During my graduate school days in Pittsburgh -- long before the internet, Google, or social media -- one of our favorite leisure activities, alongside watching movies, was playing bridge.
One afternoon, during a game in which I was partnered with Shoaib bhai -- my brother’s friend, a former Air Force officer who had come to the US in search of a new life as a writer -- we found ourselves playing against Faruq and Dula bhai. Dula bhai was a well-respected member of our community, and his wife was always a gracious and welcoming host.
As the game progressed, Dula bhai, like any of us, made a few mistakes. Faruq, however, began criticizing him relentlessly, and in a manner that felt excessive for a friendly match. At one point, Shoaib bhai gently intervened, suggesting that the criticisms had gone too far.
Faruq replied curtly, “I have the right to criticize.”
To which Shoaib bhai calmly responded, “you have the right, but it is not decent.”
That exchange has stayed with me ever since. It raised a question I’ve often returned to: Can one’s rights and decency be at odds?
The word right carries a dual legacy. On one hand, it is the antonym of wrong, a moral compass guiding human behavior. On the other, it represents rights -- entitlements rooted in Enlightenment philosophy, particularly the work of John Locke. These two meanings are often treated separately: One moral, one political. But in truth, they are deeply intertwined. A decent society cannot flourish without recognizing that the protection of rights is, fundamentally, the right thing to do.
The moral right is a timeless compass. Long before political theory codified rights, societies grappled with the concept of right and wrong. What is morally right or not is embedded in religious teachings, philosophical traditions, and cultural norms.
The moral code reflects values like honesty, compassion, justice, and responsibility. These principles are not static -- they evolve -- but they serve as the ethical bedrock of human interaction.
The emergence of political rights marked a revolutionary shift. The 17th and 18th centuries marked a seismic shift in political thought. John Locke’s theory of natural rights -- life, liberty, and property -- challenged the divine right of kings and authoritarian rule. Rights became legal and political claims individuals could make against the state.
The American and French revolutions institutionalized these ideas, giving birth to modern democracies. Their constitutions, which enshrined fundamental rights, served as templates for those of many nation-states in the centuries that followed.
In other words, the concept of rights -- and later, “human rights” -- evolved into a global ideal. The worldwide yearning for democracy is, at its core, a struggle to secure fundamental political rights.
Yet, a global movement for decency -- for a world in which dignity is preserved and no one is humiliated -- remains largely unarticulated. Sometimes the two meanings of rights intersect. The Lockean notion of rights is not morally neutral. It is grounded in the belief that respecting individual autonomy is ethically correct. Rights are not just legal constructs -- they are moral imperatives as well. When we say someone has a right to free speech, we are also saying it is wrong to silence them. The moral right and the political rights converge in the idea that human dignity must be protected.
The danger of separation of the two rights has serious consequences. When rights are divorced from moral reasoning, they risk becoming hollow. For example, invoking the right to privacy to shield unethical behaviour undermines the moral foundation of that right.
Another example that comes to mind is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution -- the right to bear arms. This right has long lacked sufficient guardrails in the form of moral reasoning and civic responsibility. The consequences of such an imbalance have been devastating, as recent events in the US tragically demonstrate. Similarly, moral claims without legal protections can be powerless -- think of societies where justice is preached but not practiced.
What is a decent society? For one philosopher, Avishai Margalit, “a decent society is one whose institutions do not humiliate people.” A decent society is one where rights are upheld because it is morally right to do so. And all individuals are protected against humiliation.
Laws must reflect ethical principles, and ethics must inform legal frameworks.
This means not just defending rights in courtrooms, but cultivating a culture of moral responsibility and decency.
It also means recognizing that rights come with duties: Theright to free speech entails the duty to speak truthfully and respectfully.
In today’s polarized world, we often see rights weaponized -- used to justify selfishness or intolerance. Reconnecting rights with moral rightness can restore their purpose. For example, the right to protest is meaningful only when exercised in pursuit of justice, not chaos, and definitely, not to deny others exercising their rights.
The right to religious freedom is noble when it fosters tolerance, not exclusion.
The two meanings of “right” -- moral and political -- are not rivals but partners. One gives ethical depth to the other; together, they form the foundation of a just society. Upholding rights is not just a legal duty -- it is the right thing to do. And in a world increasingly fractured by cynicism and division, that simple truth may be our most powerful tool for healing and reconciliation.
Habibul Haque Khondker is a sociologist and columnist.