds us that human life is flawed, and justice equitably served, is the result of having to correct those who are selfishly devoted to ignoring the human rights of others, not to be abused.

 

[gsdx]

In that case, I have a right to a free automobile each year. I have a right to a new house. Or, if you prefer, we all have a right to a free house and auto.

You're constantly mistaking 'right' for 'free'. As much as you say you have a 'right' to a free car, the car dealers have the 'right' to charge however much they damned-well please. Picking apples from a farmer's orchard is 'free', but it is not your 'right' to do so. It is 'stealing', and that is an enforceable law.

 

[Kabluey]

You're constantly mistaking 'right' for 'free'. As much as you say you have a 'right' to a free car, the car dealers have the 'right' to charge however much they damned-well please. Picking apples from a farmer's orchard is 'free', but it is not your 'right' to do so. It is 'stealing', and that is an enforceable law.

Good point there. Some people reject the idea of a commonwealth and attempt to deny the basic rights of others through simple selfishness - they tend to engage in overreach, for example suggesting that having a child is a privilege.

I agree with Jason that the US constitution doesn't determine what are not rights. The fundamental rights of individuals tend to be very similar between developed countries, and case law, international treaties and local laws support these.

Privileges tend to be specifically granted, like driver's licenses, title deeds, tax exemptions, welfare, visas - things that can be revoked.

A country might grant conditional and revocable visas to immigrants to access some of the birthrights enjoyed by citizens.
A court might grant probation to an individual who's acted illegally.
A city might grant permission for certain business activities to operate within their territory.

 

[peeonme]

Imho, rights give a person an opportunity to access privilege if they so desire.
Rights clear the road of oppression and suppression of the individual or group that aren't in the controlling class or majority.
Rights are not granted by government, rather they are recognized and protected.
Rights can be lost if one is found guilty of a crime. Loss of freedom being the prime example.

Privilege to me is somewhat harder to define, it is taken for granted most of the time. Having running water to me is a privilege, having gas forced air heat is another. I could find myself chopping wood and taking a bucket down to the creek for water.
So, privilege depends upon (for want of a better word) luck.

I was lucky, fortunate, privileged etc. to be born in an advanced nation, a privilege can be lost by neglect. If we watch our nation crumble around us and do not maintain it, we forsake our privilege(s).
We have the right to secure our privilege, but not at the expense of the rights of others.

So, the privileged can maintain their status, but not by creating a permanently un-privileged class of people who are disenfranchised.