Forums → WEPR → Rights and Privileges

It would seem the difference between the two is in how they are applied. A right is treated as fundamental entitlements for a group to function, privileges are just extra that is granted under special conditions.

So therefore all rights are in fact privileges, because rights can be taken away if you don't follow the special conditions, or as we know it, the law.

In most Western democracies we supposedly have the right to free speech, but if that free speech conflicts with a law then our special condition of free speech is removed. So logically we don't have a right of free speech, we have the privilege of free speech don't we?

yes. In the U.S. if you commit murder, you usually lose the right to vote and the right to bear arms.

So voting and bearing firearms is a privilege that can be removed given certain circumstances.

Have we got rights as human beings or have we got privileges offered up depending on our country of origin?

So voting and bearing firearms is a privilege that can be removed given certain circumstances.

You're conflating 'rights' and 'rivileges' based on one thing they have in common: that they can be taken away. But this is like saying that gold and diamonds are the same things because they're both valuable.

The key difference is that rights are, by default, guaranteed. Privileges, on the other hand, are typically earned. The example of Japanese internment does not show that rights don't exist -- in fact, we often talk about the rights of these Japanese citizens being violated.
And sure, rights are purely contextual. Someone convicted of a violent crime, for example, loses the right to carry a firearm in the US. He had that right by default, but it was then revoked because of his actions. That doesn't show that rights don't exist.
That question, if fact, just indicates that you're trying to use matter-of-fact circumstances to show something about the metaphysical status of these concepts. But there are no metaphysical considerations to 'rights' or 'rivileges'. Because they are not of any sort of natural kind, there is nothing that innately obtains about either.

You're conflating 'rights' and 'rivileges' based on one thing they have in common: that they can be taken away. But this is like saying that gold and diamonds are the same things because they're both valuable.

The key difference is that rights are, by default, guaranteed. Privileges, on the other hand, are typically earned. The example of Japanese internment does not show that rights don't exist -- in fact, we often talk about the rights of these Japanese citizens being violated.
And sure, rights are purely contextual. Someone convicted of a violent crime, for example, loses the right to carry a firearm in the US. He had that right by default, but it was then revoked because of his actions. That doesn't show that rights don't exist.
That question, if fact, just indicates that you're trying to use matter-of-fact circumstances to show something about the metaphysical status of these concepts. But there are no metaphysical considerations to 'rights' or 'rivileges'. Because they are not of any sort of natural kind, there is nothing that innately obtains about either.

Not really, either you have a right or you don't.

If a right can be taken away, it isn't just being revoked or removed, it is saying you didn't have the right in the first place. We've allowed you the privilege of this act, but now we've changed our mind that privilege has been removed.

No confusion at all, just the simple fact that rights are a fallacy, a figment of our misguided trust in the establishment that lets us believe that we actually have something of our own.

George Carlin is laughing in his grave right now, ignore him, his laugh was always that annoying!

If a right can be taken away, it isn't just being revoked or removed, it is saying you didn't have the right in the first place.

You can't take something away if it isn't there to begin with. To use your line of thinking: I have an apple. You take it away. I must not have had the apple in the first place because it got taken away.

There is nothing in the nature of 'rights' that insists they obtain, no matter what. As I said before, rights are something that are granted by default. But a person's actions can render those rights inapplicable to that particular person or situation.
Let's consider a person's right, when they are arrested, to remain silent. They have that right, even if they choose to give up that right. A person can be in the middle of a confession and then decide to invoke their rights. That doesn't mean the right doesn't exist, it just means it's not applicable in that particular case.

No confusion at all, just the simple fact that rights are a fallacy, a figment of our misguided trust in the establishment that lets us believe that we actually have something of our own.

The confusion comes in when you try to apply some sort of metaphysical truths to notions like rights or privileges. You're absolutely correct that they are a 'figment' - they are a creation of a particular society or group of people.
Yes, our rights are infringed upon virtually every day. I imagine one day soon that our right to privacy will be a thing of the past. But that is a feature of the society, not of the concept of a 'right'. This is what I mean by using matter-of-fact cases to try to shed some light on the nature of a particular concept. Sure, these concepts are man-made, and to say they 'exist' (in any philosophically significant sense) would be ridiculous. But they're still concepts with applications that are recognized.
I'm sure for any 'right' we can find an instance where that right has been violated. But that misses the point completely about the distinction between rights and privileges. Here is how (at least it looks like) your argument goes:

1) A person can be stripped of certain (or all) rights.
2) A person can be stripped of certain (or all) privileges.
Therefore, rights are identical to privileges.

We could add a subconclusion that rights, properly understood, are an empty concept - meaning there is nothing to which they properly apply.

But of course, this argument is a non sequitur. You are taking the predication of two instances to say they are the same instance. Here's a counterargument to show the flaw:

1) An apple is red.
2) A tomato is red.
Therefore, apples are identical to tomatoes.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I mean, I do see what you're saying. There's nothing that guarantees that everyone will maintain their rights in any situation. But that's just not an interesting conclusion. And to make the further claim that therefore rights are merely privileges by another name simply does not follow. These are unique concepts with unique applications.