Discussion Five: Introduction to Political Philosophy, "What are [not] rights?"

Discussion Five: Introduction to Political Philosophy
Koheleth: "What are [not] rights?" Hokma: "Why?"
---
What do you think rights are?
Why do we have rights?
Do we have rights because we're human? 
Are rights unspoken agreements?
Are rights gifts that governments protect?
Are rights obligations that governments protect?
---
Optimus Prime: "Freedom is the Right of all sentient beings."

Rights are Just freedoms. Like respect, rights are not earned. Many deserving respect get little, and others deserving but little get more than they deserve. If someone is determined not to acknowledge you, to respect you or your rights, it doesn't matter what the circumstance. Outside of some corrective measure, neither respect as man nor any other right may be acknowledged.

Whatever they are, rights are not a matter of popular opinion.

Many if not all would agree that a man (gender inclusive) of good will has a right to live peacably, and as a man, participate freely in social exchanges as is our nature. Yet some are killed, oppressed, imprisoned, or ostracized for myriad reasons by the will of others, either through direct and social force, or through indirect executing powers such as laws, community standards, and armed services.
Whatever they are, rights are not beyond social custom.

A train is right to be on a track, not off it. A fish is right to be in water, not out of it. Man is right to be healthy in all that entails: as a social creation working their way through time and change, in whatever society they are in, and to whatever degree they best can. 

Man has this right alone: to be well.

Where we have the -ability- to be unwell, to cause violence to the better natures of ourselves and others, it cannot be said we have a right, but a capacity to abuse the means to our right to be well. Herein we have our choices, and our capacity to freely grow as persons. Here we can freely reach out beyond our circumstances to become more real as persons.  Here we embody a virtue beyond bestial, slavish automata.

Whatever rights are, they are nothing of worth without first determining "What is Right?", save mandate opinions of duties and expectations.

These words may not satisfactorily address what rights are, why we have them, if they are gifts or obligations, if they are agreements, if they are human, or whatall else. I think that is good. With a topic like this, I think it is good not to be satisfied.

Whatever rights are, they are tied to the mystery of what Man is, and what he might be. As a discussion, and at the risk of completely missing the question, I think it just-as, if not more important to discuss what rights are not and cannot be.