One of the questions I found quite interesting in the last few days was: “What happens when a certain population does not know (one or more) of their rights?”.
The answer I found to that question was that they will not be able to exercise it or enjoy it, let alone defend or fight for it. And there is an interesting thing about this case.
According to Wikipedia:Citizenship and forgetting the political shades in there:
Purely ethical and moral duties tend to include:
- respecting the rights of others
- defending one’s own rights and the rights of others against those who would abuse them
- exercising one’s rights
We usually see that the rights of one person/party are tied to the duties of another. So if a certain population, person or party does not know one or more of their rights, they can NOT defend their right, nor enforce that the other party complies with their duties. That can lead to exploitation, which is definitely not right (no pun intended).
Something interesting I got as a response from one of the people I was talking to about this was: “Having the right to do something doesn’t mean that it is right”. Coupling that with the duty<->right relationship, and taking into consideration the rights of others, I sincerely think that on most contexts exercising or enjoying one’s rights WITHOUT stepping on another party’s rights, is correct, but this has to be threaded very thin (treated with care/taken with a grain of salt).
Along with that point one should consider the case of the «Freedom of speech» , which is the case I had in mind when suggesting the grain of salt. One has the right to speak freely, but one has to be well versed on what one is saying, and take into consideration a LOT of stuff (e.g. what others think, that one could be wrong, etc…), so that one respects others.
So, I’ll go ahead and leave this point open, and expect comments to know what you guys think, and learn from that.