What Human Rights?

[bennyboy]

I have no idea what you are talking about as far as "justification" for my beliefs go. I'm answering you honestly. We believe that if God didn't exist, or if He hadn't created us, we wouldn't exist. If you don't accept my answers as an honest answer, or if you're going to accuse me of "justification," then I don't see the point in asking.  

If God is required for existence, then God is required for the existence of human rights. That's fine. However, the existence of God does not necessitate the existence of human rights. Therefore, whether you believe God exists or not, you have to demonstrate that rights DO exist-- and you can be especially helpful by showing us a passage in the Bible or any other Catholic doctrine that affirms the inherent reality of rights among all members of humankind.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

[Catholic_Lady]

I have no idea what you are talking about as far as "justification" for my beliefs go. I'm answering you honestly. We believe that if God didn't exist, or if He hadn't created us, we wouldn't exist. If you don't accept my answers as an honest answer, or if you're going to accuse me of "justification," then I don't see the point in asking.  

If God is required for existence, then God is required for the existence of human rights.  That's fine.  However, the existence of God does not necessitate the existence of human rights.  Therefore, whether you believe God exists or not, you have to demonstrate that rights DO exist-- and you can be especially helpful by showing us a passage in the Bible or any other Catholic doctrine that affirms the inherent reality of rights among all members of humankind.

(Just to be clear (I have already said this, but in case it didn't get read), when I say "human rights", I am speaking of inherent rights that every human is intitled to practice. I'm not referring to rights that you only have if those in power give them to you, or if you are able to give them to yourself.)

Hm? I have already linked you to a Catholic site that talks about what we, as Catholics, believe in regards to human rights. Did you see it?

[Catholic_Lady]

I believe she is exercising her god given emotions!
And one of them is for you Rhythm!  I wonder which one?

Haha, I know, right??

That's probably the first time I've expressed legitimate anger on here. I can't believe I let that happen!! Noooooooo!

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps, then, if you're sure, you can mount an argument -against- the argument from dignity, Cath - as though you were already an atheist who for whatever reason didn't believe in dignity to begin with? We understand what you're claiming, but I would suggest to you that Chuck holding that position, is unlikely to say "because I don't believe in god" as an explanation. It isn't his -atheism- which provides that conclusion. I doubt that your hypothetical atheism would be capable of what chuck's atheism is not, nor mine, nor anyone else's.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is the right to life inherent?  Then why does your god take it away?

Is the right to free speech inherent? Then why does your god damn people to Hell for blasphemy?

Is the freedom of conscience a human right?  If not, why complain about imprisoning Christians in China (not that you have, but others do), and if so, how do you explain the damnation of nonbelievers?

Your god assigns no rights at all.  Your god assigns privileges which he revokes on a whim, according to your own biblical history.

This idea that human rights devolve from the Judeo-Christian god is fatuous given that same god's repeated violation of those alleged rights.

There are no such things as objective rights.  Rights are a social construct.  Attempting to credit them to your god is simply an attempt to attach your superstition to a more firm and realistic base. Societies exist.  Societies extend or deny rights insofar as its members agree to its social contract.  A society which denies all rights wins few adherents (which is why the Berlin Wall was necessary, for instance) -- and a society which grants rights in an arbitrary fashion is inherently unstable (which is why America had the Civil War).

If you believe in natural rights, you'll need to show where, exactly, they exist in nature. Because in nature, and you and I both know this, we neither enjoy even the right to breathe.

Every breath is a gift, upon which you have no claim. And though we each read that last sentence through different lenses, you know exactly what I'm saying. Call it God, life, or nature, the world doesn't owe any one of us a goddamned thing.

I respect your views.

No answers?

[Catholic_Lady]

I respect your views.

No answers?

Sorry, PT. Here are your questions in bold:

Is the right to life inherent? Yes.

Then why does your god take it away? You mean why do people die? Either because someone killed them, or because of natural causes. God gives people free will, and God allows nature to take its coarse. Per my beliefs, God does not come down from Heaven and murder people.

Is the right to free speech inherent? As an absolute? No. Your employer is allowed to fire you for cussing out the customers, for example.  
Then why does your god damn people to Hell for blasphemy? Saying "God damns people to Hell for blasphemy" is simplistic. I believe each person is judged individually based on what was in their hearts at the time they sinned. If a person ultimately rejects goodness and love, they go to the only place where those things are not present. 

Is the freedom of conscience a human right? I'm not sure what this means.

If not, why complain about imprisoning Christians in China (not that you have, but others do), and if so, how do you explain the damnation of nonbelievers? I'm not sure what you are referring to. And I don't believe that all atheists automatically go to Hell. Once again, each person is judged individually, and I don't think that simply not believing in God during this life automatically disqualifies someone from Heaven.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If God is required for existence, then God is required for the existence of human rights.  That's fine.  However, the existence of God does not necessitate the existence of human rights.  Therefore, whether you believe God exists or not, you have to demonstrate that rights DO exist-- and you can be especially helpful by showing us a passage in the Bible or any other Catholic doctrine that affirms the inherent reality of rights among all members of humankind.

The Lord is sovereign and has no moral obligation to all His Creation. To question His authority represents an arrogant attempt to elevate yourself to His equal. (Romans 9:19-21) Do you consider yourself His equal that you could judge him? (see Job 39) No one has any claim on the Creator and yet the Judeo-Christian God is one of both Justice and Mercy. (Psalms 50:6, Rev. 15:3-4)

Human rights are the natural consequence of both His Lordship and Righteousness. Because Man was made in His image (Gen. 1:27), we were created to act justly towards one another like He is (Matthew 5:48, Lev 19:2). By rational demonstration, Aquinas shows human rights as "what is due to each", i.e. justice.

[tonechaser77]

In the most basic sense we do not have inherent rights. A 'right' is a concept that had its provenience as our ability to think and form ideas evolved. Because of this, rights are fluid and changing, just like morality. However when taken into consideration under a snap-shot in time, these rights may be defined as universal but a look at how humanity has developed can easily pinpoint how the idea of rights being somewhat of a shape shifter. We have rights only to the point that they can be thought of and granted by a community. 

I'm open to other forms of logic in the discussion though. 

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.

[Dystopia]

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)