All principles are basically "abstractions" that express generalizations about reality. At their most abstract their definition is usually in terms of other abstracts. That is why, when we think, and argue about rights, we need to link those rights to more tangible things. That link is there. It is there because the notion expresses a pure idea, something that when applied well benefits all of us.
It doesn't take non-human experience to make one realize that the very notion of, or principle of "basic human rights" is an assertion of human beings based on assumptions made by human beings. One merely has to talk to people from other cultures to realize that the notion hasn't always yet translated.
However, principles don't live or die by a single generations opinions, they evolve out of generalizations that crystalize what may take years or even millennia of effort and passed on wisdom. They are defined by the attributes of what they are -- and of what they aren't.
The notion of basic human rights may have gotten its first human expression in the Western Eurasian region, but it is an expression of universal human existence and belongs to the world. The goal of this series is to unlock these links by expressing them using modern logic. I'm not doing anything new, and I'd be surprised if I don't find others have done the same exercise. Indeed I find a similar effort here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ except they never link the subject with the real world.
Principles represent generalizations. The definition of fundamental principles is usually in terms of equally abstract ideas. Thus Liberty is the expression of Freedom. Freedom is the attribute of "owning" one's own personal space, of being "free to do as one pleases" -- within that personal space.
From an "individual view" we all want to have the most freedom possibly. But to justify rights to the parts of the world that doesn't believe in them we have to take a "systems view" and explain why that is best for the "common good" -- or the sum of the general welfare. Because no individual's freedom is safe if the general welfare is at risk.
The goal of the right of freedom from the systems view is to grant people the permission to do the things they do best. Anyone familiar with software or living systems knows that to get good systems one has to grant each of the elements of that system the "rights" and "permissions" to do its job. Freedom is essential for the health of society in a similar manner. No "controller" can exercise so much control as the "self control" of a well programmed (well trained) self governing entity. At the same time, that "freedom" has to have defined boundaries, because people like computer programs tend to inadvertently (or like viruses intentionally) transgress their boundaries and infringe on other people and processes.
I don't want to make anybody wade through the oodles of material about Computer and Software security, but I have to do so as part of my "day job" and so I've gotten to noticing the similarities in issues, and some of the good ideas that are developing in the software field that could apply to legal and moral ideas equally. If anyone is interested in following these ideas further (and can stay awake) I'll include URl's. The URL that got me thinking on this I can't find right now, but there are oodles of them, and they disagree about a lot but they agree on some basics.
There are differences on the subject Microsoft says;
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdntv/transcripts/20040212securitymlTranscript.aspx
While this author says:http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/11/14/2115222&from=rss but they all deal with similar issues to what we deal with when talking about human rights; privacy, access to the "system" versus access to the software program space.
But the first basic point of all these efforts to define what it takes to have a secure system is that a secure system starts with giving rights to the elements of the system within a certain "ownership action space." That is the principle of the "least minimal rights" means that at the very least there are minimal rights that each element of a system should have -- and that starts with the freedom to perform the functions the program is intended to do. Similarly each human being should be free to pursue his or her happiness in the best manner he or she can.
The second basic point of security and rights is that they are opposite sides of the same coin. We have the right to "liberty" within our own space -- but not to infringe on the liberty of either our fellow human beings or the "system" that links us together. Unlike software however, the 'system' of human rights also defines a "right" for all human beings to be part of that system. We have to find some way to eliminate viruses, trojans, resource hogs, and other infringements done by our fellow human beings -- without eliminating those human beings -- behaving in an unjust manner. People can get too caught up in a mechanistic idea of human society and start applying these theories absurdly (and ultimately tragically) to their fellow human beings. When that happens the murder of humans can become a "selection" or a "purge."
Posted by cholte at March 13, 2007 08:47 PM