Since I've been digging in the theoretical depths lately, something really important occurred to me. It isn't that I've never given it any thought, but it has me wondering.

First of all, I assume that human rights cannot conflict with one another. Simply, if I am exercising my human rights, those rights come to an end the moment that doing so comes at a cost to the rights of anyone else. I cannot claim that I have the right to deprive anyone else of their rights. That is where my liberties end. This applies to everyone in society. If I have a legitimate claim to a right, this entails a corresponding duty in everyone else, namely, to protect my legitimate right. Correspondingly, I have a duty to protect the rights of anyone and everyone else. We're all in it together.

Suppose we accept the above premise. Now, what can we say about the Mormon moral imperative to marry? Can a religious organization make a demand like this of its members? I say no. Not if everyone is to have individual human rights that are equal and considered inviolable.

A religious organization has few "rights" of its own. What rights an organization has are typically contractually-based. But these rights are not at all like individual human rights, which are the entitlement of every member in that group, individually. In a society that values justice, no organization can ever claim that its rights as an organization exceed any kind of individual human right. In the type of society we have, based on the US Constitution, individual rights are supreme. This is precisely why we don't vote on whether or not to grant human rights. They are enshrined in the Founding Documents. Again, either everyone has equal individual rights or nobody has rights. To eliminate equality is to eliminate the whole conception of human rights.

The three most familiar, and undoubtably the most important rights are, of course, those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights can be categorically broken down. For example, the right to be free from unnecessary bodily harm is part of the right to life. The right to freedom of religious practice is, of course, one of our liberties. We can analyze these rights separately, but they are deeply intertwined.

Since religious freedoms are one kind of human right, and the freedom to marry or not marry are also individual rights, and since the exercise of ones right to religious practice ends as soon as they compromise the liberties of anyone else, it must be prohibited for one individual to cite religious liberty as justification for the act of making any kind of marital relationship morally imperative. In other words, nobody can have the religious right to demand that anyone else should get married. Our freedom to make or not make our own partnerships is part of our package of liberties, under the conception of universal human rights. In a society like ours, that purports to ensure everyone's individual human rights, a moral imperative to marry is unacceptable.

We can see now how the moral imperative to practice polygamy is inconsistent with our conception of individual rights. And since polygamy is male-dominated in Mormonism, it is even worse because it destroys any semblance of quality between the sexes. Women in these societies are under constant pressure to marry polygamously and we already know how this has resulted in underage marriages.

If we are going to legalize polygamy, then doing so in an effort to ensure religious liberties is the worst reason of all. That is, if by exercising their religious liberties the FLDS want to make polygamy a moral imperative.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2010 03:24AM by troy.

I think the argument against moral imperatives concerning marriage is better if I just stick with the polygamy example. The more I think about it, the more I can come up with examples of encouraging monogamous marriage that we already accept. But, you win some you lose some.

However, the situation is still much more sticky when we consider the question of legalizing polygamy. Looking at it carefully, we can see that the liberty to enter voluntarily into polygamous relationships is not exclusively what Mormon fundamentalists are asking. What they want in fact is more complicated. What they want is to establish a moral imperative for polygamy. Now, since we know the dynamics of polygamous society, how it is almost always rigidly polygynous, particularly in the case of the FLDS. We know that a given society cannot support polygamy and ensure equal rights for all. As a group of individuals, their rights do not supercede the rights of the individuals themselves. They cannot practice religion in a way that harms anyone else's rights. Not in a government system that seeks to eliminate inequality and maximize well-being, as the US Constitution surely does. (Does it not?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2010 08:36PM by troy.

Also, the question of whether "force" is being used is not completely settled. I think if society is making significant moral demands, especially in a way that jeopardizes free choice, we have to consider the factor of duress. I don't think there's any question at this point that women in FLDS society are experiencing duress as a result of polygamy. Their options are extremely limited. This is exactly what I would expect to find in a society that compromises equality in human rights in favor of individuals being controlled by the will of the group through doctrinal imperatives.

Furthermore, if we believe that we're all entitled to a decent education, we can't justify a system that pressures young women into marrying before finishing school. In broad society, young women are subject to some amount of pressure to marry, I think this is given. Young men are under a similar pressure. We already know that many people consider marriage a norm. It's very different in a society that demands a polygamous lifestyle, however. This is because of the pressure to marry while still underage. In broad society, would we find it acceptable to pressure someone to marry at the expense of finishing school? Generally, we wouldn't. Young girls in polygamous society deserve equal protection and opportunities, but they're not getting them. As long as their society holds polygamy to be a moral imperative, they will always be under undue and unequal pressure with respect to everyone else living under the authority of the US Constitution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2010 09:00PM by troy.

To be fair, the LDS church doesn't demand anyone to get married. Sure, it encourages, coerces, shames, threatens eternal consequences and otherwise uses all the manipulative tools in its box. And we can submit or reject their pressure. But they can't force anyone to do anything -- though it might feel like it sometimes. They're good at that stuff.

Besides, the church routinely gives up on people it realizes are never going to find that eternal companion. And 2/3 to 3/4 of the people the church imagines it controls have just walked away to do things their own way.

The LDS church is powerless against those who don't recognize its authority.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2010 09:03PM by Stray Mutt.

Actually individual and human rights do conflict with one another all the time. Human rights don't come with affirmative "duties" to protect the rights of others and freedom itself extends to the right to individual liberty even if you exercise your liberty to deprive others of their rights. Our constitution doesn't support the proposition that rights end at the moment it comes at a "cost" to someone else.

These ideas may be nice in theory if it were a simple equation but human existence is too complex and freedom itself cannot be restricted in these ways. Freedom as expressed in a free society and our constitution is always a balancing act with the understanding that the right of an individual will almost certainly cost something of another.

The freedom of individuals to discriminate, for example, is a fundamental human freedom. It is only government, the state authority that is supposed to represent all of us, that is precluded from discriminating against its own people. But the individual right to discriminate is a fundamental human right, made illegal only where government or commerce (which is a form of government sponsored interprise) is involved because of the prohibition against government discriminating.

One person's right to free association can be violated by another person at any time that other person decides not to honor your freedom to associate with them because they chose not to associate with you. This happens all the time in marriage, while racial discrimination is illegal for the government, no one can force a family to teach their children to be open to marry outside their race. Nor does the family's right to discriminate in how they feel or how they welcome persons of another race into the family "end" at the moment it costs someone their right to marry into another race.

A human right is simply the exercise of a natural inborn freedom or right. The freedom to own one's own thoughts, opinions, words, associations, etc. But to impose on one person's rights a duty to protect those of others is itself a violation of freedom, though we may impose those moral duties upon ourselves if we so chose.

Affirmative duties to act in the interest of another are inherent (and legally imposed) only in special circumstances like that of a parent toward an infant. If it were otherwise we would be more prisoners than free agents because everything we do would be restricted by how it impacts somebody.

If my religion includes shining bright lights toward our shared sky at night, and my neighbors religion includes a ritual of gazing up to the sky in the dark, my right does not end once it costs my neighbor the darkness they need to gaze upward. Nor do I have a duty to ensure my neighbors right to darkness is protected at the expense of my right to shine a bright light. The most we can do is exercise our rights and live with the fact that in doing so our boundaries sometimes cross and impact one another.

This is why there are no absolute rights or absolute duties. All things are a balancing and weighing of considerations and weighing of harms that our actions might cause.

Totalitarian regimes view these things in absolute terms and destroy all freedoms in the process of enforcing the correct ideas. Freedom is more flexible and adaptable to the realities of how humans must coexist and will be impacted by disagreements between the ways we each chose to exercise of our individual freedoms. Including the freedom to preach what we think is the correct moral imperative whether we are right or wrong.

Ironic. That's what life is, ironic.

Cristina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually individual and human rights do conflict
> with one another all the time. Human rights don't
> come with affirmative "duties" to protect the
> rights of others and freedom itself extends to the
> right to individual liberty even if you exercise
> your liberty to deprive others of their rights.
> Our constitution doesn't support the proposition
> that rights end at the moment it comes at a "cost"
> to someone else.

Actually, the Constitution does support that proposition. It does so in Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment IX is really an early development of a principle that is indeed part of our whole conception of human rights, that individuals with rights are all equal, and nobody can use their rights to take away the rights of anyone else. That is where our liberties end. Anyone can argue that "human rights do conflict." I wouldn't disagree with that, but that conflict between human rights is precisely what we want to minimize in a just society.
>
> These ideas may be nice in theory if it were a
> simple equation but human existence is too complex
> and freedom itself cannot be restricted in these
> ways. Freedom as expressed in a free society and
> our constitution is always a balancing act with
> the understanding that the right of an individual
> will almost certainly cost something of another.

Not at all true. And the claim that "these ideas may be nice in theory..." is something I've been hearing for years. I wouldn't dream of letting that change my position. It is not a good reason to object to what I'm arguing.

Would you agree that you have a right to be free from bodily harm? If you disagree, I don't envy you when you find yourself in a position to protest any kind of compromise to your own rights. A lot of people misunderstand the claim that we have a right to be free from harm. They seem to be thinking that it is a claim that we should expect to be free from harm in reality. It doesn't work that way. The way it works is as follows:

If I have a right to be free from bodily harm, and I believe I do, this entails that I also have a duty to refrain from harming others. This is true of everyone else in my society. If it was up to me alone to protect my rights, they wouldn't be rights at all. Rights and duties correspond this way in all contemporary theories about equal rights. The duty to refrain from harming someone is the bare minimum. If I harm someone, I have used my liberty in a way that goes beyond equality because by depriving someone of their rights, I'm depriving them of their liberties. Some people make the mistake of forgetting that liberty is also one of the fundamental human rights. But when someone uses more liberty than their equal share, by definition, they have deprived someone else of their rights.

I think most people would agree that we should do no harm. Some may be uncomfortable with this wording, but technically speaking, the principle that we should do no harm is a MORAL principle. It isn't a statement about how the world is, it is a statement about something we should always aspire to. I don't know how anyone can disagree with the principle to do no harm as being good moral advice. Most of the time, people don't have any difficulty with this.
>
>
> The freedom of individuals to discriminate, for
> example, is a fundamental human freedom. It is
> only government, the state authority that is
> supposed to represent all of us, that is precluded
> from discriminating against its own people. But
> the individual right to discriminate is a
> fundamental human right, made illegal only where
> government or commerce (which is a form of
> government sponsored interprise) is involved
> because of the prohibition against government
> discriminating.

I'm not sure what there is to disagree with here, but liberty, in the Constitutional sense is one of several fundamental human rights. So let's look at your example below:

>
> One person's right to free association can be
> violated by another person at any time that other
> person decides not to honor your freedom to
> associate with them because they chose not to
> associate with you. This happens all the time in
> marriage, while racial discrimination is illegal
> for the government, no one can force a family to
> teach their children to be open to marry outside
> their race. Nor does the family's right to
> discriminate in how they feel or how they welcome
> persons of another race into the family "end" at
> the moment it costs someone their right to marry
> into another race.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. We have a right to free association, but we do not have the right to force our association on those who don't welcome it. Now, people are always imposing on others to associate when it isn't welcome. When I'm sitting on the bus reading a book, I don't welcome strangers who sit down and start making small talk with me. In fact, I find it very annoying. I can be blunt with the person or move away. That seems obvious. But if I tell someone that I don't want to associate with them, they can't use their right to free association to force me to do so. If they do, I suppose I'll have to call the police at some point. If I do that, I will be within my legal rights. But I don't see how this has anything to do with families raising their children to marry only inside their race. And I don't see how that has anything to do with allowing people to make polygamy a moral imperative. If a family, in their private lives, wants to keep their children from marrying outside their race, I think they are threatening the equal rights of their children. Parents cannot make moral demands on who their children may marry, since marriage is something their children will do (ideally) when they are responsible for their own choices. But that is probably going to remain an internal matter to the family.

Polygamy doesn't resemble the problem of interracial marriage, and whether or not it should be permitted. We already do permit it. But permitting people to practice polygamy is no small matter. It actually does put human rights at risk.

>
> A human right is simply the exercise of a natural
> inborn freedom or right. The freedom to own one's
> own thoughts, opinions, words, associations, etc.
> But to impose on one person's rights a duty to
> protect those of others is itself a violation of
> freedom, though we may impose those moral duties
> upon ourselves if we so chose.

This is not even conceptually consistent. If I'm not willing to protect the rights of other people to be free from harm, I'm in no position to claim that I have that right. As a duty, it doesn't involve doing anything on my part. In fact, it is a duty to NOT do anything. In this respect, it is called a "negative" duty. Corresponding to this is the right to be free from harm. It is called a "negative" right. There is a theoretical framework for human rights that you don't seem to be aware of at all. What you've described above is incoherent. Why would you say that you have a right to your "thoughts, words, opinions, associations" if you didn't expect people to not interfere with these "rights?"
>
> Affirmative duties to act in the interest of
> another are inherent (and legally imposed) only in
> special circumstances like that of a parent toward
> an infant. If it were otherwise we would be more
> prisoners than free agents because everything we
> do would be restricted by how it impacts somebody.

Now you're talking about something different. You are referring to "positive duties" wherein we are said to go above the minimum of not harming and doing something extra, like charity. These duties are what are controversial and I think this is what you have in mind when I say that our rights correspond with certain duties. But positive rights are very different from negative rights, like the right to be free from harm (or wrongful death). If you don't think we have a duty to refrain from harming people, then how can you expect anyone to NOT harm people? The duty may be unwritten, but we typically acknowledge it in healthy, just societies.
>
>
> If my religion includes shining bright lights
> toward our shared sky at night, and my neighbors
> religion includes a ritual of gazing up to the sky
> in the dark, my right does not end once it costs
> my neighbor the darkness they need to gaze upward.

Let's word it a little differently. You do not have a right to pollute the rest of society through the exercise of your freedoms. If what you are doing is making things unpleasant for everyone else, we aren't going to just throw our hands in the air and say that your freedom shouldn't be limited. Freedom is a human right, and nobody has any more than anyone else. If you take more than your share, society has sanctions.


> Nor do I have a duty to ensure my neighbors right
> to darkness is protected at the expense of my
> right to shine a bright light. The most we can do
> is exercise our rights and live with the fact that
> in doing so our boundaries sometimes cross and
> impact one another.

As soon as your liberties impact the rights of other people, you are impacting their liberties. Failure to restrain oneself when ones liberties come at the expense of others constitutes moral free-riding. People do it, yes. That doesn't make it acceptable if it is causing trouble to others. None of this is inconsistent with the way things are under the Constitution.

>
> This is why there are no absolute rights or
> absolute duties. All things are a balancing and
> weighing of considerations and weighing of harms
> that our actions might cause.

If you think I'm making a case for absolutes, you're mistaken. Human rights are universal in that they apply to all human beings equally. If they don't apply equally, they don't exist at all. I reject moral absolutes, but that doesn't mean we can't put down some guidelines to protect our equality of rights. That is exactly what the Constitution is for.

>
> Totalitarian regimes view these things in absolute
> terms and destroy all freedoms in the process of
> enforcing the correct ideas.

I don't see the connection. Do you mean to imply that universal human rights can lead to totalitarianism? You see, totalitarianism is precisely what cannot be justified in a society that is based on equality, and thus universality, of rights. But the conception of universal human rights is not absolute in the sense that we can make adjustments to the theory as we need. But the idea of universal human rights as a means of having a just society is an idea that surpasses all other political theories.

> Freedom is more
> flexible and adaptable to the realities of how
> humans must coexist and will be impacted by
> disagreements between the ways we each chose to
> exercise of our individual freedoms. Including
> the freedom to preach what we think is the correct
> moral imperative whether we are right or wrong.
>
I don't think you understood me very well. The act of preaching a moral imperative is a threat to liberty. That's because it puts people under duress. We may find this uncomfortable, but we tolerate it most of the time. But since Mormon-based polygamy is a moral imperative that demands inequality of people, we can't allow it to be carried out legally. They would have to find a way to make it equal for all and that is totally against their doctrine. The duress is multiplied by the shortage of available women and it is felt by underage girls, who are expected to enter polygamous relationships at the whim of their moral authorities. I'm sorry, be we are not going to allow a society to make polygamy into a moral imperative. This is plenty of good reason for keeping it illegal. Religious groups can't demand that their members abandon their human rights. This is where religious liberty ends.

> Ironic. That's what life is, ironic.

Akrasia. That's the word Plato would use right about now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2010 07:51AM by Troy.

Please also note, Christina, that the fact that human rights DO conflict is not a reason that they OUGHT to conflict. That's the difference between a scientific judgment and a moral judgment. It's a logical fallacy to confuse the two.