What's the point of human rights? The founding fathers were, of course, dedicated humanists: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But what is an "unalienable Right?"
When you or I say that we have a right to an action or service, we are essentially saying that we are entitled to perform that action or receive that service. For example, if you have a right to free speech, you are entitled to perform free speech - that is, you are entitled to receive no restrictions on what you can say.
According to the founding fathers, governments ought to respect these rights. This is, of course, the basis of the Bill of Rights: delineating areas of behavior and expression where the U.S. government may not infringe.
This way of looking at behavior and entitlement is almost an ethical system. You have a right to this; I have a right to that; we have certain rights, which some of us - e.g., felons - can lose. This is all well and good: most people agree on the existence of rights. The interesting things don't happen until we try to figure out what the rights are, and sparks really start to fly when rights conflict.
Now, we can get to the meat of the issue: how it's pertinent to you and me. This year, one of the biggest issues in front of the SGA will be a campus-wide smoking ban. Should Ball State University ban smoking on campus instead of only within thirty feet of doors?
This ties in with rights because one of the most persuasive anti-ban arguments is: I am a human; I have a right to do as I wish with my body wherever I wish; Ball State should respect that and let me smoke wherever I wish to. It is, on its face, a pretty little syllogism.
But does it hold? Let's apply this logic elsewhere and see if it leads to an absurdity. Instead of "Ball State," write "Israel;" instead of "smoke," write "blow myself up." So: I am a human; I have a right to do as I wish with my body, wherever I wish to do it; Israel therefore ought to respect that right and let me to blow myself up wherever I wish to blow myself up.
The logic is faulty; reasonable people agree governments do have to respect suicide bombing, and it's not a fundamental right. Where does it fail? The logic holds if the person is isolated. The government of Israel couldn't care less (in principle) if someone blew himself up n the middle of the Negev Desert. If he blows himself up in a crowded nightclub - well, that doesn't go over quite so well.
More generally, the logic of the anti-ban argument supports entitlements with no effect on other people. For example, holding a belief can in and of itself harm no one; I could believe, for instance, that 9/11 was perfectly justified and moral, and the government honestly should do nothing to ban my belief.
Unfortunately, the argument as it applies to smoking fails this test of isolation: smoking does in fact affect bystanders, and significantly, by releasing carcinogens into the air. Because Ball State is crowded, it is impossible for the argument to hold against a campus-wide ban. If anyone wishes to oppose it, he needs to come up with arguments that do not rely on his right to do with his body as he wishes, because they suppress the assumption of zero external consequences.
Write to Neal at necoleman@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
