Equal rights?

“But I am a little confused about what equal rights means.” (Tired of Equal Rights Being Taken Advantage Of)

This is an interesting question. I see it to fall into two distinct parts: (1) What does it mean to “mean something” and, (2) Of what does the concept of “equal rights” consist?

(1) What exactly does the poster mean by “mean?” Two possibilities emerge, the (a) denotative sense and the (b) linguistic or the conventional usage sense. The denotative sense of meaning, of course, refers to the extra-linguistic object denoted. For example, when one says “cat” one means the small, fur-bearing domesticated animal commonly seen in suburban homes. But this denotative sense of “meaning something” does not seem to apply to the issue under review, i.e., “equal rights” but this question will be addressed below.

What, then about (b) the linguistic or conventional usage sense of what it means to mean something? For example, when one says “I love you,” what does that mean? Clearly it does not refer to the extra-linguistic object denoted as in the case of the cat but rather is intended to convey the feeling of the speaker. It is internal rather than external. It is an emotion rather than an object. But does this mean that its status as meaning suffers from some dimunition, some dilution of meaning? I think not. Indeed, it might have an even stronger meaning than the simple denotation of extra-linguistic objects and perforce, a more complete concept of meaning. But space constraints prevent me from pursuing this question here. So what about the meaning of “equal rights?”

(2) I see the question of the meaning of “equal rights” to fall into two distinct categories, (a) that of what it means to be “equal” and (b) that of the content of the concept of “rights” itself. What, then, is it to be “equal?” We are not talking of some sort of physical equilibrium here, some equality of physical forces as in, for example, those supporting a suspension bridge. We are talking about “equal” in some higher, normative sense. So, for example, when one says that someone is “equal” to another he might mean something like “intellectually equal” but then that raises the further question as to just how variations in intelligence are to be assessed. Is he talking about some psychological yardstick such as the Stanford-Binet assessment of intelligence or does he hsve some more amorphous, perhaps intuitive concept of intelligence in mind? This question must be set aside for further discussion. So that brings us to the question of “rights.”

(b) We have at least an initial grasp – a beachead if you like – of what it means to be “equal” but how does this bear on the question of “rights?” Presupposed, of course, is the concept of “rights” itself. What is it to be a “right?” Obviously it is something – a rank, a privilege, a title and so on – to which one is entitled but this raises the further question as to the legitimacy of such entitlement. For example, would such legitimacy spring up by virtue of birth as in a hereditary aristocracy or perhaps legitimacy by virtue of business acumen as in the csse of the successful capitalist entrepreneur? And, of course, there is the nature of the rights themselves. It is generally agreed that the mediaeval right of “the first night” has been superceded and does not, in fact, currently constitute a legitimate right any more. This points to the transiency of the concept of “rights” itself. Beyond the right of equality before the law, the right to the enjoyment of one’s property, the right to basic human dignity and so on, are there other rights which we might legitimately claim as our own? This is a question which, as with the determination of the varying degrees of intelligence, must be set aside for further consideration.

So there we are. It’s been a pleasure to clear up the poster’s question, “what equal rights means.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Darth Captain (07/30, 9:47PM)

Yes, of course Darth, you are talking about “basic rights” but I was examining the dimensions of the concept itself.

Actually Darth, my post was a spoof, a parody of conceptual analysis as it has been carried out by some philosophers in the past. I was having a good laugh as I was writing it. It was one of Montrealman’s “little jokes” if you like. However, Darth, it sounds like you were sucked in which, of course, makes it all the more enjoyable. Well, for me anyway.

The fact that it got only one “like” – the one I posted myself – indicates that the spoof was a resounding success. People would read it, well try to read it, and say, “What the hell is all this about?” My pleasure, as you can imagine Darth, was unbounded.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!