That's a fair point.
If I think through this again then, I think what I come up with is that responsibilities are actually not more fundamental than rights. Rather, it makes more sense to think of human desires and needs as fundamental, while rights and responsibilities are just different perspectives on the social contracts we make while divvying up tasks in order to fulfill our desires and needs.
To a lone human, neither rights nor responsibilities are useful concepts. But as soon as you have two people, both concepts become useful.
"You collect firewood, and I'll pitch the tent." Assuming you and I both agree to those terms, we've agreed to a few promises:
- I've promised to pitch the tent.
- You've promised to collect firewood.
- I've promised to let you use the tent.
- You've promised to let me use the firewood.
The first two are responsibilities, and the second two are rights. Essentially, responsibilities are the promises that we agree to deliver on. While rights are the promises of the benefits we expect to receive in turn. In other words, my responsibility is your right.
Of course, in the example above, the two parties might not agree on who does what. And if so, we might resolve our disagreement peaceably or by threats or coercion. Hopefully, we can be nice, but either way, if there are no resulting promises, then there are no responsibilities or rights.
And that's ultimately what I was trying to get out in my comment. I think, in society, we often proclaim that someone has a responsibility to do something, even though they haven't promised to do it. And if there is no promise, there's no social contract, and if there's no social contract, then society doesn't function as we expect.
Do you think that makes sense?
