The simplest definition of a right could be "a just claim". I guess no one would argue about this. The definition may be expanded depending on what basis or what other relevant matters would be associated with a "right" but for now let it suffice that a "right" is "a just claim".
To understand more what a "right" is we have to understand first what a "claim" is. A simple understanding of a "claim" could be "anything that one may, can or ought to possess, own, exercise, enjoy or whatever may be relevant to these things". The sense of the possibility of possession, ownership, exercise, enjoyment, etc of a "right" cannot be denied or it would cease to be a "right". A thing cannot be and not be at the same time so a "right" cannot be a "not right" at the same time. Hence a "right" cannot be something that cannot be owned, possessed, exercised, enjoyed, etc. For example, one cannot have a "right" over a lot that is owned by someone else because he does not have a "just claim" with respect to the law. Another is, a person has no "right" to impose discipline on a child that is not his own especially if [a] the child's parents are still alive and are capable of doing so and [b] if he does not any authority to do such as being a teacher, guardian or anything else as provided by law or any other authorization.
And we say it is "just" because one can possess, own, exercise, enjoy, etc a "right" because he has the capacity, power, or authority for possessing, owning, exercising, enjoying, etc that "right", that is, he is not prohibited, impeded, blocked, or unauthorized, to possess, own, exercise, enjoy, etc that "right". Furthermore, it is "just" would also mean it is "proper" or "fair" for him to possess, own, exercise, enjoy, etc that "right". Being "just" also mean "equal" in the sense that as he has the capacity, power, or authority to possess, own, exercise, enjoy, etc a "right" the same is also true with someone else who could lay claim to a "right" just as he has such claim. For example, the right to drive a company car. If two or more drivers have the authority to use the said company car one cannot exclusively use the same for his own.
Hence a "right" is a "just claim" because a person can possess, own, exercise, enjoy, etc the "right" only with due respect to the same, related or complimentary "right" of another. With this we can safely say that a "right" can not be absolute for one can only possess, own, exercise, enjoy, etc with due regard to the "right" of another. There must be a measure of "mutual respect for each other's right" so that a "conflict of rights" may not happen. If a "conflict of rights" takes place then there would be a problem and trouble could ensue. Hence it is called a "just claim" because no one could claim it without due respect for the "just claim" of another. For example, two persons came into a comfort room to urinate. There was only one available urinal. Though both of them may have the right to use the urinal, they cannot do it at the same time. The first one to reach the urinal has the "right" to use it first and the second person has to wait. He cannot claim the "right" to use it as long as someone else's who has the same "right" has been there first.
We must acknowledge the "bases of the possession, ownership, exercise, enjoyment, etc" of "rights" without which a "right" cannot be "justly claimed" and violation of which may cause suspension of the possession, ownership, exercise, enjoyment, etc of a "right". These "bases" of the possession, ownership, exercise, enjoyment, etc of a "right" may be a law, norms of conduct, or whatever could be made as any other acceptable bases of the possession, ownership, exercise, enjoyment, etc of a "right". These bases are also used to avoid the "conflict of rights" as they regulate the possession, ownership, exercise, enjoyment, etc of a "right" with due respect to each person possessing, owning, exercising, enjoying, etc their respective "rights" with regards to by whom, why, how, when and where a "right" could be possessed, owned, exercised, enjoyed, etc. For example, the right to suffrage or vote. It is a political right which every person might have as it is important for his exercise of the right to choose but it is regulated by age [normally in most countries only those 18 years and above could vote], or place [Filipinos living in the Philippines cannot vote for an American President], or time [the polls usually open at 7am and closes at 3pm or 6pm].
It is really unimaginable to have a "right" or a "just claim" without "bases" for when a person claims a "right" another could ask him his basis for such claim. A "right" cannot be plucked out of the wind when someone needs to "claim" a thing. It must be based on an acknowledged foundation or source. As of now, most of us would surely agree that the most acknowledged basis of a "right" are man made laws, that is why we say "legal rights". But we also have the so-called "human rights" which most countries agree to be based on what humans ought to justly claim, possess, own, exercise, enjoy, etc as "rights" in accordance with man's nature itself and not according to any man made laws such as the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Of course to enforce and legalize these, man made laws are also crafted. Other bases of rights are the moral or ethical [of which the human rights emanate for these deal about how humans should conduct themselves as humans or rational or thinking animals], cultural [which maybe about rights that have been based on tradition], and others.
The important thing is that a "right" is a "just claim" because it is based on something [legal, ethical or whatever agreed upon source of right] and it can only be possessed, owned, exercised, enjoyed, etc with due respect to another persons' "just claim" or 'right" and any violation of this could entail the suspension of the violator's "just claim".
We shall discuss relevant matters in the next articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment