Last month, I found myself in a debate with someone who is an extreme advocate of Ayn Rand's Objectivism Philosophy. One of the topics argued about was the human rights--whether they are absolute or not. My standpoint is the non-absolutism of rights for the simple reason of having these similar and equal rights shared by all individuals within the society.
The man who advocates for absolutism of rights, asked me the question "How do I legislate his thoughts", in his attempt to persuade me that rights are indeed, absolute. Below is my response.
****
Why would I make a law to control the minds/thoughts of individuals JUST SO to comply with my notion of non-absolutism of rights? Or just so to satisfy someone? But if I were to do that, why make laws on thoughts alone? Sins or crimes are also conceived by emotions such as desires, etc.
Nevertheless, why would I do that?
My understanding of the notion “the rights are not absolute” does not cover as far as drafting/enacting a law to control the thoughts of an individual, unless, if for some reasons, the inventors in the country are able to come up with our version of “precogs”, which shall be helpful in preventing a crime.
Or if some Filipinos would suddenly procure super mental/mind powers [such as technically reading minds and thoughts] and use such powers in committing a crime, then, maybe, the government will try to convince a few of these super humans to help the government in preventing other super humans from committing a crime. So here, the government should maintain peace and order by enacting laws. These laws shall limit the constituents from interfering with the rights of fellow citizens. “There is no crime if there is no law punishing it,” and certainly people are not accused, charged, and convicted.
When I say rights are not absolute, I mean there is/are other provision/s or law/s that would restrict/limit these rights. For example, the right to freedom of speech is limited by:
1. Severe calumny
2. Anything lewd or obscene
3. Anything that provokes violence or disorder
4. Seditious messages
5. Clear and present danger
In Dictionary.com, the word absolute means “free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way”. In other words, the word absolute should not have restrictions or limitations. If we apply such adjective to describe a right, it means the right should have no restrictions or limitations at all. It also means that should a person commit a murder [if there would be a murder] he or she is not convicted. To begin with, there should be no crime or charge; after all, the killing of another person is only an exercise of an absolute right. But if such notion exists in an environment, it would invite anarchy, and chaos. How about similar and equal rights of other individuals if each one has an absolute right?
So, we have to co-exist, and by co-existing means we give deference to each other’s rights. And by recognizing the rights of the others, it means limitations in our own rights. And because there is/are limitation/s, our rights become non-absolute. It is simple. And it does not have to have a law on controlling the minds/thoughts of individuals, unless, these shall create clear and present danger or shall threaten the rights of other individuals. The thoughts are an entitlement of an individual. But the moment these dangerous and life-threatening thoughts are explicitly expressed into actions, which may or will fall into a context of a crime as defined by a certain law, then that individual shall be charged, tried, and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt after a due process, then the accused shall be convicted and punished as stipulated by laws.
