CEB - The Only Foundation For Human Rights

CEB - The Only Foundation For Human Rights

The Only Foundation for Human Rights

With the recent Dobbs decision, the fiery cultural conversation on abortion has been stoked to a roaring inferno. Often, the conflicting viewpoints are framed as a battle of rights—a woman’s right to bodily autonomy versus the right of an unborn human being to live. While much of the moral skirmishes regarding this topic are fought in the quagmire of defining what these rights are and expressing their relationship to each other, there are more fundamental questions that underly this issue—what is a right and where do rights come from? Before any practical moral questions can be answered, these questions must first be addressed.

Oxford Languages defines “right” as an “entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.” While some entitlements, like the right to participate in a local election, are legally granted to citizens, there is also a recognition of human rights that are universal to all people. Thus, Oxford Languages expands their definition of human rights to be “a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.”

This understanding of universal human rights is overwhelmingly agreed upon. The United Nations expressed that, “Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion or any other status.”[1] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy similarly states that, “Human rights are norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere.”[2] Perhaps most familiar to us are the words penned in our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are … equal … with certain unalienable Rights.”

For anyone familiar with the Declaration of Independence, this edited quote probably caused you to double take. While the quote as edited is a powerful affirmation of universal human rights, an essential element was missing in the quotation that was included in the original writing—where those rights come from. It is that element that is painfully missing from public discourse on moral issues today. Where do human rights come from? America’s founders rightfully understood that these entitlements can only be endowed by our Creator. There is no other place universal, unalienable, inherent human rights could originate.

The material universe is not sufficient to endow us with human rights. Nature offers no certainty that the possession of life thus entitles a creature to life. Rather the entire food chain would testify quite contrarily. Nature provides no assurance that human life has any inherent value or should be treated with any particular care. Tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, tsunamis—they show no regard for humanity and make no effort to avoid unnecessary harm. The material world cannot entitle us because the material universe is not an entity capable of granting or obligating anything. Materialists recognize this and have a quaint saying for it—the natural order is descriptive, not prescriptive. Examining nature can reveal what we are, but it cannot reveal what we ought to be.

Similarly, objective universal rights cannot originate from government either. If governments are the sole source of rights, then those entitlements are subjective and only as certain as the whims of the authorities. Those rights can be altered, reduced or abolished. This is commonly understood by the populace, at least on a practical level. In our current example of the abortion issue, you will find that both sides maintain that the conflict is not settled merely by legal declaration. Those that are anti-abortion maintain that even if abortion is legalized it is still a violation of human rights—the murder of a human being. Similarly, those that are pro-abortion hold that if abortion is outlawed, human rights nonetheless are being violated—the perceived bodily autonomy of the mother.

Neither side ultimately thinks abortion is a purely legal matter, but rather a question of underlying fundamental human rights. As Christians, we need to focus on driving this and all other moral discussions to the horns of the dilemma—either an individual is erroneously appealing to nature as the source of their moral understanding (and we must show why they are in error for doing so), or they are appropriately appealing to the Creator. All moral issues are necessarily theological issues.

Appealing to the Creator is the only sound argument for human rights, but it also reveals an obligation. If the Creator is the source of one’s rights, then it is the Creator Who determines his rights. You merely discover what they are. If you can lead a person to affirming this point—that the rights he relies upon can only exist if the Creator exists, thus he must look to the Creator to understand to what he is entitled—not only will you have led them to a significant moral conclusion, but also to a significant spiritual understanding. All people are accountable unto the Creator. There is no absolute divide between the personal, the political and the moral arenas. All ultimately find the Creator at the center of them.

 

[1] United Nations. (n.d.). Human rights. United Nations. Retrieved July 19, 2022, from https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights

[2] Nickel, J. (2019, April 11). Human rights. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 19, 2022, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/