Rights, Individuals and Society

1. There are two basic, fundamental rights of all human beings—these are freedom and justice. These rights are so essential to humans that no justification is needed for them. Freedom is a natural right inherent in people, while justice arises to ensure fairness when people interact. But the question that arises is how to balance those rights—on one hand is the state of nature with unlimited freedom but no justice; on the other hand is the ‘just society’ with complete justice and no freedom.

2. All rights of freedom and justice, though equally fundamental, cannot be considered equal; they must have a hierarchy or order of precedence. As will be justified in the following paragraphs, the following hierarchy is established: Justice > Individual self-regarding freedom > Group self-regarding freedom > Other-regarding freedom (both individual and group).

3. The reason for placing justice at the top is that all other rights and liberties can be taken away in administering it. Indeed even the right to life, the highest of all freedoms, can be violated if it is just to do so. However it is of paramount importance that ‘justice’ represents true just principles, or pseudo-justice will tyrannize the people.

4. Why does individual self-regarding freedom have to be placed above group self-regarding freedom? Being self-regarding they should never come into conflict and no question of precedence should arise. But there is one case that makes this ordering necessary—that when a group decides something for itself but a person within it does not want to do that. For example, the people of a village decide to have a meeting (a group self-regarding action). But if one person does not want to attend it (an individual self-regarding action), the villagers cannot force him/her to join. The group may alienate or try to persuade the individual, but cannot violate the person’s self-regarding freedom.

5. Self-regarding freedom trumps other-regarding liberties for obvious reasons. The individual has more freedom over their life than anyone else. The harm principle and the concept of negative liberty both affirm that society or other individuals cannot interfere in a person’s self-regarding domain.

6. The doctrine of self- and other-regarding liberties is very useful for the hierarchy of rights, but how exactly is that distinction to be made? Any self-regarding freedom can be shown to affect others in some way; for example, my choice of eating potatoes may mean that someone else is not able to eat them, my consumption of goods leads to pollution and emissions in producing them, even my committing suicide may cause distress to someone. My very existence puts a strain on the earth’s resources which affects other humans. In this light no action can ever be truly self-regarding.

7. The distinction, then, cannot be absolute, but is variable and relative; each society has its own demarcation of self- and other- regarding freedoms based on the level of tolerance in society. So in one community you cannot even drink alone at home, while in another you can play loud music late at night.

8. Besides these fundamental rights, there are many other claims, entitlements and privileges with regard to society, which I call social rights. Such rights include provision of education, healthcare, police, essential needs (like water and electricity etc.), social welfare programs, public utilities, usage of common resources etc. These rights depend on the relationship between society and the individual and are not as fundamental (even though they may be essential) as freedom and justice.

9. Social rights are not natural but conferred by society. Society gives these additional rights to the individual enabling him/her to grow and prosper. But with this comes a social expectation that the individual will ‘give back’ in some way, that he/she will contribute positively to society. Unlike the fundamental rights, there are duties associated with social rights.

10. An exception to the above is the social right of participating in government and voting. People belonging to a society have the democratic right to participate in it, and by the social contract concepts, their consent is the basis for political legitimacy.

11. The ‘social interest’ or ‘common good’ cannot be said to take precedence over individuals and their rights, for society is nothing but the sum of individuals within it, and the social interest is the sum of individual interests. The whole is decreased if some of its parts are taken away; similarly, if society is to stay whole (and not turn authoritarian) it must not trample on its people’s rights. To say that social interest is superior is to say that if a train is coming towards a man on the track, it should not stop moving but run him over, since it is in the interest of the passengers to keep moving and reach on time, and the wills of hundreds of passengers would supersede the man’s right to life.

12. If, however, the social interest is considered to be something in itself and not the sum of interests, then what else is it, and where does it come from? It becomes an abstract notion which is not representative of the people and is used by tyrants to take away individual rights.

13. Besides ensuring the fundamental rights, humanity should also strive to improve the provision of social rights. Social rights create a society that cares about its people and individuals who are willing to fulfil their duties and advance society. Rights define the relationship between individuals and society, and it is is best for this relationship to be a fruitful one rather than one of conflict.