OK but where did the right come from? Who gave us rights in the first place? I don't understand if they cannot be given or taken away, why do they even matter?
Good question, BD. And I hope to answer it adequately, but first, I must state that the following is purely a self-derived philosophy, and as such, cannot be classified as anything more than my opinion on the matter.
In my way of viewing things, rights are a natural ability to engage one's own will in order to pursue a specific behavior and/or goal.
For example: One has a natural right to imbibe intoxicants, seek a mate, or even kill another human being. Other rights include the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as described by Jefferson in the DoI.
These rights are natural, and cannot actually be removed from a living being, as they are determined by the individual's will. They are not "granted" by anyone in particular, they merely exist.
The reason they matter is because the entire purpose of society is to add consequences to the pursuit of certain rights. The society dictates which rights are moral and can be pursued without consequence, and which one's are immoral and cannot be pursued without consequence.
This, IMO, is a product of humanity being a social creature, and the evolutionary benefits of morality are such that a shared morality in an intelligent social creature increases the overall likelihood that the species will survive as well as the likelihood that people within a social group will pass on their genes (or have those who have similar genetic structures, such as relatives, pass on theirs).
So, essentially humans are pre-wired to develop morality, and these moral concepts should be shared by the group in order to increase the evolutionary benefits of that morality.
This means that individuals who do not display the same moral inclinations they receive consequences for this non-conformity, such as removal from the group (which I theorize is the rudimentary foundation for laws as they would be found in a tribal society). This can only be determined by the actions a person performs, so when someone engages in a right that has been deemed immoral by the group, they receive consequences of some sort.
The group cannot take away the
ability from the individual, but they can add consequences to their behavior. As the size of the groups increased when we became an agricultural creature, the informal rules became more formalized and society was formed, primarily existing to define these moral rules that differentiate people within the group form those outside the group.
Unfortunately, since all laws exist to add consequences to the exercise of a right, they naturally act as a sort of "deterrent" to the exercise of certain rights.
The reason we need to consider the way that rights work is so that we can define the parameters we use to add consequences to the exercise of certain rights. Every society does this, but for a society that has a shared morality where a maximization of personal freedom is considered a positive, the parameters are such that they specifically limit the addition of consequences to the exercise of those rights that can only be exercised in a fashion that have a negative effects on other people within that society.
For example: while making a law against murder cannot stop someone form exercising that right, it will add consequences for the purpose of trying to deter people from exercising that right.
Adding consequences to the exercise of certain rights is beneficial to the society as a whole, but adding consequences to other rights can have a detrimental affect on the society as a whole.
The unimpeded rights of a society should reflect the shared morality of that society to prevent discord within that society.
This works in two directions. When the exercise of a right is believed to deserve consequences, but doesn't, people become unhappy with the fact that it doesn't receive consequences. Conversely, if the exercise of a right receives consequences, when the people believe it shouldn't, they will become unhappy as well.
Since there exists a high degree of variation about which rights should receive consequences (which directly correlates to the variation of morality within that society), the only rights that should be universally receive or not receive consequences are those rights that are universally agreed upon at a moral level by the society as a whole. The addition or exclusion of consequences for any other rights should become as localized as possible to encompass only those who conform to the moralistic basis for the consequences and/or lack of consequences for certain rights.
This is the foundational philosophy to my anti-federalist views, and it is what I feel is the basis for our governmental system (where the bill of rights acts as a limitation on the federal government's ability to add consequences to rights, while allowing the states and local governments to be able to add consequences at their choice and in reflection of the moral beliefs within that small region.
Thus, for my personal philosophy, they are of the utmost importance. Ironically, I'm one of the few people I know who approaches the issue from a pure view of moral relativism.
I view the ability to add consequences to the exercise of right as a shared right of it's own. I feel that
all legislation is, at it's most basic level, legislating morality. Thus, I feel that it should, in all cases, reflect the shared morality of those who are directly effected by it.
I hope that answers all of your questions. As I said, this is a personal philosophy. It's entirely based on my opinions and my own logical deductions.
