Theodore Dalrymple's lecture on "human rights"

Theodore Dalrymple, on "The effect of the idea of 'human rights' on psychology, human nature and society."

Lecture UAntwerpen, 22-feb-2018

Some notes:

.

Today's rights like "free speech" are tempered by 'bigger social pressure' and 'fear of giving offense'... and this is OK.
The problem is that 'human rights' have become 'metaphysical claims'.
.
Best example of expression of human rights can be found in the American Declaration of Independence, in which author Thomas Jefferson talks about 'right to live, freedom and pursuit of happiness'.
These 3 general "rights" are today being used as arguments pro or contra other "rights".
E.g. abortion:
-against, because 'right to live' is also meant for each fertilized ovum
-in favour, because 'pursuit of happiness' implies 'avoidance of unhappiness'.
But the idea "my body is my property" is not well thought through.
Saying "I own this station novel" while damaging the little booklet is easy;
saying "I own my home", while destroying it (e.g. by setting it to fire) is more difficult;
and saying "my body is my property" is again on a different/higher level, because more difficult to harm.
.
The ISSUE:
The "positive" RIGHT (e.g. to die/kill easily, via abortion) results in a "negative" right (i.e. OBLIGATION): the doctor (i.e. somebody else!) has the DUTY to perform the operation/abortion.
('positive discrimination towards groupX' means 'negative discrimination towards other groups').
.
The point is:
"rights" (especially when given to GROUP of people) are regarded incorrectly by the recipients.
And such rights expand indefinitly, unlimited, irrespective of the cost.
.
EXAMPLE:
"healthcare", "housing", etc... are claimed to be "human rights", but they are not !
E.g. providing "housing" as a solution to other's homelessness, caused by own 'irresponsible' actions (drug abuse, immigration out of the desire to reduce the own suffering, or the own discomfort) ...is not a "right", but a benefit, an "act of charity".

If a BENEFIT is a RIGHT,
it confers (to?) the qualities (of?) the recipient. (??)

The effect at the side of the 'receiver' of the benefit: (s)he starts thinking that he deserves this benefit.
The effect at the side of the 'giver' of the benefit: his compassion gets destroyed, after experiencing that 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease', i.e. the undeserving one, who is making the most noice.
.
Regarding healthcare as a human right
-leads to a whole bureacracy of welfare, without feeling, indifferent.
-restricts the moral considerations:
--the 'benefit given as a right' becomes an entitlement, nothing to be thankful for.
--And once this benefit is not reaching the expectations of the recipient, or no longer provided at all, it results (at the recipient's side) in a feeling of deprivation, injustice, infringement of rights. (quite contrary to the feelings at "the end of a contract").
--It makes the recipient quarrelsome about small matters, and happy with nothing.
.
The assumption that you will always find a roof above your head, food & clothing (all without effort of your own), and receive education and medical care (without funding these services yourselves) makes that all these benefits are regarded by you as "nothing (of worth)"... because you see them as unalienable rights.
.
Solution:
Let's change (back?) into a society in which the citizens don't (need to) think about their rights, but simply help themselves first
(which is how the previous generations survived).
--
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3671&sec_id=3671
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/67950.Theodore_Dalrymple
--