Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Some rights can cause violations of other rights or of the rights of others, which is why rights have to be balanced against each other.
In specific instances of rights that come into conflict ’97 for example the right to free speech and the right to privacy ’97 a judgment has to be made about the priority of one right or the other. The decision can be made by a judge, but also by the legislator. There can be laws that limit one right for the sake of another. The phrasing of human rights articles in constitutions and treaties often provides the possibility of such legal limits.
These limits are an almost daily occurrence, even in a perfect system. The system of human rights is not a coherent and harmonious whole.
Libel or expressions of racial hatred, for instance, are often illegal, and with good reason. Expressions of hatred are not only insulting (people should be able to live with insults); they can also lead to discrimination or even physical harm. It is a thin line between aggressive words and aggressive actions.
The problem of course is how to decide between rights. On what grounds do we give priority to one right or the other? Only if we have a rule for this can we distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate limits on rights, or better between limits and violations. Part of the rule could be that some rights are clearly absolute. It seems unacceptable to kill someone, even if doing so would allow us to protect some other right of some other person. Limits on the right to life will then never be legitimate and this right should always have priority and can in turn limit other rights.
However, this rule leaves most problems of conflicts between rights unsolved because most rights are not absolute. One cannot always avoid moral, philosophical and hence contestable reasoning when taking a decision between rights. Some subjective judgment on the harm we would inflict when limiting one right or the other might help. In the case of a journalist who divulges intimate details about the private life of an actor, what would be the harm inflicted on the journalist when we limit his or her right to free speech? Probably less then the harm he or she inflicts when limiting the right to privacy of the actor.
Again, a judgment may not always be as easy as in this example. Deciding between rights remains a difficult matter and one that is better left to professional judges.
[…] of course you claim that freedom of speech is more important than the right to life. I refer to’a0an older post on balancing different human […]
LikeLike
[…] priority of the good comes to the fore in discussions about the extent of rights or conflicts between rights. Such conflicts need to be decided on the basis of which conflicting right does most […]
LikeLike
[…] Examples of fairness restrictions are the prohibition of the heckler’s veto and the fairness doctrine. In both examples, the right to free speech of some is restricted in order to guarantee the right to free speech of others (proper balancing is again required; methods of balancing are discussed here). […]
LikeLike
[…] of it, that’s not a ridiculous claim. Different rights often contradict each other, and it’s quite common that some rights should give way to some other rights in certain specific cases. Neither is it […]
LikeLike
[…] should this balancing work in general? When the rights of two parties are in conflict with each other, respecting the […]
LikeLike
[…] the right not to suffer extreme poverty. As in all cases of conflicting rights, there needs to be a trade-off, and the one I’m defending here seems […]
LikeLike
[…] for investigative journalists etc.; more on the general problem of balancing different rights is here). The development of technology also makes it harder and harder to decide what should or […]
LikeLike
[…] which can’t exist without each other, are in other cases mutually hostile and need to be balanced against each other and limited for the sake of each other. Hence the concept of hostile […]
LikeLike
[…] prove too much. The status approach makes it difficult if not impossible to limit certain rights or balance rights against each other. It’s hard to see how you can argue for limitations of certain rights or […]
LikeLike
[…] when different rights are in conflict with each other and are mutually incompatible? That happens quite often, and neither rights deontology nor rights utilitarianism are of any help when it does. You can only […]
LikeLike
[…] rights isn’t absolutist either. Rights can be limited, for example when different rights clash with each other. There are very few if any absolute human rights, i.e. rights which can never be violated. (The […]
LikeLike
[…] harm that purportedly comes from the consumption of violent games, we have here a case of rights conflicting with each other: on the one hand the free speech rights of the makers and sellers of games, and on the other hand […]
LikeLike
[…] against, the right to life etc. When speech acts violate these rights, there’s some balancing to do and it’s not the case that some people’s right to free speech always takes […]
LikeLike
[…] rights than just freedom of speech, and who know that different human rights aren’t always in harmony with each other. In some circumstances, some rights need to give way in order to protect other […]
LikeLike
[…] but not so important that they trump all other values. Hence, they can be limited to accommodate a balancing with other […]
LikeLike
[…] freedom of association isn’t the only right in the world. When rights clash, they should be weighed against each other and the path of the “least violation” should be chosen. In the current case, one could […]
LikeLike
[…] which right in which case will receive priority? That will be, by definition, a case by case trade-off. You can’t use a general rule, since all these rights are – in the abstract – […]
LikeLike
[…] of non-discrimination will outweigh the rights to freedom of association and religion. See here and here for more information on the need to balance different rights against each […]
LikeLike
[…] Is legislation such as the Civil Rights Act an infringement of property rights and the freedom to do with your property as you want? Of course it is. Are such infringements always wrong? Of course they aren’t. Sometimes they are a necessary evil to gain a greater good. […]
LikeLike
[…] of course you claim that freedom of speech is more important than the right to life. I refer to an older post on balancing different human […]
LikeLike
[…] including the freedom of religion, can justify human rights violations. Human rights have to be balanced against each other and must be limited when they produce human rights violations. Limiting rights […]
LikeLike
[…] surprising to see that they can contradict other rights. Contradictions between human rights are very common. The right to privacy is often in conflict with free speech for example. Sometimes one right has to […]
LikeLike
[…] this case of freedom of speech be restricted in order to protect other rights? (we’ve seen before how human rights can be limited when they come into conflict with other human rights). Which other […]
LikeLike
[…] are absolute or that there can never be a good reason to limit one right for the sake of another. On the contrary. But limiting rights can only be done when there is a “clear and present danger” for […]
LikeLike
[…] general argument here. Basically, for me this is a problem of contradictory human rights, and of balancing rights so as to avoid the greater harm. In the case I’m discussing in this post, the right to free […]
LikeLike
[…] rights. This system is not a harmonious whole. I’ve covered this problem extensively here and here. Rights are not always compatible, in which case one has to decide which of the conflicting rights […]
LikeLike
[…] A lie as such should of course not be prohibited, and is not a sufficient reason to limit freedom of speech. Neither should the revelation of private information. Sometimes, privacy is less important than other values. Regular readers of this blog will remember the rules for limiting free speech set forth in the introductory post of this series. Some rights can harm other rights – in this case freedom of speech and privacy – in which case one of the rights has to be limited for the sake of the other right. […]
LikeLike
[…] course, privacy is not an absolute value and different types of rights need to be balanced – in this case the right to privacy of some and the right to physical integrity and security of […]
LikeLike
[…] and controversial choice, better left to impartial judges. But those choices have to be made. Here’s a previous post on the limits of human rights. NO OTHER LIMITS on rights are acceptable. Rights can only be limited by and because of other […]
LikeLike
[…] However, there is a downside to the concept of religious liberty. Anyone can call their personal insanity a religion in order to try to get government protection. There is no easy answer to the question of what is or is not a religion in the proper sense of the word, but it is obvious that any belief or practice which is part of a religion or claimed to be part of a religion, and which provokes violations of human rights, should not be protected under the right to freedom of religion. Every human right is limited and has to be balanced with other rights. […]
LikeLike
[…] right to private property is, just as most of the other human rights, a limited right. There can and should be redistribution of private property from the rich to the poor, if other […]
LikeLike