What Human Rights?

[Dystopia]

If you mean the typical universal objective rights as stated in the declaration written and elaborated by the UN - No - But I believe that in every State there is some kind of traditionally unquestionable and basically inalienable rights. Truth be told - In practice rights only exist because the State allows you to have them, rights are a fiction created by society to serve as a defense mechanism and allow us to coexist with each other - That doesn't mean rights don't exist, but they aren't as obvious and objective as we think. Just look at free speech - Western societies consider free speech sacred since the French revolution but for thousands of years we have lived without it, the truth is that it is a relatively new and even weird concept compared to previous rights.

My basic argument is - No evidence (same as God) - The only thing saying Human Rights exist is a paper written by some (arguably) moral and well intended people but in reality it holds little value. Even the most basic rights like "life" are not subject to universal consensus - Some countries allow the death penalty, sometimes for stupid reasons and using inhumane methods - Even sexual autonomy isn't universal - Come countries allow marital rape, or rape itself.

Why should I believe universal human rights exist? Moreover, has anyone noticed how most articles are a big load of desirable ideas that are basically never or rarely applied in reality? How is that so?

[Dystopia]

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

Actually - I fully agree with Chad on this one - If you don't believe in God, believing in universal human rights is inconsistent because the only excuse to claim there are these universal moral values everyone respects and desires is to justify it with an omnipotent being that granted us this morality and these rights. Without God, human rights can't exist, it doesn't naturally follow. What is a right or not changes with time. I gave the example of free speech

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you're confusing the existence of people and organizations willing to infringe upon those rights with non-existence of the rights themselves. As a very mundane example...tiny in comparison to human rights....under arrest I have the right to remain silent. If I choose not to exercize that right - does it mean that I didn't or don't have it? If "coercion" is applied does it mean that I did not have that right or don't?

I'm not sure I understand why, without god....a system manufactured by -or- implemented by humans couldn't exist....that seems more than a little bit absurd...maybe it could be put a different way? Also, is there some specific reason that rights -shouldn't- change over time that you would like to share?

[Dystopia]

I think that you're confusing the existence of people and organizations willing to infringe upon those rights with non-existence of the rights themselves.  As a very mundane example...tiny in comparison to human rights....under arrest I have the right to remain silent.  If I choose not to exercize that right - does it mean that I didn't or don't have it?  If "coercion" is applied does it mean that I did not have that right or don't?

I'm not sure I understand why, without god....a system manufactured by -or- implemented by humans couldn't exist....that seems more than a little bit absurd...maybe it could be put a different way?  Also, is there some specific reason that rights -shouldn't- change over time that you would like to share?

- Yes, you have a right to remain silent because it is provided to you either by the constitution or some important law to protect your rights, but is there a universal right to remain silent when under arrest? Heck, in some places I can be executed without a trial.

- Rights can and do change overtime, frequently accompanying social mutations - In legal systems influenced by Roman law we have something called "indeterminable concepts", it's basically words used by the legislator without a universal meaning that can be interpreted differently according to social circumstances, to prevent the law from becoming obtuse and useless when social progress happens - It's a nice way to avoid writing new laws all the time - Regardless, my argument is exactly that rights and Law change overtime and therefore there isn't a universal conception of morality and rights. Human rights are based on an idea of internationalism, equality and inalienability - Infringing upon those rights only happens if those rights are granted to you in the first place - If I have a constitution saying the death penalty is allowed, it is not an infringement upon my rights to sentence me to death - It would be if the constitution said otherwise. 

I consider national constitutions more important than some declaration made by the UN because the former actually reflects social tendencies, values and "traditions" (not in the usual sense of the word but merely what people value as rights and different tribes have different ideas) - A German constitution needn't be the same as a French one, or American one - What the UDHR wants is to create some hegemony according to what they think is true.

I'm not saying that, in any given time, there isn't some sort of legal "morality " considered superior or even objective, that's a natural result of social mutations - But to argue that, from birth you have inalienable rights and that's just common sense (so it's not up for debate or burden of proof) and that those rights have always (and will always) existed, is, in my opinion, childish.

[Mudhammam]

I think that you're confusing the existence of people and organizations willing to infringe upon those rights with non-existence of the rights themselves. As a very mundane example...tiny in comparison to human rights....under arrest I have the right to remain silent. If I choose not to exercize that right - does it mean that I didn't or don't have it? If "coercion" is applied does it mean that I did not have that right or don't?

I'm not sure I understand why, without god....a system manufactured by -or- implemented by humans couldn't exist....that seems more than a little bit absurd...maybe it could be put a different way? Also, is there some specific reason that rights -shouldn't- change over time that you would like to share?

Basically, it sounds like your saying that you have as much right as your will grants. You will to remain silent. You have that right. It is yours and only your own will can negate that. Beyond your judgement, things outside your will, you have either a) no right, or b) unlimited rights, like Hobbes' state of nature, wherein everyone has a right to anything but only through contractual agreement do we forfeit some of our rights. Or, if you think we have right to things outside of the will, from whence do such powers come? Is it, as Chuck said, and what many of the Romans believed to be "the noblest and most just law of God": "Let the better always be victorious over the worse," and might decides right?

[The Grand Nudger]

-

 Yes, you have a right to remain silent because it is provided to you either by the constitution or some important law to protect your rights, but is there a universal right to remain silent when under arrest? Heck, in some places I can be executed without a trial.

There's no universal right to remain silent no, but I still have that right.  There isn't anything making a universal right to remain silent an impossibility either...no more so than it is impossible for me to possess that right.  Again, like before, you just -might- get executed here in the states without a trial......but the existence of people or organizations willing to infringe upon your rights does not imply or demonstrate that they do not exist.  

- Rights can and do change overtime, frequently accompanying social mutations - In legal systems influenced by Roman law we have something called "indeterminable concepts", it's basically words used by the legislator without a universal meaning that can be interpreted differently according to social circumstances, to prevent the law from becoming obtuse and useless when social progress happens - It's a nice way to avoid writing new laws all the time - Regardless, my argument is exactly that rights and Law change overtime and therefore there isn't a universal conception of morality and rights. Human rights are based on an idea of internationalism, equality and inalienability - Infringing upon those rights only happens if those rights are granted to you in the first place - If I have a constitution saying the death penalty is allowed, it is not an infringement upon my rights to sentence me to death - It would be if the constitution said otherwise. 

There isn't a universal conception of rights -at all-, but you accept that my right to remain silent exists even so..don;t you?  Why do you then decided that human rights don't or can't, on that same basis?  Whats the difference between my right to remain silent and human rights?

I consider national constitutions more important than some declaration made by the UN because the former actually reflects social tendencies, values and "traditions" (not in the usual sense of the word but merely what people value as rights and different tribes have different ideas) - A German constitution needn't be the same as a French one, or American one - What the UDHR wants is to create some hegemony according to what they think is true.

I'm not saying that, in any given time, there isn't some sort of legal "morality " considered superior or even objective, that's a natural result of social mutations - But to argue that, from birth you have inalienable rights and that's just common sense (so it's not up for debate or burden of proof) and that those rights have always (and will always) existed, is, in my opinion, childish.

Who argues that?  What would that (or your response in general) have to do with the impossibility of human rights in the absence of a god?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Nestor
No...I was simply discussing my right to remain silent, not the fount from which that right flows.  It exists without dependence on a god, and in spite of the willingness of others to infringe upon it.  These then, to me, wouldn't disqualify human rights as a possibility, since they don't have the power to disqualify my right to remain silent.

I'm sure we could isolate the various sources of a great many rights if we set our minds to it.  Mine is simply one example of where a right can originate from. I'd probably swing from wildly supportive to roundly dismissive as we went through the list of candidate rights, candidate justifications, and candidate points of origin..lol. Ultimately though, I do think that our rights flow from our will...where else would they flow from...if there where no human wills would there be any human rights (with a big or a little h) at all? I suspect not. This is, conveniently, how we determine what we grant rights to, or claim rights for, in the first place. How -far- our rights extend outwards from our will is an open subject, eh? I Would be willing to state that a right might reach -very far- and be justifiable, or -exceedingly short- and yet be unjustifiable. It would be a case by case thing, imo. No one statement, such as "might makes right" would be capable of encircling the entire breadth of the field, and so it seems a poor candidate, if only on those grounds, for the source of rights or morality as a whole.

[popsthebuilder]

You have rights to what you own. You own your emotions. Everything else must be fought for.

[Minimalist]

There are no rights.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Preface: Before someone derails the thread with the idea that atheism makes no positive claims, then please by all means either 1) quote a prominent atheist defending the inalienability of human rights or 2) take it upon yourself to defend the inalienability of human rights from an atheistic perspective.

The qualifier modern means post-Descartes thought that discards the notions of formal and final causes. The idea of human rights must be derived with a larger acceptance of realism or moderate realism, both of which are denied by atheists. As such atheism has become entangled to either nominalism or conceptualism, neither of which can support the concept of human rights.

Thus, within an atheistic context the ideas of ‘human’ and ‘right’ become arbitrary conventions. No one can have a human right unless there first is something essential about being human. Nominalism and conceptualism make the idea of being human (or anything else) merely a matter of convention. Rights, by definition, cannot be grounded by in general consensus.

The phrase ‘inalienable right’ is actually redundant. In order for a right to be a right, it must be independent of any social contract. Otherwise, you are talking about permission. You do not need any institutional authority’s permission to exercise a right. People have rights because they are human regardless of the social structure (i.e. family, tribe or state) in which they live. . Rights are not created by the state. The purpose of government is to protect those rights to the greatest extent possible. Any other conception of rights is not only un-American, but a rationalization of tyranny (for those of you living outside the USA).