The Tree of Rights: With due respect to the Author of "The Monkey and the Turtle"

THE MONKEY AND THE TURTLE.
Image from theprodigalkid.wordpress.com via google.com

"The Monkey and the Turtle found a fallen banana tree and they decided to halve it, with the Monkey trying to outwit the Turtle, telling him to get the lower half, because it has roots and that it will surely grow, with him taking the upper half, that which has leaves, thinking that he got the better part since it was the upper part and would soon produce fruit! But it turned out that the humble Turtle got the better part because the lower half had roots which helped the banana tree to grow and bear fruit in due time. However, since the Turtle cannot go up the banana tree to enjoy his fruit, he has to rely on the help of the Monkey who eagerly acceded to the request but instead of taking the bananas down, he ate them while up on the banana tree, throwing the peelings to the poor owner of the fruit. The Turtle put thorns on the tree so that when the Monkey went down after having his fill of the bananas, he got punctured and even got angry. He looked for the Turtle but he was nowhere to be found. The Monkey got tired and sat upon a coconut shell. His tail got inside the shell and suddenly he got bitten: the Turtle was hiding there! The Monkey threatened the Turtle of burning him but the Turtle just smiled and said at last he would become mestizo. The Monkey changed his mind and said that he would cut the Turtle to pieces to which the Turtle simply said that it would be great for he would grow in number. The Monkey thought that it would be a greater problem for him then. So he just told the Turtle that he would throw the Turtle into the river to which the Turtle immediately responded with a prayer that the Monkey does not proceed with the plan for he, the Turtle, would be drowned. The Monkey then threw the Turtle at once into the river. Upon touching the water, the Turtle laughed aloud; the Monkey was outwitted for the Turtle could swim." 

We could get a lesson from this story in relation to Rights and their protection. The roots stand for the most important one, the Right to Life, for without the Right to Life, nothing else could follow. The tree or trunk stand for the Right to Freedom, for it links Life with its goal, Happiness. It is only after Life and Freedom can man pursue Happiness, which is represented by the leaves. The fruit represents succeeding Rights which flow from the three fundamental Rights: Life, Liberty or Freedom, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The people who would like to make a short cut, that is, to enjoy the fruits without regard for the roots, are like the Monkey who tried to outwit the Turtle. The Turtle represents the people who accept the fact that without roots, that is, the Right to Life, there could be no fruits, that is, other rights. 

The Monkeys in our society want only to enjoy the Fruits, that is, the Secondary Rights, of what the Turtles did, the nourishment of the Tree, that is the Fundamental Rights. For while the Turtles nourish the Roots, that is, protect and fight for the Right to Life in all its stages and forms, the Monkeys do not care for their eyes are merely focused on the Fruits, that is, the enjoyment of the Secondary Rights. It doesn't matter for them how the Fruits got there, how they are able to enjoy Secondary Rights, important thing is that it is already there and that they have the capability to get them while the Turtles do not. 

The Monkeys in our Society are the ones in power. They are the ones making the policies, implementing and protecting them. Even if the Turtles do everything to be heard, the Monkeys won't listen for they are already on top and they only throw the leftovers to the Turtle, that is, they make other policies which they hope to appease the Turtles with, even if these are not the ones that the Turtles want to get, in relation to the enjoyment of the fruits. 

So the Turtles can only put thorns on the base of the trunk, that is, remind the Monkeys that Freedom isn't absolute, that Freedom is only Freedom when expressed in accordance with the Roots, that is, with the most fundamental right of all, the Right to Life. The Monkeys get hurt because of this and they look for the Turtles threatening them with being Burned or Cut, that is, being Persecuted for not conforming to what the Monkeys think and do. However, the Turtles know that even if they are finally thrown into the River, or killed for what they believe in, they shall be able to Swim away from the Monkeys, that is, have their Salvation for death is the entrance to eternal life. For the Monkeys, since they disregard the importance of the Roots, they will surely experience the death of their Tree. 

While on earth the Turtles have to remain fighting so that when they get thrown into the River, they shall truly reap the reward of their labor. 

The Basis of a Right

We have discussed that a "right" is a "just claim". We also made it clear that a "right" is not absolute because a person may have a "just claim" over one and the same "right" in the same manner or measure as another. We also established that a "right" must have a "basis" or else it cannot be possessed, owned, exercised, enjoyed, etc for no one cannot just pluck out of the empty air any "just claim".

Let us discuss some more about the "bases" of a "right" for as we said, no "right" can merely be plucked out of empty air. No one could merely say it is his "right" to speak, travel or live anywhere he wants to reside because he "wants" it. It would be result to a useless and lengthy debate and argumentation and most probably end up in what we do not like so much to happen, the imposition of the dictum "might is right" when the opposite is more acceptable and probably true and fair, that is, "right is might".

The truly acceptable bases of a "right" is a "law". There are many definitions of law but one which seems to be most consistent with man's rational nature is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, and it is stated as "nothing other than a certain dictate of reason for the common good, made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated." Here the Saint establishes important ingredients of what a law should be: [1] a law must be reasonable, [2] must be for the common good, [3] must come from an authority, and [4] must be promulgated. Most if not all modern laws have these qualities of a law.

[1] Reasonable means that it is based on the rationality of man or his nature as a thinking animal. A law cannot be based on a whim, a fad, or passing desire, or anything that does not come from man's deliberation or process of decision-making. It cannot be based on the mere interests of a privileged few or the "wants" of a vote rich sector of society or district of a community therefore it must not be made merely due to political exigency, economic interests and socio-cultural experimentation. It must be based on the grounds of fairness, propriety and equity, or perhaps "truth, justice and peace". 

[2] A law must be for the common good. It may not actually benefit each and everyone in the same manner or measure but it has to be made for the sake of each and everyone. Laws that tend to favor only a few or a chosen group is called class legislation and is not acceptable in most countries. For example, traffic laws are enforced for every person to be assured of safety in the use of roads though not every person may be using the road. Holidays in celebration of a religious observance of a church or any other religious group may be proclaimed but not only the members of the said group have to benefit from the holiday but even those who are non-members.

[3] A law must come from an authority. No one could make a law to be enforced upon others without the power vested in him to do such a thing. In most countries, laws are enacted by a Congress or a Parliament. Before, absolute monarchs had the privilege of making laws by themselves, some have advisers to help them but still only the monarch could make laws. 

[4] A law must be promulgated, that is, it is made known. Though we have the saying that "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" it is only enforceable after it has been promulgated or made known to all who need to know the law that they may follow it. It cannot be kept hidden. Though it is not necessary to go to every person to tell him about the law, the practice these days especially with regards to national laws is to have them printed in newspapers of general circulation that at least people may have the opportunity to read them. 

Now that we have made it clear that "rights" should be based on law, we may raise the question as to what kind of law do we base a "right"?  The most common laws to us are man made laws also called positive laws or more particularly, human positive laws. But if we merely say these human positive  laws would be our bases for the possession, ownership, exercise or enjoyment of "rights", how can we claim the so-called "human rights" when these rights are observably more primitive than man made laws. Before any law on the freedom of expression have been made, man have already been claiming that "right" to express himself. Before a law on property have been made, people have been owning things already and the property law was merely enacted to confirm the said "right". Surely, there must be some other laws aside from man made laws upon which people could base the "first or prime rights" such as the human rights. 

We shall discuss this matter in the next article. 

The Nature of a Right

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.