Hacker News Reader

There is haggling to be done on the specific words though; I'm going to dispute that care of the elderly is tied to the Western conception of rights. The Western concept, particularly in places like France and the Anglosphere, is tied freedom of action and from interference that came about when the monarchies were de-toothed. A good classic benchmark of what rights look like, the US Bill of Rights, only guaranteed a level of protection from government and law enforcement as opposed to saying that people deserved some standard of comfort or whatever.

Care of the elderly is a recognition of the fundamental importance of individual dignity and the value of character. This is an inherent quality of individuality, as opposed to a right which is somewhat granted by an external entity [^]. Claiming people have a 'right' to someone else taking a positive action on their behalf isn't a universal Western value, or if it is it is reasonably modern. The idea is old, but historically it probably had a different name (likely tied in with religious community, for example).

[^] You can be denied your rights, but you can't be denied the fact that you are in individual with dignity and importance.

> ...the US Bill of Rights, only guaranteed a level of protection from government and law enforcement as opposed to saying that people deserved some standard of comfort or whatever.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights for more on this.

A right implies a duty on others. A duty implies a right of the person you have to the duty to.

The duty formulation is good because it makes clear the cost of the right - it's like avoiding the passive voice in writing (compare 'everyone has the right to food' with 'those with food have a duty to feed those without' - the first is meaningless without the second). The rights formulation emphasizes that the reason for the duty resides in the person to whom the duty is owed, not the person who must perform the duty, and even if the performer changes, the duty will remain.

Elsewhere in the thread, the point is made that the prevalence of right formulations in western society mainly came about as western society went through successive limitings of the power of monarch and government, and the rights of the people against all governments present and into the future were enumerated. I don't know if this is true, but it seems plausible. It also provides a possible explanation for why authoritarian regimes might prefer a duty based view, and would certainly try to avoid accepting a philosophy that limited their power over their people.

Having said all that, big chunks of chapter 2 of the Chinese constitution read just like a Bill of Rights. http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven. The idea hasn't changed much in two thousand years: the ruler that rules well is the ruler that deserves to govern. If the ruler rules badly enough, they'll be overthrown.

The "Duty" vs "Right" thing is ancient. You can see the earliest form of this "duties" concept underpinning the all the abrahamic religions, even in all salvation-oriented religions. You have a duty ultimately to the "godhead", from which all other duties derive.

The concept of universal rights was the refinement of this and only fully emerged during the enlightenment era in Europe. But it was there in a less explicit, more rudimentary form in classical Greece, too.

It's a choice, really. What kind of world do you want to live in? A world where we recognize basic human rights as x-y-z (from which we can determine what duties we have toward each other, for sure) Or a world that we left behind for very good reasons.

These are not the only two choices.

For example a Buddhist might argue that the fundamental concept is realizing that there is no difference between the concept of you, and myself, that we are all one thing, and from this determine that one should not inflict suffering on other sentient beings.

Uh, covered in salvation-oriented religions. Buddhism is just another one of those.

True. I do like aspects of the "duties > rights" mindset, though - it becomes clear that the person with a duty is responsible for the whole job, and not just the parts that line up with specific rights.

For example, in the U.S. there's a culture that if a government is not infringing on the rights of its citizens, it has done enough. For example, the secretary of state that runs my DMV does a good job of respecting the human rights of the disabled, and a good job of respecting the human rights of their employees, but I don't get the feeling they feel compelled to provide good service.

If they had a duty to be the best administrator of a DMV around, they would need to be focused on accessibility, their employees, and the level of service provided to their customers. An administrator who did not focus on providing great service could be chastised for that in a way I don't see happening (in my state, at least).

Correct.

Duties precede rights. In the African savannah of 50,000 years ago, our obligations to each other saved us from extinction. As hunter gatherers in tiny bands of ten people, we had to do everything as one. There was only “we”, no “I”, unless you were the leader. You either went with the group or died.

A deeper article: http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/samuel-moyn-rights-dutie...