I watched a little bit of Question Time last night. The first topic up for debate concerned the anti-smoking bill (or, rather, the okay-smoke-if-you-want-to-but-we’d-prefer-it-if-you-didn’t bill.) What surprised and, ultimately, irritated me was the audiences constant referral to peoples “rights”. One non-smoker said he recognised that smokers “have a right” to smoke while a smoker also claimed not just that he had a right to smoke but also had a right to “do anything” he wanted.
Excuse me, but do you realise what you’re saying? Have you considered exactly what the implications of your statements are? If smokers have a right to smoke then don’t I, as a non - or rather ex, possibly even occasional - smoker have a right to not be made to inhale your smoke too? Do I not have the right to be able to go to a public bar and not have to sit in a smoky environment? How can these two rights co-exist if they contradict each other?
Before this descends into a “should all smoking be banned” discussion, let me move onto the second claim made, that the speaker had a right “to do anything”. Oh come on, be serious! Do you really believe that? I mean truly, deeply, honestly believe that you’ve got a right to do anything? Do you have a right to kill anybody you like? Does that mean you’ve got a right to drive at whatever speed you want to on the motorway, on whichever side of the carriageway and in whichever direction you want? Think about your answer before you say anything. Of course you’ve got a right to remain silent instead of answering but anything you do say may be ripped apart and thrown back at you in pieces.
I’m finding that the notion of the rights that we supposedly all have is becoming more and more tenuous. It seems to be one of those concepts that we all cling to and appeal to but don’t have a firm basis in any sound reasoning. Consider this question – do we have a right to kill? I’m sure that the agreed answer is no, we don’t have a right to kill. Why not? Because we have a right to life? If this is the case, then surely a country or state that imposes a death sentence on anybody is depriving that person of their right to life? Okay, getting too close to another controversial subject. How about this; if I have a right to life then I must be free to go into a supermarket – or your house – and take whatever food I need? How do I justify this? Because if I have a right to life then you cannot in anyway prevent me from doing what I need to do to live i.e. eat.
Where do these “rights” come from? I’ve been in debates with Americans who always appeal to their constitution, which grants them their rights (including the right to freedom of speech and the right to bear arms). Yet the American Constitution does not apply here in the UK – a US citizen would no longer have the right to bear arms while residing in our green and pleasant land. That makes it seem as if rights are subjective because rights do not persist across borders and time zones. And if rights are subjective then murder, torture and suchlike could, feasibly, be acceptable.
There is no answer here – hey it’s philosophy! If I was still studying I’d be tempted to write an essay in the style of one of Plato’s plays and discuss the issue in Socratic dialectic (starting with the topic of a smoking ban perhaps - I’d have to name one of the characters Profumo of course!) But just think about it the next time someone appeals to a “right” to do something and ask yourself if they’ve got a valid point or, as Jeremy Bentham argued, it’s all “nonsense on stilts”.
Personally, I’ve got the right to go and get absolutely shitfaced in a smoke filled bar because it’s Friday night and I don’t care anymore! Have a good one.