What Human Rights?

[Dystopia]

Indeed, the existence of infringements doesn't make the right invalid - You have that right in the states, but is there a universal right to remain silent understood similarly between different cultures and tribes? In my country, you have the right to prosecute someone for telling secrets about you even if the facts are true, because it is a violation of privacy and private life - In some countries, you can only be prosecuted if the facts are made up or false. This is just an example of how it differs. My point is that HR are said to be universal and similar between every people, and that's not what happens. Moreover, it is said HR have always existed as inalienable, the only difference was that in the past governments never recognized them, but they still existed, they were there, just not in use - And after the French revolution we claimed the rights that have always existed - My opinion is that we simply created rights, but not that they existed before.

I doubt that there is a universal right to remain silent, is there some reason that there couldn't be, due to the absence of a god, though?  None that I see.  It doesn't matter whether or not everyone recognizes a right, or whether or not people recognize a right.... for the same reasons that it doesn't matter whether or not people are willing to infringe upon that right.  That a right is said to be universal to human beings is not a statement that all human beings will agree with it, or even be capable of utilizing it when it -is- agreed upon.  I have the right to remain silent, this is agreed upon insofar as it matters in my life....I cannot always exercise that right, practically, nor will the existence of the right -actually- stop the police, for example, from attempting to compel me into ignoring it.  We did create rights, what stops us from creating human rights?  If my right to remain silent can exist, why is it impossible for a general human right to exist...and again, what does any of this have to do with a god?  

I accept that your right exists in America, that's a verifiable fact with empirical evidence supporting its existence. The difference here is that HR don't have evidence backing them up, none at all - There is no universally accepted conception of basic rights, you will not find it - You can find similarities specially between states with similar cultural and legal background. I didn't personally decide human rights can't or don't exist, I merely pointed out that objectively there isn't a universal notion of what constitutes fundamental rights, and even if there is a more accepted trend it is prone to change with time - Controlling reproduction is completely unacceptable and an infringement upon people's rights according to most HR proponents, but in 50 years with overpopulation we might change our ideas and start accepting it as a duty and a right itself (because other people, those who are alive have the right to live in a reasonably populated world). Most articles in the UDHR are not applied in practice.

You claimed that they were not possible (and that it had something to do with a god, no less), -that the notion was inconsistent with -something-, not that they were not in effect.  You're about to make that claim again...below.  I agree that they are not in effect, the right to remain silent hasn't been around that long either.....what this (or the god bit) has to do with the impossibility or inconsistency of human rights remains a mystery.  

Because unless you possess knowledge on the existence of a higher being that can grants us eternally omnipresent and valuable rights and duties, there is no justification for the idea of Human Rights - There is a more accepted morality and legal definition of rights/duties for each historical era, but there isn't a universal one and you never know what will be a right or duty in the future. The right to housing, for example, was only recently seen as a basic right, 100 years ago it would be ridiculous to tell somebody you have a human right to housing. Something as basic as the right to live is not interpreted unanimously by nations - The States and Japan are both "civilized" and accept the death penalty as a worthy form of punishment, Europeans believe it violates the right to live - Some people think the right to live means you can't kill your own self, because you can't take away your own rights (inalienable can mean precisely that) and others think you can voluntarily give them up. Some folks think you can become a slave and lose all rights out of free will, others like me think you can't  just wave all your rights away infinitely and become an object.

My right to remain silent doesn't depend upon the existence of a higher being or a belief in a higher being or knowledge of a higher being, and yet you've agreed that it exists......no more justification is required for human rights than is required for my right to remain silent....

You do not understand human rights theory - The basic foundations are that those rights do not need to be created at all, because they have always existed within out deepest spirit, they are inalienable and universal - They exist even if we don't notice it, or even if some people don't know what constitutes a right. The justification needed is much higher because you need to inevitably convince the majority of people to accept those rights as universal, and then you need to make that right basically unchangeable, because otherwise it is not a universal right anymore but just an idea we adapt as we see fit.

I don't see why you believe the fact you have said right in the USA makes anyone entitled to declare those rights valid for everyone else. Moreover, which rights, are universal, and which are not? And why does your right to remain silent matter more than possibly the duty to NOT remain silent other societies may have? Which society has it right? Which rights are really universal and which are not? And how do we determine those rights objectively?

BTW, your right to remain silent is an individual one that is applicable to everyone (I hope) in the States, it's not a universally right categorized as such that anyone can claim. What thinks you are entitled to tell a society that doesn't care about that right, for any reason at all, that they should adopt it? your premise is based on the pre-conceived notion that your individual rights can be applicable to everyone, and that what you socially perceive as being "normal" rights are perceived equally by any society. I'm not just talking about one or two outsiders violating every existing right, but whole societies that literally consider our "normal" rights to be abhorrent and incomprehensible.