Duty

Consider the difference between the two following sentences that emanate as a reaction to a situation. The situation is an accident whereby a third party is left hurt.

"It is your duty to help them"
"It is your right to help them."

This is not an exercise in speech acts. What we have here is an awkwardness that occurs to us as being more than semantic dissonance. We simply do not have the right to help, but of course the duty. It is not a question of propositional play. Now look at at the same situation but now from the victim's perspective:

"I have a duty to expect help."
"i have a right to expect help."

Now it is the turn of duty to be seen out of kilter. One does not have a duty to expect help! We can see that the problem is do with relations and agency. We have rights and we have duties toward others. But let's now see what happens when these two, duty and right, are exercised to their fullest. One is witness to the victim lying in agony.

"I have a right to ignore the victim as it not my duty to help. It is the duty of professionals.it's their job."

But argues the second:

"That is omission. You have a duty which has arisen in the context to the situation. As you enter that zone, you have a duty of care. You cannot neglect that duty."

"Maybe not, but suppose I did that duty - wouldn't my rights be taken away from me? I mean once you enter that relationship of duty of care, then if anything happens to them as a consequence of my assistance, I may be held liable. "

"True, but in a conflict of interest between the right of an individual and his or duty to another, the latter is paramount."

"Really, I hold that rights are before duties!"

"True, to some extent, but does not your conscience trouble you? Aren't you moved to relegate yoir rights here?"

There you have it. "The I have rights" argument the T-shirt slogan of the 20th and 21st centuries. Duties smack too much of the military and authority. They sound Victorian. The civic duty seems no longer tenable. Of course we press for rights in the Romantic mould. The rights of minorities, rights and rights....

A state is taken to task over its human rights record. Not because of a failure or neflect of duty. It is a clear and cut case of human rights violation. Here it seems to make sense. Those without power are empowered in defence against the powerful through a bill of rights. Yet, here is the rub, the clamour for rights often goes against the interests of the state that is founded or supported by a national makority. The individual must use the law against the state. David versus Goliath. Often it antagonises and worsens the situation. As once a right is upheld it is often to the detriment of the nation or body politic. The individual or minority must challenge in the courts the state to uphold rights. Far better following Machiavelli and Kant is to have the state as an agent that has a duty towards all citizens, a duty in ramifications that covers all kinds of harm. Then there is no need for the individual to seek the court to uphold his or her rights - the state if it fails to carry out its duties, will face exclusion from statehood and all the entitlements that go with that. Moreover it will be taken to court and it will have to defend itself not in a court of human rights, but in a court of nations.