Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 11, 2022, 4:36 pm

Poll: Do you believe in human rights?
This poll is closed.
Yes
57.14%
16 57.14%
No
42.86%
12 42.86%
Total 28 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What Human Rights?
#31
RE: What Human Rights?
(July 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote: 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 or inconsistent for a general human right to exist...and again, what does any of this have to do with a god?  


Quote: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.  

Quote: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....human rights are no more or less possible or consistent than that same right.

(I'm not going to argue with you on the strangeness of the death penalty, but there -is- a fairly straightforward justification for why we might violate a persons rights.....particularly violent felons...whose rights are violated, limited, and modified on a near constant basis...for better or for worse. Life and liberty my ass, eh?)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#32
RE: What Human Rights?
(July 16, 2015 at 1:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.

The distinction between civil and human rights, or even criminal and civil rights, is meaningless to a broader philosophical discussion about the existence of universal human rights. The problem is that you're basically arguing that because something is desirable and nicer it must be true - That's not what happens. Tyranny can be rational, it is merely a reaction to a former system (usually democracy - Plato was right) and has its place in history, it tends to be transitional. Yes, force and compulsion are higher authorities because that's what the State founds itself upon, otherwise you are arguing for anarchy. You can only take away liberty if you have a tyrannical constitution - If it's a democratic one, you can't.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#33
RE: What Human Rights?
(July 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote: HR don't have evidence backing them up, none at all...

That is why I said that human rights are incompatible with modern atheism. I recognize that all human beings partake of an essential nature that necessarily includes the liberties required to manifest that nature.
Reply
#34
RE: What Human Rights?
(July 16, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
(July 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote: 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?  


Quote: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.  

Quote: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.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#35
RE: What Human Rights?
(July 16, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Dystopia Wrote: 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
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're not being consistent. You just said there isn't any evidence for human rights and now you're arguing that they have always existed. Under what theory of human rights are you operating?
Reply
#36
RE: What Human Rights?
I'm not defending that premise, it's what human rights proponents support - At least part of them. Do you care to read my whole posts? I never argued that HR exist, I'm merely stating what supporters argue (at least some of the arguments). I had a whole exam about this last year (actually) and I never agreed with the professor who supported human rights, but I learned some useful concepts.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#37
RE: What Human Rights?
I've never put myself forward as an expert in human rights nor am I attempting to do so now....but I also don't -need- to be an expert in human rights to suggest that your statement was a massive non-sequitur.  In any case, I'm fairly certain that there are competing explanations and justifications for human rights beyond what you've offered.

I've said no such thing, I simply used my right to remain silent as an example of -why- your statement was indefensible.  Human rights may not be consistent or possible...but if so..it isn't for the reason(s) you've given...and it most certainly has -nothing- to do with gods or higher beings, as usual, they are useless pro or con.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#38
RE: What Human Rights?
(July 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I may not understand human rights theory.....but would this actually rescue the statement that you made and persist in?  I've never put myself forward as an expert in human rights nor am I attempting to do so now....but I also don't -need- to be an expert in human rights to suggest that your statement was a massive non-sequitur.  In any case, I'm fairly certain that there are competing explanations and justifications for human rights beyond what you've offered.

I've said no such thing, I simply used my right to remain silent as an example of -why- your statement was indefensible.  Human rights may not be consistent or possible...but if so..it isn't for the reason(s) you've given.

You needn't - My arguments against HR were never taught to me at school, I simply researched outside the normal books. It's not a non-sequitur - It does follow that without measurable evidence Human rights don't exist, and that's it. Human rights are behind an idea of universally accepted values by Humanity - If you cannot prove those values are accepted by at least the majority of communities, it does naturally follow that there's not universal human rights - What is a human right today would be seen as ridiculous yesterday, and what is valuable right now can be forgettable in 100 years. We don't know. Those are not really "human rights", but merely legal fictional rights as we know them.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#39
RE: What Human Rights?
That's fine, we can say that human rights don't exist -today-...but what does that have to do with god, what does that have to do with the consistency of human rights as an idea, and what does that have to do with their possibility?

Nothing,.. nada...and bumpkiss. It -was- and remains a non-sequitur. My right to remain silent would have been ridiculous at almost any point in history, at any time as well...and yet it, exists. The idea of what that right entails -has- changed over time...and yet it exists. Sure, it's a legal right.....but your use of the term fiction is equivocation, and doesn't establish what you claimed in any case. Fiction also exists......
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#40
RE: What Human Rights?
(July 16, 2015 at 2:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's fine, we can say that human rights don't exist -today-...but what does that have to do with god, what does that have to do with the consistency of human rights as an idea, and what does that have to do with their possibility?

Nothing,.. nada...and bumpkiss.  It -was- and remains a non-sequitur.

- The god discussion was brought incidentally by ChadWooters and I agreed, but it's very relevant to the discussion. I merely pointed out that with God you can comfortably argue for any kind of HR depending on the god version you believe in.

- The inconsistency of HR is a good reason to think why the claim about universality and inalienability is objectionable

- Obviously rights matter as long as they're applicable in a certain factual real life scenario - Verifying that HR are not being applied as claimed by people who wrote the declaration points out towards their non-existence, at least like they are defined in the declaration.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Legitimate women's rights issues Lemonvariable72 50 6556 October 30, 2015 at 7:01 am
Last Post: Lemonvariable72
  Why do Children not Have Human Rights? Koolay 58 11725 September 23, 2013 at 9:42 am
Last Post: genkaus



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)