What Human Rights?

[Jenny A]

Do you believe in human rights? What do you include in these? What is it that gives anyone a right? 

Remember, I DON'T mean legal rights. I mean something more, in nature, whatever that is, that entitles (is that the word I want?) a person to enjoy certain benefits, and that as a right it is others' duty not to impose or negate that right.

If you do not believe a person has anything like a natural, universal right, then how does that affect your beliefs/actions IRL circumstances when the issue of so-called violations (of life, liberty, property, etc.) comes up?

There's nothing in nature that entitles anyone to anything be they human or tree squirrel.  All human rights are legal rights, or rights that humans argue ought to be legal rights.  Regardless of whether we call them human rights or not, it's very clear that both other humans and/or nature can take them away.  They are alienable. There is no such thing and an inalienable right.  Life itself can be taken in a heart beat whether you think you have a right to it or not.

Adding god to the equation doesn't seem to help.  If we add god we get rights some humans think that god has declared human rights and people ought to enforce as such.  But since humans and/or nature takes them away with impunity, they are certainly not inalienable. 

The more interesting question to me is what rights should we attempt to make legal globally and why.

[Catholic_Lady]

If these are rights then why doesn't everyone have them?

What KUSA said.

You wouldn't say there is no truth because there is ignorance of it, I presume? Why should it be any different with human rights?

My question for BrokenQuill would be, what gives you THOSE rights and what makes it my duty to respect them?

Just wanna say I really appreciate the questions you're asking and the things you're saying. This is kind of the discussion I hoped to have with you guys when I created my "why be good" thread. But that did not happen lol. Too many people were focusing too much on my title as Catholic to really have a genuine conversation with me about what they thought. I should have disguised myself as an atheist when I made that thread.

[Jenny A]

We are born with one inalienable right.
The right to private thoughts.
These are ours and ours alone...

Everything else can and will be compromised if it suits another party.
We all believe in a lot more rights, doesn't mean we're gonna get 'em...

So far you are right about that one right, but tech may take it in the end too.

[Catholic_Lady]

What KUSA said.

You wouldn't say there is no truth because there is ignorance of it, I presume? Why should it be any different with human rights?

My question for BrokenQuill would be, what gives you THOSE rights and what makes it my duty to respect them?

I exist, I give myself those rights. Maybe that's a bit of lazy argument, but I am myself and I should be able to do as I please as long as I'm not hurting anyone. Those who don't respect my rights will protested against, written angry letters, or occasionally punched in the face.

A child, for example, who does not have the "power" to give themselves those rights.... does that mean they don't have them? Does a child not have the right to live, for example? Or to not be enslaved?

[Jenny A]

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.

Unfortunately force and compulsion are the highest authorities.  God, if he exists, is just another force or compulsion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just wanna say I really appreciate the questions you're asking and the things you're saying. This is kind of the discussion I hoped to have with you guys when I created my "why be good" thread. But that did not happen lol. Too many people were focusing too much on my title as Catholic to really have a genuine conversation with me about what they thought. I should have disguised myself as an atheist when I made that thread.

You should have asked a far less ridiculous question, and you still -ought- to stop blaming every damned thing on your catholicism and the inequity of others.   Cath, you say stupid shit....that's why people respond to you the way that they do.  Take some fucking responsibility for a change?

[Jenny A]

Once we are born we have these basic rights

1.   The right to life
2.  The right to health
3.  The right to contentment
4.  The right to romance and love
5.  Right to reproduce and parenthood
6.  The right to at least a small bit of leisure

If they are rights, why doesn't everyone have them?  What you have there is a list of things I'd like everyone to have, but not a list of things everyone does have are even a list that could be given to everyone.

[Catholic_Lady]

Do you believe in human rights? What do you include in these? What is it that gives anyone a right? 

Remember, I DON'T mean legal rights. I mean something more, in nature, whatever that is, that entitles (is that the word I want?) a person to enjoy certain benefits, and that as a right it is others' duty not to impose or negate that right.

If you do not believe a person has anything like a natural, universal right, then how does that affect your beliefs/actions IRL circumstances when the issue of so-called violations (of life, liberty, property, etc.) comes up?

There's nothing in nature that entitles anyone to anything be they human or tree squirrel.  All human rights are legal rights, or rights that humans argue ought to be legal rights.  Regardless of whether we call them human rights or not, it's very clear that both other humans and/or nature can take them away.  They are alienable.  There is no such thing and an inalienable right.  Life itself can be taken in a heart beat whether you think you have a right to it or not.

Then why do we get so upset when we hear about tyrannical governments? If we don't inherently deserve any more right than what those in power are willing to give us, then why get upset if another country is cool with slavery, for example.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Jenny
Not everyone gets the right to remain silent, even here.  It still exists.  Again, whether or not a person can exercise a right at any given time won't tell you whether or not that right exists.  Two different subjects. Saying that a human right exists, and justifying the existence of that right can be fairly simple....getting folks to sign on with it, or enforce it.....not so simple.

@Cath, an impossible standard is being set for rights. For example, inalienability. -Nothing- is inalienable. If a right must be inalienable to be a human right, or to exist, then no human has any rights whatsoever (no...not even to private thought.....I can get at your private thoughts without any sci-fi - or I could just hit you over the head with a brick). We get pissy because we feel that even if a person is not capable of exercising a right to liberty, for example, that right still exists. I presume that you would agree?

[Dystopia]

Do you believe in human rights? What do you include in these? What is it that gives anyone a right? 

Remember, I DON'T mean legal rights. I mean something more, in nature, whatever that is, that entitles (is that the word I want?) a person to enjoy certain benefits, and that as a right it is others' duty not to impose or negate that right.

If you do not believe a person has anything like a natural, universal right, then how does that affect your beliefs/actions IRL circumstances when the issue of so-called violations (of life, liberty, property, etc.) comes up?

There's nothing in nature that entitles anyone to anything be they human or tree squirrel.  All human rights are legal rights, or rights that humans argue ought to be legal rights.  Regardless of whether we call them human rights or not, it's very clear that both other humans and/or nature can take them away.  They are alienable.  There is no such thing and an inalienable right.  Life itself can be taken in a heart beat whether you think you have a right to it or not.

Adding god to the equation doesn't seem to help.  If we add god we get rights some humans think that god has declared human rights and people ought to enforce as such.  But since humans and/or nature takes them away with impunity, they are certainly not inalienable. 

The more interesting question to me is what rights should we attempt to make legal globally and why.

The declaration of HR was heavily influenced by the Second World War and it's noticeable - Arguably it's based on a Humanist and Charitable conception of the world and Human societies - In many ways I would argue that HR as we know them are based and influenced on religion, particularly Christianity ---> The holiness of Human Life, the obsession with income inequality and helping the lower classes, the idea of eternal sin (we are eternally obliged to do our best to provide others their rights - And by us I mean governments), the absolutism of HR and strong reprehension of whoever denies them - Sounds a lot like a religion. Belief without evidence

[To be fair I think you've got the inalienable part wrong - It simply means you can't lose your right - People can't take that right away - It doesn't mean that violations don't happen, but that's precisely why we punish offenders - Because you weren't supposed to do it - I think the most important part of inalienability is that you can't give up your rights, so things like slavery and civic death (Losing all your rights) are deemed illegal and inhumane.


Note - I'm really happy to see I'm not the only Human Rights' denier - I thought I would be deemed a conspiracy theorist