Rights vs. Needs
One of the major problems I see around the world is the confusion between "needs" and "rights". (This is especially evident in countries where "human rights" are said to be so highly valued.) For example, people all have a need for sex. But would people say we have a "right" to sex? If I have a right to sex, then can I just demand it from someone by saying I have a "right" to have sex? We also need someone to listen to us and hug us and emotionally support us, but how could we ever create laws to force others to do these things or punish themif they don't? If we use our emotional intelligence we can help see the difference between the "needs" and "rights".If we feel a need for something, then we have a good indication it is a natural need. For example, I may feel a need to be accepted, trusted, appreciated etc. But do I have a "right" to having these fillings satisfied? And if so, who will be punished if they don't accept me or trust me or appreciate me. I believe our emotional intelligence can help us see the difference between "needs" and "rights" because it helps us identify our feelings. It can also help us figure out ways of filling our emotional needs without the use of force, threats, laws, police, guns, prisons, wars, etc.
Something else to consider: I obviously have a need to protect myself. Yet in certain countries I have the "right" to own deadly weapons, while in others I do not. The situation becomes even more complicated when we consider our desires as opposed to our needs. For example, I may desire a certain standard of living, but I do not have a right to any lifestyle I choose--instead I must earn it. So who decides what is a "right," as opposed to a need or a desire?
A need or a desire becomes a "right" only when one group of people decide that it is a right. In democracies, the majority rules, at least theoretically. If, for example, the majority rules that they have a "right" to something, however reasonable or unreasonable it may be, they can literally force others to give it to them. Or they can try to. They do this by electing people who pass laws to give them what they think are their "rights." When these laws are put into effect, the full power of the government, which includes deadly force if necessary, enforces these laws.
There are at least two problems with this process of creating "rights":
1. The concept of responsibility is weakened
2. The needs of the minority are neglected in favor of the needs of the majority
Responsibility is weakened because once something becomes a "right," one no longer has to do anything further to earn it. When a person believes he has a right to something, he feels entitled to it. If he does not receive this entitlement, he believes he has been wronged, cheated, victimized, deprived, and treated unfairly. In most cases, he tends to place blame on the person or group which he believes is responsible for depriving him of his "rights." Logically, he then focuses his energy on asserting his "rights." He does this by making demands and by trying to coerce, manipulate or in some way change the person or persons he holds responsible for his unhappiness.
Since changing others is difficult, if not impossible, he sets himself up to feel frustrated, defeated, controlled, dependent, victimized, and powerless. All of these are direct opposites of the positive feelings needed for happiness. They are all also the opposite of that required for high self-esteem and self-reliance. When a low EQ person feels such negative feelings, he does not know how to soothe himself. Over time, he may feel resentful, bitter, jealous, envious, hopeless, despondent, or depressed. (This brings to mind Freud's definition of depression as "anger turned inward.") Or the "victim" may take out his negative feelings and frustrations on others, either those close to him or total strangers. He may also look for other ways to fulfill his need to feel powerful and in control. In the extreme case, he may turn to rage, random violence, and destruction. In the long run, all of this is not only anti-social, but self-destructive.
The second problem mentioned above is the neglect of the minority's needs. Again, this is particularly relevant to those who are both more intelligent and more sensitive, since they are, by definition, in the minority. In the long run, the social conventions, the laws, the values, the beliefs, and the definition of "rights" will all reflect the majority's needs and desires. To those in the minority, all of this has the potential to cause feelings of being left out, isolated, misunderstood, unsupported, rejected, etc.
The result of these problems is that there will be an increase in irresponsible behavior and a compounding of the natural tendency for groups to subdivide. This subdivision causes them to insulate and isolate themselves. The more the groups separate, the more they misunderstand, fear, resent, and compete with one another. As long as resources are plentiful, this may be a tolerable situation, but if resources become scarce, or even if they are perceived to be scarce, the competition becomes intense and ultimately leads to violence and warfare. What is needed, then, is something to reunite the groups by emphasizing their commonalities. This is where a thorough understanding of our universal human emotional needs, as offered by EQ theory, is many times more helpful than relying on arbitrary declarations of "rights."
(Adapted from EQ for Everybody, 1996, Chapter Six)
below are some notes to myself...
problem when rights and needs conflict
ex
everyone has the same rights but different needs
do I value understanding because I need it or need it because I value it. both
we value status symbols and think we need them
9:12am- what rights does a society have? **
what is the difference between a person's needs and their rights?
Or their needs, their desires, and their rights?
What is a person entitled to? Who ensures that the entitlements are provided?
What happens when a person's needs and rights conflict? For example, what if I have a need to ask questions and to understand but I have no legal "rights" to question them. For example, questioning a police officer or a judge about their feelings, beliefs, or reasons for their decisions?
What happens when a child has a need to understand but his "right" to question the teacher runs out when her patience runs out?
What happens when a person has a need for sex but he has no "right" to it, even if he is willing to buy it?
What happens when a customer has a need for restitution from a company but she has no legal "right" to it according to existing laws?
What happens when we try to write laws and policy statements including certain specific "rights" but excluding others?
Who decides what our "rights" are?
what happens when we all have the same rights but different needs?
do I valued understanding because I need it or need it because I value it. both
value status symbols and think we need them
Relationship Bill of Rights
1. I have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.
2. I have the right to be free from psychological or physical abuse.
3. I have the right to proper notice and negotiation prior to the relationship being terminated.
4. I have the right to experience my own thoughts and feelings.
5. I have the right to tell my partner honestly and responsibly what I am thinking and feeling, even if my partner does not agree, without being condemned for it.
6. I have the right to have my own life outside of the relationship.
7. I have the right to continue to learn and grow.
8. I have the right to openly talk about and seek to resolve relationship problems.
9. I have the right to end the relationship if it is not meeting my needs.
10. I recognize that my partner has the same rights as I do.
problem with 10 is that we each have different needs.
from Getting Love Right, Terrence Gorski.
I envision someone standing somewhere screaming "I have a right to ... " and "It is not fair!"
"You can't do that. I have a right to..."
Questions:
Where do you direct your attention when a right is unmet?
Whose responsibility is it to see that your rights are met?
Whose responsibility is it to see that your needs are met?
My belief:
There are no such things as "rights" in nature. Rights are a completely man-made fabrication which hark back to the days of kings and subjects.
We hold these truth to be self-evident that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness--that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men....
I say there is no "Creator," so this nullifies one of the most basic premises/assumptions of our country. Also, I say there are no inalienable rights even in nature. For example, we all die, so there is no right to life. We can be imprisoned, so there is no right to liberty, and if we are dead or imprison, we certainly have little chance of pursuing happiness. So the entire beautiful, poetic statement is nothing more than an unrealistic ideal. This fact goes a very long way to explain our current problems of everyone feeling entitled and us chasing the wrong problems.
---- From Toxic Parents, Susan Forward p. 31
Children have basic inalienable rights--to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and protected. But along with these physical rights, they have the right to be nurtured emotionally, to have their feelings respected, and to be treated in ways that allow them to develop a sense of self-worth.
... to make mistakes, to be disciplined without being physically or emotionally abused.
... to be children. To spend their early years being playful, spontaneous, and irresponsible.
toxic parents: significantly impaired in their own emotional health; unavailable to meet their children's needs; expect and demand that the children meet the parents needs.
Here we clearly see the problem with the concept of rights. The author states that children have certain basic rights. But in her definition of toxic parents she speaks only of the children's and the parents needs. This is because it would not work to say "unavailable to meet the children's rights." We don't meet rights, we don't fill rights. We just "have" them.
I can't fill your rights, I can't even help you fill them. Does this mean they are unfillable.
But, according to common English usage, I can deny you of your rights. I can peer into your window when you are undressing and rob you of your right to privacy.
We don't deny a persons needs. Actually - teachers do. They say "you don't need a drink of water right now, you can wait." But we can't take away a need, we can only fill it.
So there is another difference:
Needs can't be taken away, they can only be filled.
The teacher can take away the child's right to get up, leave class and get a drink of water, but she can't take away his need.
---
Rights are not gifts given by governments.
Nobody can "give" rights. They already belong to the individual. p 93, 94 EST The Steersman Handbook, L. Clark Stevens Bantam. New York, 1971.
---------
The State, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. Albert J. Nock
Quotes/Examples
Every child has an inalienable right to be bonded in welcoming arms, kindly initiated into a caring culture, allowed to play freely in the senses and imagination. Sam Keen
Wrong uses of the word "Rights"
You have a right to your feelings. (p 25 How to be Your Own Best Friend, M/B Berkowitz)
No- we have a need for our feelings. Our feelings have helped us reach the point in evolution where we are today.
Our feelings help us make decisions, help us manage our energy, help us set our boundaries, help us maintain our balance.
-- July 23, 1999 from j
I suppose fires were one way of determining who was responsible and who wasn't a million years ago. Because it is power. As I have said in my journal many times, give someone power and see what they do with it. But don't give it to them too quickly. You don't give a monkey a machine gun if he can't use a pistol responsibly. (this is also why we don't let kids play with matches- so all of history mankind has been concerned about access to, distribution, use and abuse of power.
What we have done is given too many people too much power too quickly. **
And we have told them it is their "right" to have it! What a mess we have made, we humans, we intelligent humans. I wonder what TJ would say if he came back today? (Thomas Jefferson)
thinking more about rights
Voting rights for example. Would we let a group of uneducated people vote on whether to blow up another country with nuclear weapons? No. But how much voting power do we give to people? The power to decide who will be the President is a lot of power. Too much, I believe. First we need to see what they have done with the power they already have. **
aug 2001 - does every child have a right to water? Most will say yes. Next question. How much water does he have a right to? And does every child need as much water as every other child? Are everyone's needs equal?