Much depends on what we can agree upon.  There are no absolute answers to this.  Rights sometimes prove to be wrongs - as in the case of enslavement rights.  What we agree on today, may not be what we agree on in the next decade. 

If we are to avoid the potentially dangerous situation where responsibilities are imposed on us, then we need to invest time to find agreement on mutually protective responsibilities that we will commit to and enact.

Arguably, such agreement-building should be meta-governed by Kant's 'categorical imperative'.  It calls us to act with integrity in accord with ethical principles that we have autonomously decided require global compliance in order securely to protect everyone's interests.  As Habermas has argued, the determination of such principles should be undertaken dialogically with unlike-minded others - to safeguard against the dangers of monological deliberation and the common affliction of limited intelligence and rationality.   The determination of our principles should be given highest order priority for the obvious reason that our most important life decisions and human associations are underpinned by them. 

This imperative warrants far more than mere academic attention.  Given the world's increasingly serious predicament, the exercise needs to be undertaken urgently: each of us has a corrective learning responsibility, to apprehend the root causes of the problems for which we are more or less causatively responsible.  And this kind of responsibility learning has a further challenge.  It needs to be undertaken in consideration of implied changes to the world constitutional order.  Most people mistakenly assume that they have no responsibility for the world system.  But the world system does not exist 'out there' in the ether.  It only exists in human minds.  And it will persist only so long as we do not change our minds.  No human system can prevail without the consent or  acquiescence of each and all of us.  Moreover, as Thomas Pogge makes clear, we impose the system on each other.  Hence we are causatively responsible for the continued existence of the world's constitutional order and its failures.  We are implicated in these failures.  Our causative responsibility gives rises to our corrective responsibility.  We have a highest order responsibility to critically examine our consent for the constitutional order and change our consent if serious failures are apparent.    

Engagement in such responsibility-based, corrective journey, should be viewed as our first act of responsibility - an act of integrity and self-development.  Clearly, a considerable learning expedition is entailed.  Unfortunately our  schools and universities are spectacularly ill-disposed and ill-equipped to serve as guides.    

Our second act of responsibility is to make our responsibility agreements and commitments public - thereby rendering ourselves ethically transparent and accountable. 

Our third act of responsibility is to enact these publicly declared responsibilities in organised relationship with ethically aligned others.  

Commitment to these three acts of responsibility would see us embark on an ethical learning journey that few, if any, have taken.  Indeed, such commitment would mark the beginning of an integrity revolution; it would seed the emergence of an unprecedented world civilisation whose perpetuation would greatly depend on widespread acceptance and exercise of parental responsibility to guide children in their care to pursue these three acts from the earliest possible age. 

The promise of universal fulfilment and protection of common interests - and what we may continue to call human rights - will greatly depend on universal exercise of these three primary acts of responsibility.

https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:9568/Mochelle.pdf

Dear Zahir.

You ask the following:  What we think our major rights and major responsibilities are, and how these rights and responsibilities should be related to human moral values.

A long answer to your question would imply to write a book's chapter, a book or even several books. So, my answer to your challenging question is a short answer

Let me start by saying that your questions have not to do with, say, the "is" domain or the domain of how things are, but with the "ought" domain or the domain of how things should be. Because of this, our rights and responsibilities depend upon the kind of ethic we espouse.  

For example, the sociologist R. Shweder speaks about the big three of morality: Autonomy, community and divinity. Western societies generally emphasize individuals' rights and autonomy, such as freedom of speech, to give but an example. Eastern societies generally emphasize one's duties to the community. And highly religion-oriented countries  generally emphasize that we should abide by the divine law.

What our rights and moral responsibilities are, is related to, say, the moral/ethical principle one thinks is the best moral principle. A brief digression through the history of ideas show us that four moral principles have been advocated to "test" whether our actions are moral or immoral, just or unjust, ethical or unethical.  Deontological moralities, such as those advocated, for example, by Lawrence Kohlberg, Immanuel Kant´, John Rawls or Jürgen Habermas. According to Kohlberg, moral actions are  those that are consonant with the principle of justice whose main injunction is that we should not treat others unfairly. According to Kant we are morally responsible when we act in accord with his categorical imperative (i.e.., we should act as if our actions could be applied to all people, at all places and times). According to Habermas, moral actions are whose that, say, would pass the "better argument" test, that is, in a situation of competing claim, the better claim is the one that is based on rational, not instrumental, communicative action or discourse.  And according to Rawls, just actions are those that would pass the veil of ignorance or original position "test".  In other words, when competing claims are the case, the best claim is the one that ignores what kind of persons (e.g., rich/poor, men/women, powerful/non-powerful, and so forth) we are in the conflict of interests at issue.

Teleological or consequentialist moralities, such as those  espoused by Jeremy Bentham or Stuart Mill claim that moral actions are those that bring about the greatest good or happiness to the greatest number of people. Instead of the principle of justice that lies at the heart of all deontological moralities, the most basic moral principle for teleological moralities is, therefore, the principle of social utility.

According to Carol Gilligan and her ethic of caring or responsibility, the best moral principle is the principle of benevolence, whose main injunction is that we should not turn away from someone in need.

According to Aristotle and contemporary virtue ethicists (e.g., Marta Nussbaum), the most important moral principle is the principle of eudaimonia, whose main injunction is that moral actions are those that lead to our and others self-actualization

or self-fulfillment  (see for this this respect  Maslow's  pyramid of one's needs.

Needless to say, our rights and  moral responsibilities vary as a function of the basic moral principle we adopt or espouse.

As I see it, we have  three main moral responsibilities: To live in harmony with ourselves, with the others, and with the universe. When this is the case we give a small contribution to the maintenance of the cosmic order that seems to govern the universe. When we feel  responsible to live in accord with this triple responsibility we are citizens of the word. Note that the Greek philosopher Socrates once remarked that he was not a Greek or a citizen of Athens,  but a citizen of the world. I could also say that human beings should  be committed  to pursuing  the true, the good, and the beautiful. Note that the good, the true, and the  beautiful are universal categories, regardless of how they are seen  at different places and times.

From an ideal point of view I would say that all human beings have a right to have, say, a decent life and  live in a just and peaceful world. The time for this to be the case is yet to come. Even though such type of world is difficult, perhaps impossible, of being attained we cannot give up looking for it. To give up an ideal because it is difficult or even impossible to be attained in factual terms it would be to fall prey to  the naturalistic fallacy,that is, to go from the "is" (it is impossible to attain a certain goal in practical or factual terms) to the "ought" (i.e., therefore, we should give up looking for such a goal or  ideal).

I  hope I have got your questions and that this helps.

Best regards

Thank you Richard. Your detailed explanations are wonderful!

Dear Prof. Orlando. Thank you for your wonderful detailed explanations.