Rights vs. Responsibilities the Conflict

Rights vs. Responsibilities

The conflict of rights and responsibilities is rectified by a delicate balance. The author believes that Oliver Wendell Holmes caught the balance when he stated that '"My right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor's nose begins." What does this mean? It means if someone's nose is in the way of the arm, the person swinging it has the legal obligation to stop the arm. The respect of that other person's body is basis of the balance of rights and responsibilities ("Legal vs. moral rights," 2007).

As the author of "Legal vs. Moral Rights" points out succinctly, legal freedom to be an autonomous individual is not absolute. In addition, legal rights and responsibilities are derived from moral rights and responsibilities. These two phenomena are related, but are not the same thing. A moral responsibility can not be legally enforced unless it is translated into law (ibid, 2007). Like a Yin and a Yang, rights and responsibilities are really opposing forces. Legal responsibility restricts what a person does and limits their rights based upon community, social and familial responsibility. Unfortunately, moral obligations can not always be enforced. For instance, a person may have a cold and uncaring father. As long as the father does not do anything that is legally considered to be abuse or neglect nothing will be done to him. The legal threshold of being a jerk is different than that of child abuse. This is a perfect example of a moral obligation conflicting with a legal one and where nothing can be done to restore the balance (ibid, 2007).

David F. Lloyd in his article quotes Eleanor Roosevelt about human rights beginning home, close to home. They are so close and so small they can not be seen on maps ("Social issues: rights," 2008). She is quoting Mrs. Roosevelt because there in the West individual rights have never been more precisely defined. Yet, is this necessarily a good thing? Is it possible that there are adverse effects? For example, could the litigious and predatory legal systems of the Western world and the United States lead the developing world, especially the nations that are just now leaving that club, into trouble just as it has the West? It might be better for these countries to find better models to emulate. After all, it seems logical not to replicate the bad as well as the good.

In addition, what "rights" are important? After all, no one in the Western context would seriously argue against seemingly self-evident rights: the rights of people not to be tortured and/or abused, the right freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of political association, etc. Many times, "rights" as well as responsibilities depend upon the person's perspective and position in life. The author points to such "rights" as to be freely able to cohabit without a commitment to the formality of the conventional institution of marriage. According to the author, statistics are clear and undeniable that cohabitation is much more likely to lead to less than optimal phenomena such as single parenthood, a deprived childhood and a dependence upon welfare. Unfortunately, those not exercising this "right," that is the traditional two-parent families bear the brunt of these phenomena. Their incomes are heavily taxed to bear the burden of the "rights" of those who are passing the bill on without paying their fair share.

This brings up what Mr. Lloyd calls the other "R"-responsibility. The emphasis upon rights has impoverished the social discourse. For rights to be meaningful and workable, they have to have a context or framework to exist in. This is where responsibility comes in. What differentiates Mr. Lloyd from other authorities is that he deepens the definition of responsibilities beyond simply recognizing and protecting other people's "rights." He is reaching for the stuff that holds countries together, that is the type of responsibility that builds communities. For this reason, advocates a return to the biblical heritage upon which British and American constitutional concepts rest (Lloyd, 2008).

J.B. Williams in their article with reference to rights and responsibilities is advocating a similar viewpoint to the Lloyd article. In this case, he takes to task Howard Dean for differing with President Bush during a time of war, questioning his Mr. Dean's judgment about publicly contradicting the his commander-in-chief's Iran policy (Williams, 2005. Will this "lack of responsibility" hinder America's fight in the war on terror)?