What Human Rights?

[Kingpin]

I find your view on morality changing or evolving very intriguing. If that is true then on what basis can we condemn any acts both existentially and historically.  Do you believe morals are relative?

This is a great question. I'll answer at the risk of hijacking the initial intent of direction the OP wanted to take. I do think it is indirectly germane though because in the big picture it seems that morality along with ethics have evolved in pace with human rights. (This is my view anyways.) I believe morality is the product of the evolutionary development of man and society. Within the framework of our society, we chose our own, personal code of moral conduct. 

I also know that the question of judging or condemning acts based on a fluid morality might seem to push one with this belief into a corner of not being able to judge. It creates enigmas and conundrums that one must be willing to accept. 

Most people consider slavery one of the great evils of humanity. Were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil? They both sold and maintained hundreds of slaves on their estates throughout their lifetimes, while simultaneously proclaiming the equality of all men. Were they evil hypocrites? If we oppose the evil of slavery, why do we build marble monuments to men who enslaved other men for their personal gain? 

Many think Epicurus was one of the great, enlightened philosophers of Ancient Greece. However, Epicurus owned and operated several slaves. Is it surprising that Epicurus admonishes us to eliminate pain and achieve tranquility? It was easy for him to suggest such conduct because he forced slaves to tend to his tranquil garden. Was Epicurus an evil hypocrite, like Jefferson and Washington? 

In a war, is it an evil act to kill civilians intentionally? The Greeks slaughtered or enslaved women and children of nations they conquered and yet, we admire them for the works of art they produced at the same time. Are there degrees of evil?

Who is more evil, George Bush or Saddam Hussein? Who of the two killed more women and children? It is questionable if Bush or Hussein killed more civilians. Are they both evil? Are the Americans who supported the Gulf War, evil? They made it possible for Bush to kill civilians. An analysis of the morality of historical events can be very enlightening with regard to the hidden motivations of the perpetrators, the participants and the alleged victims.

Stalin killed 30 million of his fellow Russian civilians in the 1930’s. Hitler killed five or six million Jews. Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman intentionally burned alive about 2 million German and Japanese women and children as part of their terror-bombing campaigns. What is the definition of a mass-murderer? Is it always the victor, who writes the history of a war and who defines war crimes? Are some of these mass-murderers more evil than others are or, are all mass-murderers evil?

The flight-crews of the American bombers dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and incinerated about half a million Japanese women and children. These soldiers did their prescribed duty. They were even proud to do so. Were they heroes, or were they war criminals?

Were the Nazis heroes or were they evil because they incinerated millions of Jews? If they were evil, why do we acclaim as heroes the American bomber crews who obliterated 161 German cities, incinerated several million women and children in Europe, and vaporized 300,000 civilians in Japan by nuking their cities? Were the Germans less evil than the Americans were? Were the German SS-Men more moral because they gassed the Jews before incinerating them, whereas American and British aircrews burned their victims alive? Who was more evil, the American aircrews or the SS-Men? Were any of them evil?

A terrorist for one country is a heroic freedom fighter for another country. The American Government referred to Osama Bin Laden as an evil terrorist. Simultaneously, thousands, if not millions of Muslims around the world acclaimed him as a hero. Women even named their children after Osama Bin Laden. Is Bin Laden a sainted hero, or is he an evil terrorist? 

I think we are in the best light if we avoid the use of morally judgmental words like good or evil. Precision in language suggests the use of descriptive words without moral connotations, such as unproductive, counterproductive, inefficient, efficient, lawless, dangerous and murderous. The list of words depends on our vocabulary.

Studying of the relative nature of morality poses interesting questions and these questions make many people uncomfortable or angry because they often interfere with their personal view of morality or history. It is often painful to come to terms with the relative nature of the human concept we call morality. It is painful because, in part, we cannot judge as you alluded to in your first question. 

However, from a 10,000 foot view, our views about morality, what is right and wrong, have changed. Why? because we have gotten better at understanding these things. We are building on the thoughts of those before us and the historic understanding of right and wrong. We are learning more about the nuanced details in the consequences of our actions and seeing further than what we ever have before by constantly re-evaluating our positions.

Great response tonechaser and I'm glad you admit the problem with moral relativism.  Without a transcendent ontic referent there can be no morality.  As famed athesit Kai Nielsen stated: "We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality."

Your last paragraph only further solidifies that morality is ever evolving and continues to be subjective.  But that is a logical outworking if there is no God.  I'm glad you see the bleakness of subjective morality in that there is no basis to judge anything.  

[Pyrrho]

The idea of inalienable human rights is inconsistent with modern atheism. Period.

The idea of inalienable human rights is inconsistent with Christianity.  God can take away any rights at any time, if he is omnipotent.  No one can consistently be a Christian and believe in inalienable human rights.  Of course, many Christians believe all sorts of contradictory nonsense, so we can expect that many do believe in things that are incompatible with their religion.

Indeed, though, you later on post that human rights are not inalienable given your God belief:

The Lord is sovereign and has no moral obligation to all His Creation. ...

So human rights are up to the whim of your God, and are not at all inalienable.

[Pyrrho]

What you are basically saying is that force and compulsion are the highest authorities. Most of you seem to incapable of making the distinction between human rights and civil rights. For example, trial by jury is a civil right, the benefit of being a citizen of a specific state. Human rights transcend one's status as a citizen. That is why they are called human rights. So if you think that rights are a human construct then you do not actually believe in human rights. The logical consequence of this is the rationalization to take away another's liberty by force for no reason at all. You are laying the foundation for tyranny.

That is hilarious coming from you!  God is omnipotent, so one had better obey or else!  That is the Christian message.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it isn't, but the manner in which you're discussing it -is- strawmanning.  I'm not sure I'm going to get much traction here though, Mr. Non-Sequitur.  The notion that the idea of "eternal sin" has something to do with why we ought to help others exercise their human rights...the holiness of human life........what, the fuck...?

Yes, yes, I advocate for human rights because human life is holy and I feel a sin debt........why even pretend anymore, you caught me.....

Perhaps you should look into some non-retarded opinions on human rights, if that's your summary? 

I was simply exposing a less popular opinion that isn't super relevant for the topic - It is not meant to serve as my main argument against the existence of HR - I actually discussed this in class and my professor thought that because the UN is mostly ran and managed by western governments, and those governments are either mostly Christian or influenced by Christianity - It is obvious that this religion is gonna have an influence on how we view HR. IMO, it reminds a lot of the whole eternal sin issue - If you look at European constitutions (that are far bigger and detailed than the American one) you'll see chapters and articles just dedicated to HR and how to execute those rights successfully, there's rights for everyone and everything, some of them impossible to achieve in practice - For example, the idea of economic equality is a ridiculous one and it doesn't even have a proper definition - Does it mean that unfair inequality should be corrected? Or everytime there's some inequality should people share wealth? Where does the idea of redistributing wealth even come from? It isn't from socialism certainly as Europe is capitalist and supports the free market (in fact, the treaty of the EU considers the market a fundamental requirement to enter the club). Do you honestly believe that the fact Christianity is the most influential religion in States that dominate the EU council and institutions is irrelevant to shape and define HR? Do you really think it doesn't impact anything? Because - And I apologize if this opinion sounds "harsh" - I think it's much easier to justify going against the current status of HR without religion, specially when it comes to implementing systems that are fundamentally incompatible with strong religious doctrine (like communism, some variants of Marxism and even fascism)

I think that christianity is irrelevant regarding a well thought out justification for HR, yes.  If we, for example, refer to some notion of eternal sin, or sin debt, as to why we have to help others achieve these rights -this is where I jumped in- then the ground is already too shaky for me to sign on-board, despite being perfectly content to advocate for HR under a vast multitude of other justifications.  I'm sure it does impact things, but it shouldn't, because clearly,  if sin debt is a justification for HR....it shittifies them...and it isn't required.

[Neo-Scholastic]

God is omnipotent, so one had better obey or else! That is the Christian message.

The human right to Justice means that people get their due. The innocent and righteous retain their life and liberty. Criminals who are punished are getting their just desserts. So no, God does not take away rights at whim, but in accordance with His perfect judgment.
You guys really have a warped sense of human rights if you believe that having a right makes you immune to justice.

[Pyrrho]

God is omnipotent, so one had better obey or else!  That is the Christian message.

The human right to Justice means that people get their due. The innocent and righteous retain their life and liberty. Criminals who are punished are getting their just desserts. So no, God does not take away rights at whim, but in accordance with His perfect judgment.
You guys really have a warped sense of human rights if you believe that having a right makes you immune to justice.

It is funny how you don't keep your story straight:

The Lord is sovereign and has no moral obligation to all His Creation. ...

So, are you now telling us bullshit lies, or were you previously telling us bullshit lies?

[The Grand Nudger]

False dichotomy  Pyrrho, it's entirely possible that he was bullshitting us in -both- instances.  

[Pyrrho]

False dichotomy  Pyrrho, it's entirely possible that he was bullshitting us in -both- instances.  

I agree that the options are not mutually exclusive.  However, at least one of them must be true.

[abaris]

The only rights we have are the ones we give ourselves.

Correction: The only rights we have are what the powerful grant us.

[Anomalocaris]

such "human right" as you might imagine you have transecends nothing.   It is strictly what other humans have condescended to permit you not to actually have, but to merely pretend to have.

^And that is exactly what I would believe too, if I did not believe in God. that's what I'm saying. Hopefully no one here will be angry at you for saying it, like they were with me for saying I'd believe this too if I was atheist.

Believing God so you can pretend facts are not what they are, but what you wish them to be, does the concept of god no credit, much less anyone who would embrace the concept of God for that reason.