The UK riots: The idiocy of “rights talk” without “responsibility talk”

Patrick Keeney
August 24, 2011
Not every claim to a “ right” deserves a hearing. Political Scientist Patrick Keeney looks at the recent UK riots and finds that “rights-talk” without responsibility leads to the morally obtuse—the ones on display on that side of the Atlantic…

The UK riots: The idiocy of “rights talk” without “responsibility talk”

Patrick Keeney
August 24, 2011
Not every claim to a “ right” deserves a hearing. Political Scientist Patrick Keeney looks at the recent UK riots and finds that “rights-talk” without responsibility leads to the morally obtuse—the ones on display on that side of the Atlantic…
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
“You bloody Neroes, ripping up the womb
Of your dear mother England, blush for shame.”
-William Shakespeare, King John

Until recently, the British were admired for their personal qualities: a characteristic sense of fair play; emotional restraint and understatement; and stoicism in the face of great adversity.

But whatever else the recent riots in the U.K. may have revealed, none of these qualities were on display. What the world witnessed during the London riots was a mob of “bloody Neroes” without shame, dignity, or any kind of moral compass whatsoever.

As Great Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron remarked, “When we see children of 12 or 13 looting it’s clear there are things that are badly wrong in our society. There is a complete lack of responsibility in some parts of our society. People are allowed to feel the world owes them something and that their actions don’t have consequences.”

So what accounts for this new barbarism? What Cameron refers to as a “slow-motion moral collapse”?

There are, of course, a great many pathologies at work: chronic unemployment, the breakdown of the family, gangster culture, and the loosening of all social bonds, to name but a few.

But there has also been a radical alteration in Britain’s political culture. Over the past 40 years, the U.K, in concert with the other advanced democracies, has undergone a profound sea-change in its public morality. Great Britain has moved from a liberalism based on the greater good, to one predicated on the rights of the individual. In Canada, this change was made explicit with the arrival of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. Yet even in jurisdictions without written constitutions such as the U.K., there has been an inexorable movement to frame all public debates about morality exclusively in terms of individual rights, what various commentators refer to as the “rights revolution.”

As Plato pointed out, changes in political arrangements bring with them profound transformations (for either good or ill) in the temperament and psychological makeup of a nation’s citizens. The contemporary fixation with rights creates certain expectations and patterns of thought which centre on individual needs. But individual rights need to be balanced by parallel responsibilities. Without this balance, irresponsibility becomes widespread, and a corrosive egoism contributes to the deterioration of community.

Rights-talk leads to an entitlement mentality. “Rights” have a protean ability to percolate into every area of discourse, notoriously conflating genuine moral rights (e.g. the right to liberty) with non-moral claims (e.g. the “right” not to be offended). The result is an ever-expanding wish-list of entitlements, along with the understanding that every concession gained from the state becomes an unalienable right.

This is precisely why the British philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham referred to human rights as “nonsense on stilts.” Bentham recognized that unless the concept of right was further tied to the concept of the good (something which liberal democracies balk at doing), then the concept of “human rights” can accommodate every human desire, every human fantasy, and every flight of the human imagination, no matter how frivolous, whimsical, or silly.

Like some hyper-active philosopher’s stone, rights talk has the capacity to transmute every human craving into a species of moral claim. For example, a bank advertises its services by proclaiming that, “You have the right to own your own home.” Similarly, the makers of a beauty soap assure their customers that, “You have a right to self-esteem.”

Notice how effortlessly the grammar of rights lends itself to this metamorphosis. Simply by asserting, “I have the right to …”, or “you have the right”, or “we have the right”, it is possible to couch any human aspiration in language which bewitches us into thinking we are dealing with a moral claim. Magically, common concerns and desires – no matter how mundane, or self-interested – become grave matters of principle and morality. Quite possibly, the London rioters felt they had a right to flat-screen televisions.

When we couch our claims in the categorical language of rights, we are seduced into thinking, and want others to think, that such claims are, like mathematical proofs, beyond question. This is why rights are so frequently asserted with a sort of puritanical moralizing — a register of speech corrosive of civil discourse.

To engage in serious moral conversations requires, at a minimum, the spirit of tolerance and goodwill. It further requires the ability to make nuanced distinctions in language. But tolerance and subtlety are the very qualities that rights-talk works to obscure and undermine, and which are so noticeably absent in discussions surrounding rights.

It is a simple logical truth that any morality which emphasizes individual rights must necessarily lead to a highly individualistic society, one which correspondingly undermines shared notions of community. The morality of individual rights is one in which responsibility – to our family and friends, to our broader community or the nation, or, indeed, to ourselves — can find little purchase, and so paves the way for the sort of mayhem we witnessed in London.

There will doubtless be enquiries into the “root causes” of the riots, and suggestions for halting the moral decay. Among the first tasks will be to return responsibility to the centre of a renewed public ethic. It is impossible to say what shape this new ethic will ultimately take. But it will require a more selfless, more tolerant, and more imaginative perspective in which to conceptualize the moral domain than rights-talk currently allows.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

In Case of Emergency, Read This! Alberta’s Covid-19 Report

Despite the wreckage wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic – social disintegration, ruined lives, physical and economic tolls – the governments and public officials who “managed” the emergency have been decidedly uninterested in assessing their performance. Except in Alberta, where a government-appointed panel just released its Final Report. Though predictably attacked by politicians, media and “experts” who can abide no dissent, the report makes many sensible recommendations, Barry Cooper finds. The report calls for emergency management experts – not doctors or health care bureaucrats – to be in charge when such disasters strike, with politicians who are accountable to the people making the key decisions. Most important, the report demands much stronger protection for the individual freedoms that panic-stricken governments and overbearing professional organizations so readily quashed.

The (Un)Remarkable Common Sense Revolution of Mike Harris

To his fans, former Ontario premier Mike Harris is a conservative icon, a leader who cut taxes, reduced government spending, made sensible education and welfare reforms and put Canada’s biggest province back on the road to prosperity. To his enemies he was a ruthless ideologue whose “Common Sense Revolution” ignored the weak and punished the poor. A new book of essays by seasoned political campaigners and prominent policy experts re-examines this polarizing figure and finds both strengths and weaknesses. Harris’ success on the big issues of the day, finds reviewer Sam Routley, shows that when it comes to actually governing a democracy, what matters most is a clear-headed willingness to just get things done.

State of Fear: How Obsessive Demands for Police Checks are Destroying the Volunteer Sector

Everyone wants to protect children. Everyone also appreciates the benefits of a robust and engaged volunteer sector. We should be able to have both at the same time. Yet many long-time volunteers are quitting and potential new entrants are skipping the experience altogether. With safety precautions overwhelming the volunteer sector, it is becoming increasingly difficult to give away one’s own labour. Using his personal experience as a guide, Peter Shawn Taylor takes a close look at the charitable sector’s current mania for police checks and other safety measures, the costs they impose on volunteers and whether they’re actually protecting our kids from sexual predators.

More from this author

Confronting the Post-Academic University: In Conversation with Mark Mercer

As Canadian universities descend into apparent madness – hiring for skin colour rather than merit, enforcing draconian speech codes and unravelling the ancient protection of academic tenure – one voice has been resolute in demanding a return to higher standards in higher education. Mark Mercer, president of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship since 2015, has proved Canada’s pre-eminent defender of Enlightenment values throughout the academy. In a wide-ranging discussion with C2C Journal’s Patrick Keeney, Mercer charts the origins of our current Woke revolution, the overarching significance of academic freedom and how its loss is affecting life both on and off campus. It may not be a happy story, but it is a necessary one.

The Toxicity of Fad Psychology

Emotions and motivations are everything in current culture, facts and actions secondary at best. The most flamboyant unveilings of inner anguish are seen as understandable if not downright heroic. But how did we get to a state where restraint and privacy are considered not merely cold but signs of actual disorder? Drawing on his extensive experience in academia and long observation of cultural trends, Patrick Keeney finds a kindred spirit in Jesse Singal, who mercilessly but cheerfully lays bare the conceptual confusion, scientific pretensions and damaging effects of what he terms “fad” psychology.

Content over Process: Alberta’s New K-6 Curriculum is a Welcome Shift in Educational Thinking

It is clear that “progressives” are intent on rewriting, discrediting or wiping out the past. That context helps to clarify the left’s horror at Alberta’s proposed new K-6 school curriculum. Its fact-based approach to elementary schooling includes the history of Western civilization back to its beginnings, and to progressives, that simply cannot stand. With the curriculum’s comment period open until next spring, the controversy continues to boil. A lifelong educator, Patrick Keeney well knows what progressives have been up to. Keeney sees this as the moment when parents and all those who believe in a genuinely liberal education can take back our schools.

Share This Story


Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.