“If it requires the labor of another human being, then it’s not a human right.”
The discourse around what constitutes a “human right” has become increasingly muddled, particularly within modern liberal thought. There seems to be a widespread confusion where the lines between inherent rights—those intrinsic to human existence—and societal benefits or services are increasingly blurred. Liberals often advocate for an expansive list of entitlements, from healthcare to education, under the umbrella of human rights, without sufficiently acknowledging the labor and resources these ‘rights’ necessitate. This blurring of definitions not only dilutes the concept of human rights but also leads to unrealistic expectations about what rights truly are. Here’s a well-reasoned and logical argument to support the conclusion: “If it requires the labor of another human being, then it’s not a human right.”
This argument aims to clarify the essence of human rights by distinguishing them from services or benefits that depend on the active participation or labor of others. By examining the foundational principles of human rights as inalienable, universal, and inherent, we can better understand why some advocated ‘rights’ do not fit this classical definition. Let’s delve into this analysis to navigate through the contemporary confusion over what should and should not be considered a human right.
Even the United Nations’ concept of human rights, which aligns with liberal thought, extends beyond the traditional notion of inalienable rights to include a broad spectrum of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. According to the UN’s perspective, as outlined on their Human Rights page, human rights encompass not only rights like life, liberty, and security of person but also rights to education, healthcare, and a decent standard of living. This expansive view reflects liberal ideals where rights are seen as both negative (freedom from interference) and positive (entitlements to certain services or goods), requiring active governmental and societal intervention to ensure these rights are universally enjoyed. Here, the UN advocates for a world where human rights are realized through collective effort, resource allocation, and, implicitly, the labor of individuals to provide these services.
United Nations: Human Rights
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is the body of 18 independent experts that monitors implementation of the Covenant by its States parties. Its Optional Protocol entered into force in 2013. The human rights that the Covenant seeks to promote and protect include
• the right to work in just and favourable conditions;
• the right to social protection, to an adequate standard of living and to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental well-being;
• the right to education and the enjoyment of benefits of cultural freedom and scientific progress.
Definition of Human Rights
First, let’s define human rights. Human rights are inherent, universal, and inalienable entitlements that every person should possess simply by virtue of being human. This concept, which has been echoed through the ages from the Magna Carta’s protections against arbitrary rule to the Enlightenment’s assertions of natural rights, has evolved into a cornerstone of modern international law. Any government or society does not grant these rights but are intrinsic to human dignity, reflecting a belief in the fundamental worth of each individual. Historically, such rights have been championed in pivotal documents like the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, which spoke of “unalienable Rights,” and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, which codified these principles globally. These rights include but are not limited to, the right to life, liberty, and security of a person, embodying the centuries-old sentiment that every human being is born free and equal in dignity and rights.
While the 1948 UDHR did mention rights like education and work, the modern interpretation places a stronger emphasis on these as rights that require active governmental intervention. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which came into force in 1976, explicitly outlines these rights, expanding on the UDHR by asserting rights to an adequate standard of living, including food, housing, and medical care. These developments illustrate how the U.N.’s understanding of human rights has grown to encompass not only traditional civil and political rights but also economic, social, cultural, environmental, and digital rights, which all necessitate resources and labor from the state or society.
Characteristics of Human Rights
Non-negotiable: Historically, the assertion that human rights are not contingent upon external conditions or the actions of others can be traced back to the Enlightenment era, when philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau articulated the concept of natural rights or rights inherent to human nature. Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” (1689) argued that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property, which are not granted by any government but exist independently of societal structures. These rights are seen as part of the human condition, not bestowed but inherent upon birth.
This philosophy influenced the American Declaration of Independence (1776), where Thomas Jefferson penned the famous line that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” underlining that these rights are not subject to governmental whims but are intrinsic to human dignity. Similarly, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) stated that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights,” suggesting these rights are immutable and do not depend on external provision.
This historical trajectory from Enlightenment philosophy to modern international law underscores that human rights, in their most fundamental form, are seen as pre-existing, inherent aspects of human existence, not subject to the ebb and flow of political, social, or economic conditions. They are rights that one has by being human, not by the benevolence or capacity of others to provide for them.
Universal: Human rights are universal principles that apply to everyone, everywhere, transcending borders, cultures, and personal attributes, inherently without any form of discrimination based on race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.
Inherent: Human rights are intrinsic to our very existence; they come into being with us at birth and are inalienable, meaning they cannot be justly taken away, regardless of external circumstances or actions by others.
The Role of Labor in Rights
Rights vs. Services: There exists a fundamental distinction between human rights, which are inherent and inalienable characteristics of being human, and services or benefits that society provides. Human rights do not necessitate external action or provision; they are rights one possesses by the mere fact of existence, like the right to life, freedom of thought, and personal security. In contrast, services such as healthcare, education, or even a guaranteed income, while vital for human well-being, inherently rely on the labor of others. Doctors deliver healthcare, teachers provide education, and workers contribute to the economy that might fund a basic income. These services require active participation, resources, and labor from other individuals or the collective society, delineating them from the concept of human rights which are not contingent upon such external conditions or contributions.
Dependence on Labor: If a right requires someone else to provide labor, it implies that the right’s existence is contingent upon another’s actions. This contradicts the notion that rights are inherent and inalienable since they could theoretically be withheld if no one is available or willing to perform the labor.
Resource Allocation: Human rights are fundamentally designed not to necessitate the allocation of finite resources or the labor of others, which can fluctuate based on availability, economic conditions, or societal willingness. This distinction is crucial because human rights, by definition, should be universally accessible and inherent to every individual regardless of external variables. For instance, the right to free speech does not require another person to speak on your behalf; it is an action one can independently exercise by voicing their thoughts or writing their opinions. Unlike rights that might demand resources or labor, such as the right to education which requires teachers, or healthcare which needs medical professionals, free speech is self-executing. It does not rely on others providing services or goods but is instead an expression of one’s inherent freedom. This differentiation underscores that while services like education or health care are vital, they fall into a category of rights or entitlements that depend on societal structures and resources, thus distinguishing them from the core, inalienable human rights that do not require external support to be exercised.
Logical Deduction
Premise 1: Human rights are inherent and do not depend on external conditions or actions for their existence.
Premise 2: Anything requiring the labor of another human being for its realization depends on external conditions (availability, willingness, or capability of labor).
Conclusion: Therefore, if something requires the labor of another human being, it cannot be classified as a human right because it lacks the inherent, non-negotiable quality that defines true human rights.
Counterarguments and Responses
Counterargument: Some might argue that rights like education or health care are human rights because international treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognize them.
Response: While international treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent covenants like the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights do endorse rights like education, healthcare, and social security as fundamental entitlements, these are often more accurately described under the umbrella of “social rights” or “economic rights.” Although these treaties recognize these rights, they do not fit the strict definition of inalienable human rights because their enforcement relies on societal organization, policy-making, and the labor of individuals, elements that are external to the individual’s inherent existence.
Counterargument: If we follow this logic, then no right involving interaction with another could be a human right.
Response: Not all interactions with others inherently necessitate labor or external resources. For instance, the right to assembly, which includes the freedom to gather peacefully, does not require someone else to organize or facilitate the gathering; individuals can come together independently based on their own initiative. Here, the distinction between rights and services becomes clear: a right like assembly is about the freedom to act without interference, not about someone else providing a service. The crucial point in determining whether something qualifies as a human right is whether its existence or exercise depends on the compulsory labor or resources of another individual or entity. Rights that can be exercised independently, without requiring someone else to provide labor or resources, align with the classic understanding of human rights as inherent and inalienable. Conversely, if the realization of what is claimed to be a right demands active participation, resources, or labor from others, it moves into the realm of societal or governmental provision rather than a fundamental human right
Conclusion
Based on the comprehensive reasoning laid out across these posts, the statement “If it requires the labor of another human being, then it’s not a human right” stands firm. This conclusion is drawn from the historical and philosophical understanding that true human rights are intrinsic to our existence, inherently part of what it means to be human, and not contingent on external conditions, resources, or the labor of others. From Enlightenment thinkers who spoke of natural rights to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articulation of inherent, inalienable rights, the essence of human rights has been seen as those freedoms or protections that one possesses simply by being human—rights like life, liberty, and security of person.
This perspective sharply distinguishes between such rights and what might be termed societal benefits or services, which, as discussed, require active participation, resources, or labor from others to be realized. The ongoing debate, as noted, involves reconciling this traditional view with modern interpretations that include rights to education, healthcare, or environmental protection, which inherently demand some form of collective or individual labor. Yet, the core argument remains that if a ‘right’ necessitates the involvement of others to exist or be enforced, it does not fit the classical, stringent definition of a human right, which should be independent of such externalities. This debate, which delves into ethics, philosophy, and practical implications, is not only poised to continue globally but is likely to extend well into the future, continuously shaping our collective understanding of rights, obligations, and human dignity.