[permaculture-oceania] Re: the 'rights-based' approach'

[Matthew Bond]

G'day Steve,

Here are some definitions of what a right is from my Macquarie dictionary:
Just claim or title to anything: a right to land; the right to strike;
Something which is due to anyone by just claim: to give someone his right;
Something which is good & proper according to the moral law;
Something which is in accordance with fact or reason.

Therefore, if the energy/resources/etc required to deliver those rights
exceeded the capacity of the planet to deliver them, that would be improper,
not good, immoral, unjust and not in accordance with fact or reason and
therefore not a right.  Hence, a right is connected to certain variables and
is thus not permanent.  A declaration of a right assumes an element of
permanency to the variable in question or a misunderstanding of the correct
definition of a right.

Matthew.


Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:08:40 +0300
> From: steve_burns at wvi.org
> Subject: [permaculture-oceania] the 'rights-based' approach'
>
> Dear Rowe and others,
>
> Can I invite responses on the general issue of whether humans have
> 'rights'
> at all?
>
> Within the Humanitarian industry, the 'rights-based approach' is now very
> popular - it takes as its basis the concept that all humans, just by being
> born, have endowed on them certain rights (such as to space, water,
> calorific intake, etc)... Seems fair enough - especially as it arose out
> of
> a desire to give dignity to people suffering 'natural' disasters or who
> had
> been born into desperate situations in developing countries... moving them
> from a disempowered role as 'beneficiaries' of the generousity of the
> wealthy to a position where they have a 'right' to those things they are
> currently missing.  The rights-based approach seems to assume that there
> is
> an unlimited pool of resources to supply that which is the 'right' of all.
>
> In what sense can humans have rights if the energy/resources/etc required
> to deliver those rights exceeds the capacity of the planet to deliver
> them?
> (I completely concede that most resources are terribly inequitably
> distributed, but even allowing for that, might not the limits to growth
> impact on the limits to rights?
>
> Also, if humans have rights, do other species have rights?  The
> rights-based approach seems inherently specist - no one in the
> humanitarian
> industry seems interested in discussions about whether whales, caribou or
> date palms have rights... they are too busy saving humans.  Fair enough -
> that's their job... but if they are going to get philosophical, shouldn't
> their  basic premise be well thought-through?  Anyone who can send this
> question to Peter Singer is welcome to do so!
>
> warm regards,
>
> Steve
> (currently working for a large humanitarian NGO)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jasper.cmsarchitects.com/pipermail/pil-pc-oceania/attachments/20060811/795deed4/attachment.html