What's the difference between a right and a freedom?

Question

Should they have absolute definitions and be set in stone, or are they relative and should change?

Answer 1

There is much overlap between the two, but generally, a "right" has a postive conotation. That is, it is a given "something" to which you are entitled. A "freedom," on the other hand, is the absence of something. Freedom is the absence of restraint or control over a given action.

Both rights and freedoms can be viewed as a spectrum. Certain rights are, in a sense, carved in stone and are inherently due to all human beings. The Declaration of Independence is based on this concept. However, the spectrum of rights extends all the way up to things which are more properly considered cultural expectations. The "right" to courtesy from your fellow human beings, for example, is a justifiable expectation, and it's fairly fluid in terms of how it can be defined. Most of the controversy lies in defining where on that spectrum a given "right" falls. And those which fall in the grey area, between absolute rights and mere cultural expectations (no matter how justifiable those expectations are) are the subject of the greatest controversy. The "right" to health care, for example. Some see it as an absolute right, inherently due to every human being. Others see it as a justifiable expectation within the context of a fairly wealthy society, but falling short of an absolute right. Freedoms are subject to this same sort of analysis. There are freedoms which are "set in stone" as you put it, such as the freedom to life and liberty, and the spectrum extends all the way to freedoms which are mere cultural expectations, such as the freedom to chat on a cell phone while you drive.

Given the fact that there is such a broad spectrum of both rights and freedoms, I think that they are not suceptible to any broad, sweeping analysis which seeks decide whether all of them should be "set in stone" or whether they are relative and should change. I think the proper analysis is whether any particular right or freedom is one that is inherently due to us as human beings, or whether it is a mere cultural expectation. And if it is a cultural expectation, under what conditions should that expectation change? Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Answer 2

Very interesting question.

When the Constitution was written, many of the authors agreed that there were some things that were rights. Many of which we refer to as the Bill of Rights, or the first ten articles of the Constitution.

Not all the authors agreed. **Edit: Not what you were asking about**


**Edit: Answer--The difference is what the majority can reasonably agree upon.**

In some countries and/or societies it is an absolute definition. In those countries and/or societies, as people change their views, the definition does not change with them and it becomes one of many things: obsolete, a firm foundation for tradition, a source of problems unforeseen.

Setting such a definition in absolutes has or can have both positive and negative effects.

Having such definitions being relative and able to change is also not without both positive and negative effects. If a change is made and a negative consequence occurs, changing back to the way it was may not be an option- especially since dissatisfaction was what caused the change in the first place.

**Edit: Answer--There are benefits to both sides, but ultimately it's a subjective decision of preference as to how things are defined.**

Answer 3

No such thing as 'Absolute'.

With both comes responsibilities; some responsibilities would also entail dying (being killed).

There is a belief that there is a right to claim benefits for the whole of ones life; plus the off springs life and so on, 'ad-infinitum'. There would at some point be no freedom to do so.

Answer 4

What do you mean by "freedom of action"?
Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which may be revoked at any dictatorial tyrant's, or democratic mob's whim, but freedom to act as an absolute -- by right.

How are they moral principles?
Rights are not merely political principles, but they are principles that form the bridge between individual morality (ethics) and the moral principles governing society (politics). Rights say that morally certain actions are right, and all other actions that forcibly interfere with those actions are wrong

Answer 5

A right can be define. You can point to a law that gives you the right to a jury trial, for instance, or the right to own a gun, or whatever.

Words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' are not legally defined, they are more 'poetic'. No govt. documents protect 'freedom of this' or 'liberty of that'. If freedom can even be used in the singular, 'a freedom', then you don't really have 'a freedom' unless there's a law making it your -right-.

Answer 6

Even an "absolute definition" can be interpreted however the reader chooses. As such, EVERYTHING is relative. Each man is guided by his own moral compass and lives as best he knows how.

Answer 7

A right in this definition is something that was given to you and should be yours. Like it is your right to have as many kids as you want. In china they dont have that right.

A freedom is the ablity to do something like download songs on the net, or be free from anothers control.
Like one of my freedoms is to eat whatever i wish. nobody controls what i eat.

actually very hard to explain or even understand fully. thats why people dont understand we are not as free as percieved.

because you dont have the freedom to build your own house without approval, you dont have the freedom to speed.

and i am sorry if i did explain badly i probably didnt even touch on the subject

Answer 8

I right is something that you are absolutely entitled to.

Freedom is a right, that is freedom is the right to choose within the bounds of the law.