My rite to through a punch ends at your nose.... Read on....?

Question

Rights are tempered by responsibilities. There is no way around this fact.

Someone once said, “My right to through a punch ends at your nose.” Put another way, I have the right to through a punch only if I exercise the responsibility not to hit you. I doubt that anyone would argue against this.

Yet it would seem that there are in fact people who would argue the point.
For example the Education Department of Western Australia has a major directive stating that all children must be included, no matter what. It is the child’s right top be included in the class, and on the surface it would seem a good thing. So what happens if one child physically attacks another? This situation happened recently at a school that a family member of mine teaches at. The interpretation by the principal of the directive was that the attacking child could not be removed from the class, So the child who was attacked was left to remain in the class (not alone, with the rest of the class) until the child asked to go home, due to distress. Is it not that child’s right to have a safe and un-distressing school experience. Many other examples exist, but this one highlights my point nicely.

This leads me to two questions.

1. Should the promotion of rights with little or no focus of responsibilities in the general population be considered a moral or criminal offence?
AND
2. What is it about our current societal structure that makes us more rapacious when it comes to wanting our rights fulfilled even at the expense off others?

Serious answers only please.

Thanks.

Answer 1

Such a great question and what a pity that it has to be asked twice over here without any reasonable response!!

Let me put my own thoughts in this matter down here.

Every right that is demanded from the society by an individual, first of all implies a restriction on the rest of the society in one way or the other..... otherwise there would be no need to demand the right. To honour such a right of an individual, the entire society undertakes a responsibility to allow it. Since the equality principle mandates that a right granted to one ought to be equitably granted to all others in any free society where there are no masters and slaves, the individual right equitably accrues to all....... which then implies the corresponding responsibility for every individual to allow the right to all others. This is the first stage of responsibility automatically attaching to a right by the very definition of 'right'.

The second stage is the complexity arising from several rights being granted to individuals..... here every type of right has an additional responsibility not to infringe upon any other type of rights granted to all. Thus freedom of speech not only carries the responsibility to let others too have similar freedom of speech, but also carries a responsibility not to say what might insult or offend any other individual beyond the acceptable level of decency and interactions. Thus every single right gets entailed with the responsibility of honouring, and in no way disabling, all other rights of all other individuals.
The word equitable is an additional complexity in the interplay of rights and responsibilities.... to be equitable, the rights and corresponding responsibilities have also got to be commensurate with what is deserved by an individual in accordance with the function and capability the individual concerned is expected to contribute to the society.... thus the freedom of speech and corresponding responsibilities for a politician need not be the same as it is for a judge in a court of law and can be further different from that of a media reporter.

If any right is granted without corresponding responsibility, it would create inequality and injustice and thereby impair the society's character as free and fair.

Responsibility is obviously a burden and it is just human nature to try and avoid it or negate it... to the extent this becomes possible and can go on unchecked due to the complexities of large loosely knit society, it creates a power imbalance...... and sooner or later, the rights concerned would no longer remain equitably exercisable by all..... and the society would turn authoritarian in nature to that extent.

The Principal in the case you have quoted, in my view needs more education and learning, especially in such matters as the principles of equity and justice...... as it is, he is very likely to turn his school into a totally authoritarian institution...... because, whether knowingly or otherwise, he is exercising rights without commensurate responsibility.

Answer 2

I`m afraid I cannot answer Your second question, for my opinion is that world changed during centuries (philosophical thought, in particular), but human beings as individuals didn`t. So, my explanation would be that it`s not the society, it`s simple selfishness.
As for the first question, - criminal. Let`s stick to Your example. The Bully got a message from his school:"We cannot touch You, because of Your constitutional rights. We will not take any measures, like counseling with You and Your parents, transferring You to the special class, or similar, so .......You can go on with Your stuff."
The Bullied got a message :"You are helpless. You`re nice, he`s not, but we can`t do anything about it." So the child either becomes permanently traumatized, or figures out it`s better to do the hitting himself. And that, I think , is a child neglect, which is a criminal offense.
It can be applied to other cases, too. You have the right on free social&health insurance (my country has it) but, You have an obligation to pay taxes. And, if someone promotes only the right, withought it`s obligation, it`s a criminal offence.

Answer 3

I'd say the principal's interpretation was flawed, so we don't contort our entire system of thinking to accomodate a single bad decision.

First of all, there is a distinction between rights & privileges. The "no matter what" clause of the directive just seems to be a simple case of shortsightedness. Participation in some activities is mandatory, in other cases it clearly isn't. And bad behavior DOES constitute grounds for exclusion from activities.

All children have a right to an education, but they don't have a right to do whatever tickles their fancy. Being loud & disruptive, interfering with the teacher's lesson would infringe upon the rights of other students, and the collective rights of the class outweigh the individual right of any one student to self-expression (if such a right even exists- in theory they are minors and don't have the rights or responsibilities of adults)

In the USA, student athletes are required to maintain certain grades in order to remain eligible to play sports. If they fail to maintain their grades, they don't get to play on the basketball or swimming team "no matter what", they are ineligible until they bring their grades back up.

So while the offending student might not be removed entire from the class, certainly he/she would be separated from their victim and reprimanded in some way. It's about equal opportunity, not equal rewards. If one makes bad choices, one gets to enjoy the consequences of those choices.


To question #1, I would answer no. Not all stupid ideas are criminal offenses, they are just stupid ideas that don't work.
Some people may argue that social darwinism will handle that all by itself. Insist upon your right to anger people, and they'll insist upon their right to express their displeasure at your expense.

To question #2, there seem to be many contributing factors. An emphasis on material success, on instant gratification, a tendency to assign blame for everything and seek legal redress rather than simply live & let live.

Answer 4

I would say your first response is flawed in that you have added to the answer what is not truly given. Therefore, your interpretion is more than lacking.

If your right ends at my nose when throwing a punch, then you have invaded my space. Keep in mind too, that there are some, in the law these days, that cannot come within 50 feet of a person who has an existing order against them. May not tread.

How, then, is your justice to stand on these merits?!


Let it be known to you, that any violation whatsoever to thwart the means, is certainly going to be looked upon as a travesty of justice. In any event, there would be a law, even so menial be found that could undo even the tiniest infraction.

for your second answer, because everyone wants justice. and everyone wants a piece of the pie that comes with litigiousness as long as a monetary gain is found.


Your sister,
Ginger

Answer 5

If you want your questions about philosophy to be taken more seriously, you might want to keep the vocabulary you're using within your educational level. Misspelling common words like "throw" and ending sentences in prepositions (This situation happened recently at a school that a family member of mine teaches at.), while at the same time using words like rapacious, makes readers think you're a youngster with a thesaurus trolling for peer level communication with college educated adults. My meaning is not to offend or discourage you, but rather to encourage you to spend a little more time checking your posts before you send them. ;-) Cheers.

Answer 6

Oliver Wendell Holmes said it...

What he meant was you are free to do what you want as long as you don't hurt others.... It was a way to describe the battle of rights and freedoms...

Rights and freedoms are in conflict.