VARYING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SAME RIGHT:
PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL DIFFERENCES
Lecture of Dr. Nikolas K. Gvosdev
One of the difficulties that has been encountered in trying to create some sort of universal or general standard for human rights is that even when nations, diplomats, and academics agree on the same words and terms, they do not always interpret them in the same way.
Even in English, the term "right" can have a number of permutations. For example, to say that someone has "the right of way" is to indicate that they have an opportunity to do something, not that a certain outcome has been predicated--a person can cross the street, but does not have to and will not be given assistance to cross the street. On the other hand, in a divorce case, the idea that the spouse has the "right" to half of the estate (in no-fault cases) is in fact a tangible claim upon the division of resources; in other words, it is an entitlement, a claim, on goods or services. So, even in English, the term "right" is flexible; it can refer both to guaranteed opportunity as well as entitlement.
Most theorists and policy makers concerned with human rights, therefore, argue over whether rights should be understood as opportunity or entitlement.
Take, for example, the declaration, "A person has a right to life." What does this entail?
For some, this declaration should be interpreted in a negative fashion, that it, if you have the right to life, then others (individuals and society as a whole) do not have the right to take life from you. "Right to life" therefore means that you cannot be killed arbitrarily, that you should be safe in your person.
For others, this declaration would be interpreted in a positive fashion, that is, since you have a right to life, then others (individuals and society as a whole) have an obligation to keep you alive and provide you with the means for sustenance (employment, other benefits, etc.)
This is one of the basic divisions in terms of human rights--whether rights should primarily be negative (what others cannot do to you) or positive (what others should do for you). The American system has tended to see rights in a negative fashion--that is, the government and society are restricted from interfering with you or what you choose to do but placing primary responsibility on you the individual for your own welfare.
In recent years, debates have also focused around whether rights are solely individually based or collectively exercised. During World War II, the Nazi regime would take away children from the occupied territories that were felt to be Aryan in blood for education and training in Germany. The children were not deprived of life, or even mistreated, but it was judged that separation from their families and homes constituted a violation of their rights; that the fact that their biological existence was maintained was not sufficient; these children had a right to life with their own families and people and to be raised in their own culture and traditions. In recent years in the United States, this issue has also been raised with regard to so-called "trans-racial" adoptions; again, the argument being made that simply sustaining biological life is insufficient and that there is a "collective" or "group" claim to life.
The next set of issues deal with weighing this declaration against other rights and the rights of others.
Are rights eternal and inalienable--so that a person always has a right to life under all circumstances, or can the exercise of such a right be taken away through due process of law? Is the right to life to be viewed solely in individual circumstances, or must other considerations be taken into account--is it permissible to take the life of one individual to save the lives of countless others? Would it have been acceptable to assassinate Adolf Hitler during World War II? What about as a young man? What of the argument now being circulated that the crime rate is decreasing in the United States because the legalization of abortion during the 1970's has removed unwanted children from life and thus cut down on a potential criminal class?
The final set of arguments deal with implementation: who decides when a right has been violated and who has authority to act? The current state of affairs still places primary responsibility in the hands of national governments--that each state is largely responsible for what happens within its borders. Since World War II there has been a growing feeling that either each individual in the world has a direct interest in the human rights of others--bypassing the state structure altogether (cosmopolitanism) or that states must create common institutions for the protection of rights. The second alternative has generally been resisted because even in the most democratic of states, officials are reluctant to turn over authority that they feel rightfully belongs to them.
When examining the statement of a "human right", therefore, one should consider the following:
Take, for example, the question of "freedom of speech" on college campuses. Some of the issues that have arisen include: is funding of newspapers or magazines an integral part of "freedom of speech?" Is the denial of funding therefore a denial of freedom of speech? To what extent should the impact of speech on other individuals or groups be assessed? If someone's speech freely exercised prevents someone else from enjoying other rights, how are these contradictions to be balanced and assessed? We can see the "negative" approach in the contention that everyone is free to speak and write and publish on a campus using their own resources but not relying on any sort of handout or grant; the "positive" approach in the claim made that freedom of speech is enhanced by giving to as many groups, no matter how small or insignificant, access to funds and equipment; the collectivist approach in the development of speech codes and other regulations to govern speech on campuses.