What Human Rights?

[Mudhammam]

I do recall Schopenhauer expending some effort on the topic in his World as Will and Representation, but instead of trying to hash that out since its been awhile since I read that, I'll just refer you to this wiki page to at least get a sense of one philosophic perspective, which if nothing else, is interesting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_S...aesthetics

[Tartarus Sauce]

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."

For those of you that aren't acquainted with sociology, that principle was chalked up by two blokes named W.I. Thomas and D.S. Thomas and hence that statement has rather appropriately been dubbed "The Thomas Theorem." One of its most straightforward applications would be on the topic of race within Western societies. Race, as it has been defined within western societies, is a completely bogus concept of no intrinsic value when it comes to meaningfully categorizing human beings based on biological, intellectual, or social traits. It has however, been meaningfully implemented by societies that perpetuated it's machinations by founding entire social structures on the subjugation and exploitation of underprivileged classes. Race is fake, the consequences of its acceptance and perpetuation have been and continue to be very real.

I think a similar standpoint can be taken when it comes to human rights. "Are human rights real" is a completely separate question to "should we accept and utilize human rights as they are commonly understood," and I would argue that the answers to both questions are independent from one another. This would hark back to Chuck's post several pages back where he described rights as a "beneficial fantasy" and I would be inclined to agree. As David Hume famously demonstrated, what something "is" does not determine what "ought" to be done about it. Even if human rights have no intrinsic meaning, that does not mean they can't be meaningfully implemented by societies at large.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've read some of the thinking from that era and still find it unsatisfying, myself -- but you definitely have a more philosophical bent yourself and can perhaps winkle out the message that seems to be escaping me. I don't believe that there is one standard of æsthetics independent of the person perceiving the art, myself. But I do think that what I like is better. :lol:

[GenericAthiest]

The tern "human rights" come rom religious people that think "god" gives us "rights" to not be violated. But "god" does not give us this, we ourselves give ourselves "Human rights", morals, etc. Not "god", or "gods".

[Neo-Scholastic]

Its kinda hard to talk about human rights with people who refuse to recognize that an unborn child is a human being. As I said earlier nominalism and conceptualism prevent their adherents from even having a concept of humanity on which to hang human rights.

A fetus is a human in the same way that a palette with paints mixed on it is a painting.  You can't sell a bunch of paints for a million dollars, and you can't sell a fetus as a human being.

Your cute analogy masks a brutal truth. Open your eyes.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thank you Chad.

I was always a human. I was never a different species who "turned into" a human at some arbitrary point in my life. My life started at conception, and will end on the day I die. And I was and will continue to be a human being during every bit of it. :-)

[GenericAthiest]

Thank you Chad.

I was always a human. I was never a different species who "turned into" a human at some arbitrary point in my life. My life started at conception, and will end on the day I die. And I was and will continue to be a human being during every bit of it. :-)

If you really want to go that far, your life started as a sperm.

---

The tern "human rights" come rom religious people that think "god" gives us "rights" to not be violated. But "god" does not give us this, we ourselves give ourselves "Human rights", morals, etc. Not "god", or "gods".

A fetus is a human in the same way that a palette with paints mixed on it is a painting.  You can't sell a bunch of paints for a million dollars, and you can't sell a fetus as a human being.

Your cute analogy masks a brutal truth. Open your eyes.

A female womb will actually abort more fetuses that a mother every will.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thank you Chad.

I was always a human. I was never a different species who "turned into" a human at some arbitrary point in my life. My life started at conception, and will end on the day I die. And I was and will continue to be a human being during every bit of it. :-)

If you really want to go that far, your life started as a sperm.

Nope. 

My DNA strand, that makes up who I am, started the second egg and sperm met. That is when I came into existence. Not before that.

[GenericAthiest]

If you really want to go that far, your life started as a sperm.

Nope. 

My DNA strand, that makes up who I am, started the second egg and sperm met. That is when I came into existence. Not before that.

Not really, you came into existence that moment you where conscience aware that you where alive.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nope. 

My DNA strand, that makes up who I am, started the second egg and sperm met. That is when I came into existence. Not before that.

Not really, you came into existence that moment you where conscience aware that you where alive.

There's a nice little justification for infanticide since that happens when? Age 2? Or maybe its okay if I kill people while they are asleep. You're all smug about thinking yourselves so 'scientific' but when the objective facts are staring you right in the face you jump to some arbitrary starting point of life that has nothing to do with biology.