Is the proliferation of rights inherently a negative phenomenon?

From my interpretation of the posts prior to mine, one of the themes that emerges is the idea that the proliferation of rights is an inherently negative thing and that rights are individualistic, therefore automatically lead to selfishness and manipulation. It seems like the proliferation of rights is being associated with the proliferation of laws, in general, and I'm not sure that Wellman means this in Chapter 1. Even though Wellman does allude to specific examples of law to demonstrate how rights have proliferated, and I think he does so because rights are embodied in laws and the rhetoric of rights has been used to advance laws.

In response to Ernie's first post, I understand the concept of a right as something so fundamental and universal that no human being should be deprived. However, even though rights are embodied in laws so that they can be enforced, there is a clear distinction between the proliferation of rights and the proliferation of laws. I think that rights have always existed, it has just been a matter of time as to when certain rights have been recognized in language, writings, and discourse. Laws, on the other hand, have not always existed, they have been developed over time and I do agree that there has been a proliferation in laws. I don't agree that just because rights are individualistic that they automatically lead to selfishness and manipulation. After all, doesn't the recognition of individual rights in turn benefit society as a whole? Specifically in response to Jasmine, when stating "People are denied these rights in all kinds of places everyday and if you are denied something everyday do you have a right to it?" I think that even though people may be denied certain rights, that does not mean that they still do not possess those rights. Similarly, just because people may not be aware that they have certain rights, that does not mean that they do not possess such rights.

While I do agree that some laws may be meaningless, I don't think that rights are meaningless and the proliferation of rights does not necessarily need to be viewed as negative. I am more inclined to agree with Wellman when he states that there has been a "proliferation of the language of rights in political discourse" (2). It is apparent that rights are interwoven into rhetoric in political discourse and many laws are justified through the language of rights and moral claims. However, just because politicians or other figures use the language of rights to suit their agendas, it does not mean that it is a horrible thing that we have so many rights, it is just disheartening that such fundamental concepts are being utilized to further certain political aims.

Lastly, I feel like I need to touch on the concept of moral rights because Wellman uses specific rhetoric himself when he refers to them as "alleged moral rights" (2). The word "alleged" is an interesting choice. Perhaps Wellman means that we claim certain rights that we do not have, or that we may or may not have. I don't have a clear answer as to where moral rights stem from or how to prove that we do indeed have moral rights, other than my intuition as to what is "right" and what is "wrong". Of course, my conception of right and wrong is a product of socialization, as is everyone else's. That leads me to believe that moral rights and our view of them is largely dependent upon a social context. At the same time, I do think that there are certain universal moral rights that we share as human beings. Since I don't have any clear answers in this area, I will be interested in exploring this concept through readings and your responses throughout the semester.