Help [Philosophy] Can anyone debunk/deconstruct this kind of argument/claim about rationality, rights, and freedoms?

[TAW122]

So back in my college days (like over a decade ago) during a dark time, I've discussed philosophy with a professor and talked about the topic of freedom, rights, and rationality. Ultimately, his main point is that the concept of rights and freedoms (freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and other civil rights, liberties, and freedoms) only apply to 'rational' people and that irrational people are not rational (there is a bit more to that than just what he said but I don't recall word for word exact) therefore, they don't get to enjoy the same rights of the people since rights are only designed and applicable towards 'rational' people. I wouldn't really say he is necessarily pro-life nor anti-choice, at least to me at the time, it's not fully clear where he stands, but afaik, he is logical and willing to discuss things in a logical manner.


My (poor) attempt at debunking/deconstruction of his claim
Anyways, so for me (at least at that time and even in present day - to an extent) see this is a multi-part claim. The first part being how to define rationality, by that I mean which criteria and benchmark (metric) does one use to determine it?

The next question then would be whether it is an objective criteria or subjective criteria, and if so, who/what determines it and why do we accept that source, arbiter of said criteria?

After determining what constitutes as rational, what about the concepts of rights, whether rights are innate or are they created (by the people, by the government, etc.) and how are they dispensed?

To what purpose and why should we restrict certain rights to certain people (or at least the people we deemed 'irrational')?

Finally, what gives people the authority and power to override, suspend, and/or impose their will onto others (especially if said person isn't directly negatively impacting them or the people)? (The same question for the government).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone is a philosophy buff, philosophy major, and/or knows more on how to debunk what my professor said (over a decade ago) and/or knows how to counter his argument or continue where i left off, please feel free to chime in.

 

[BabyYoda]

Okaaaaaaay, I'll do my best even if we haven't taken up philosophy yet ~

The main argument is this:
"The concept of rights and freedoms (freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and other civil rights, liberties, and freedoms) only apply to 'rational' people and that irrational people are not rational therefore, they don't get to enjoy the same rights of the people since rights are only designed and applicable towards 'rational' people. "

Let's define some of these terms first. Here, according to Merriam Webster:

Definition of REASON

a statement offered in explanation or justification; a rational ground or motive; the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of RATIONAL

having reason or understanding; relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable; involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Basically, the dictionary description of these words are too broad and generalizing, thus it will mean that these definitions are open to personal interpretation. But if you're talking about "rational" as "the ability to make good decisions" then that would be easier to discuss. There are several people living in society who have mental disabilities that impact their ability to make decisions, such as Down syndrome. As someone who's met people who have these kinds of disabilities, I can say that they STILL are capable of making decisions and thinking for themselves, even if it's "not of the norm". The most severe case is my relative who has nonverbal autism. He cannot speak at all. He can't be left in the house alone because his behavior is unpredictable. The one thing that he likes doing is eating. While he may have limited cognitive abilities, one thing to remember is that he's not a robot. He can still choose what food to eat and how much to eat. He even said hi to my mom by emitting a monotonous sound.

A decision made may or may not have great consequences. Some decisions such as choosing the color of the shoes you're going to wear are trivial in the average person's mind. But for others, it might be different. Are you going to a party where green shoes are the only shoes that can be worn there? Will green shoes make your friends freak out? Or, are you going to a press conference where there is a dog that will eat all the green shoes that it sees? Heck, playing against the rules is ideal for some people because you know, evil is fun. For some weird reason there might be even people who will enjoy getting their shoes eaten by a dog. The majority of society would not like this kind of thing. But if the shoe wearer has a thousand pairs of green shoes in their cabinet and wouldn't be bothered if one pair gets eaten, then why would it matter?

Human rights range from the most basic to the more liberating. The right to have access to food, water, shelter, and safety are some of the most basic human rights. According to Maslow's theory of needs, the physiological needs are at the very bottom and are the first ones that should be addressed first. Without these, safety, love, self esteem, etc. would not be achieved. People with mental disabilities aren't robots; they still require these things in order to survive. Saying that rights are only applicable to people who can make good decisions is too broad since we need to consider basic human needs. The imposition of rights isn't exclusive to rationality and irrationality either; it can be based on gender, sexual orientation, race, class, etc. A white person might have more rights than a black person simply because they're white. Whiteness has almost nothing to do with how rational a person is.

In reality, there are no definite "good" and "bad consequences of decisions. Just...consequences. What may be bad for someone may be good for another. Society has embedded so much of absolutism that we're afraid to make the wrong decision.

I can't believe I spent more brain cells on this than my Theology thesis statement analysis quizzes. Lol

 

[Deathbydemo]

This is a very tricky subject and one BabyYoda thought out really well.

The problem will be always be that what is considered "rational" will always remain a subject very open to personal interpretation except in extreme circumstances. I have thought about things like this often too. Who gets to decide who should have equal freedom of rights and by what measure of logic did they reach their decision? I would imagine anyone who is acting "irrationally" in respect of the law or behaving in a way that could be deemed dangerous to themselves or others would be singled out. Not that I necessarily agree with that logic, but I'm trying to guess what other criteria they would use to measure who could be rational versus who isn't.

In my head I'm thinking back to the night I was detained in a hospital for acting in a way that everyone deemed inappropriate. To me though, I was the most lucid and clear headed person I knew. I had a plan to end my life and I wasn't harming anyone around me (at least not psychically) and I couldn't understand why anyone else had to be involved in my plan or attempt to stop me. Surely if I wanted out, that's a personal decision and should be my right? But unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. Trained health professionals are only doing their job to ensure you stay alive. But to what gain? So that somebody didn't die by their watch or that their job failed? So they become some sort of hero for saving a life? Neither is true. Only that someone wants out of their life and their own right to that has been taken away from them. Essentially, I had no rights that night because I was behaving how others perceived as irrationally. And as a society, we are all expected to be the bullshit feeding pro-lifers who don't actually give a toss about the REASONS people want out, just the fact that they do is enough.

What's difficult to determine though is who is actually acting rationally and who has only deluded themselves into thinking they are. It's often not as black and white as some first think. It would be extremely hard to decipher for example who is safe with a gun and who isn't. The most "normal" of people can even turn in the blink of an eye. Take Chris Watts as an example. While nobody knows exactly what was going on in his head but himself he had what all would consider the perfect life: beautiful wife, two wonderful children, a comfortable life. But for some reason for people like him this simply wasn't enough. Who could have predicted what he would do? Nobody. Meaning he gets the same rights as everyone else despite hiding a very dark side to him. He killed his family with his bare hands, not a gun, but the principle remains the same.

This particular subject interests me because someone very close to me in my real life has an extremely narcissistic personality, almost to the point that if she were to commit a crime (for her own personal gain) nobody would be surprised. But yet she goes to work, looks after her son well and walks amongst us like there is nothing abnormal at all. But my point is, if gun laws were less strict here, there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to assume she is a danger to society. Only those who know her well might question that and how easy is that to prove?

I love thought provoking questions such as this one. You pose some very interesting questions that are extremely difficult in themselves to answer, but that's where the fun lies in my opinion. Essentially over the years we have become governed by what higher up people deem appropriate and inappropriate and we have no choice really but to accept it and live our lives accordingly. It's funny really when you think about it, that someone else, a regular human being such as yourself, possesses some sort of authority to determine who gets equal freedom of rights and who doesn't. Thank you for posting this and allowing me to ramble on this for as long as I did lol

 

[liverpoolfan]

We could spend an entire thread on whether 'rights' themselves even exist. Even if you accept, a priori, that existence itself is an objective reality rather than subjective experience, (and we could do a whole thread on that) it's still difficult to justify rights other than in terms of 'I want them'.

In other words, rights (to water, food, shelter, freedom from murder etc - let alone contingent rights such as equality/voting/healthcare) are all based on the concept of a social contract.
Social contracts do not exist other than in the minds of the people who believe in them - or at least, they cannot exist without beings who can conceptualise society. If people cease to believe in rights, they disappear. In contrast if, after jumping out of a window, one ceases to believe in gravity, one's descent continues regardless.

In order for your professor to make his argument and for you to refute it, you must both make a priori non-irrefutable assumptions as neither position is 'true' in the same objectively true way that gravity is 'true'.

Without wanting to go further up my own arse and really get into the philosophical and ontological aspects (unless anyone wants me to ), can you not find some comfort in the knowledge that though your conclusions are different, both your and the professor's views are based on assumptions about reality which cannot be objectively verified and thus, arguably, his assumptions are no more 'true' than yours?

Happy to write more on this is anyone else likes going down the rabbit hole.

 

[nigelhernandez]

The interesting about rationality and mental illness is that it only seems to follow not medical standards but moral ones.

If a mentally ill person committed a crime or wanted to kill someone else, the likelyhood of them getting the insanity plea is extremely low. Most people would argue against it saying that they were rational enough not to murder, steal, rape etc...

So when it comes to harming others, you're rational enough to know right from wrong but when it comes to 'harming' yourself, you're not rational for that?

 

[TAW122]

Thanks @BabyYoda, @Deathbydemo, and @liverpoolfan for your thoughts on this. I really liked the thorough explanation and based on my understanding, the conclusion for all this is that there is no absolute right answer and that rationality, rights, and freedom are all separate things. Also that rights are not just for the rational people (as rationality is subjective).

@nigelhernandez Excellent post and fully agreed with you. The incongruity and illogical standards (possibly hypocritical) by society is really baffling and unsettling. I think their morality probably superceded their logic, hence the incongruity exists there. I get what you're saying and what would make more sense is when it's:
A) Both someone who wishes to end his/her own life and the so called 'criminal' are both mentally incompetent.

-or-

B) Both someone who wishes to end his/her own life and the so called 'criminal' are both mentally sound when they made their decisions.

It's either or rather than one is and one isn't. This is because to me, it's like they are picking and choosing, and being inconsistent, incongruous.