Simply in virtue of being human

[Michael]

“Simply in Virtue of Being Human”
the Whos and Whys of Human Rights
by John Gardner

ACCORDING TO JAMES GRIFFIN, human rights are rights that humans have “simply in virtue of being human.” This analysis of the concept of a human right strikes me as helpful and credible. Of course it raises deep questions. What is a right? What is a human? Griffin has much of importance to say about these questions. But whether he analyzes the concept of a right and that of a human correctly will not be my main concern here. My main concern will be whether he brings these two concepts together correctly in his analysis of the concept of a human right.

Simply in Virtue of Being Human (http://www.jesp.org/PDF/Gardner.pdf)

I am not a fan of this argument at all. It seems so facile and meaningless.

(1) A human right is a right.
(2) A human right is a right that humans have.
(2A) There are human rights and humans have them.
(2B) Such human rights as may exist are rights that humans have.
(3) A human right (if any exist) is a right that humans have simply in virtue
of being human.

This argument seems to be entirely circular. #1 assumes #3 and #3 assumes #1.

And it actually says nothing once you acknowledge the caveat in #3.

In other words, if human rights do in fact exist, the yes, I'll agree that all humans have them "simply in virtue of being human".

However, I don't believe that human rights do in fact exist.

Anyone agree or disagree?

[Korimyr the Rat]

In other words, if human rights do in fact exist, the yes, I'll agree that all humans have them "simply in virtue of being human".

However, I don't believe that human rights do in fact exist.

Anyone agree or disagree?

I agree with you. A human beings-- indeed, any being-- has rights solely on the basis that he, or someone else, is willing to declare that he has certain rights and capable of supporting that declaration with force.

Since no human being is a match for a large group of his fellows, it follows that "human rights" exist only as an expression of the relationships between human beings-- humans have rights because other humans grant them, whether because they believe in those rights or because a larger group of humans forces them to.

[Michael]

I agree with you. A human beings-- indeed, any being-- has rights solely on the basis that he, or someone else, is willing to declare that he has certain rights and capable of supporting that declaration with force.

Since no human being is a match for a large group of his fellows, it follows that "human rights" exist only as an expression of the relationships between human beings-- humans have rights because other humans grant them, whether because they believe in those rights or because a larger group of humans forces them to.
We appear to be precisely in agreement here. Human rights are entirely constructed/fabricated/enforced by social groups.