What Human Rights?

[IATIA]

Wiki version

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your god does not exist.  I am not his equal, I am infinitely superior to him, because I have the perfection of existence, to quote one of your dusty old saints.

To claim "your God does not exist".  Claims that you know with absolute certainty that God does not exist. This puts the burden of proof on you.

I don't believe that he does. If will help your understanding, I will put ", I don't believe" after every single statement of beliefs. You will need to do the same.

Me, I find that unwieldy and cluttering to the conversation. But to clarify for your sake:

"Your god does not exist, I don't believe.  I believe that I am not his equal, I am infinitely superior to him, because I have the perfection of existence, to quote one of your dusty old saints."

I have no need to prove my beliefs to you or anyone else. I don't care what you think of my beliefs, and whether or not you adopt them or find them convincing is irrelevant to me.

Now, if you wish to demonstrate his -- or your own -- god's existence, have at it. Until then, the default answer remains "I don't know", and my default belief remains "I don't believe in anything that lacks proportionate evidence". Until then, quit bothering others with your beliefs.

You'll notice it's not me going onto a Christian forum and telling others there that they're wrong. You should kindly return the courtesy ... or kindly fuck off.

[Pyrrho]

Note too that inalienable does not mean irrevocable. The state will not enforce a contract of slavery, for example, (i.e. the right to liberty is inalienable), but it can, of course, revoke your right to liberty by putting you in prison and forcing you to work.

Also note that legal rights and rights-as-social-constructs certainly do exist, and have a profound social and cultural impact. Saying they do not exist "objectively" is not really relevant. Yes, we could choose to not construct, for example, a right to liberty, and it has been actually true in the past that societies have existed for many centuries without constructing any such right, but the fact remains that in most Western nations, we do in fact choose to construct (albeit imperfectly) a right to liberty.

I was going to say that the only way that might be correct is in some legal sense of the words rather than in their ordinary sense, but as you later say you are not a lawyer, I will presume that you mean ordinary usage.  If you mean some esoteric legal concept, please provide links to definitions of the terms.

To start, we need the definitions of the relevant words:

inalienable


adjective
Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

irrevocable

adjective
Not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all


If the state has the right to lock you up in prison, then your right to liberty is neither inalienable nor irrevocable.  Both words entail that it cannot be taken away from you.


Of course, the OP expressly stated that it is not legal rights that are in question, but natural rights.  But I will post a reply to him regarding that.

[Pyrrho]

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.

I don't know what you mean by "human rights."  I took a look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

That does not really help me much.  It sounds like a good deal of nonsense.  But perhaps it could be understood in a way in which it is derived from feelings, in which case I might be inclined to think it is not just gibberish.

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?

I doubt it makes much difference for how people act.  Human feelings motivate actions, and so those who feel it is wrong to harm others will be affected, regardless of whether they believe in some abstract rights or not.  And those who do not feel it is wrong to harm others will be influenced by their feelings, regardless of whether they believe in some abstract rights or not.

My guess is, the original motivation to believe in the abstract rights is from feeling.  (I state "original" because once other people have a belief, many times they can spread the belief without others having quite the same feelings.)

We can see from various nonhuman animal studies in which there appears to be moral behavior, and a sense of right and wrong.  See, for example:

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals...-book.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...in-animals

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/15/338936897/...ave-morals

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/041612.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10...59579.html


I doubt that this comes from some great understanding of abstract principles.  Also, many humans have a good deal of trouble understanding very abstract principles, but that does not seem to stop them from engaging in behavior that seems guided by some sense of morality.

[The Barefoot Bum]

IATIA: I'm not sure where you're going here. You link to the Wiki page on natural and legal rights, but that seems like the question at issue here. It's also noteworthy that in the sentence, "Natural rights are . . . universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws)," the page links to the legal definition under property law.

There are a number of interesting points.

First, alienability is, under ordinary property law, a necessary condition for ownership: a person does not own what he or she cannot transfer or sell. (This condition has notable relevance for the rule against perpetuities: a person cannot require in her will that her descendants cannot sell property for longer than the rule, even if they have all the other ordinary privileges of ownership.) It's also notable that one of the examples used in the Wiki page, the inalienability of aboriginal title, has consistently been used to establish the inferiority of aboriginal title. In the Lockean propertarian framework of rights, a right that one cannot sell is an inferior right to one he can sell.

It's also notable that all Western governments reserve the right to revoke all of the canonical "rights" of the United States Declaration of Independence: even those states that lack capital punishment legally condone killing in self defense and in war; they abrige the liberty of criminal prisoners, and they take property by taxation, fine, and civil judgment. If an "inalienable" right is one that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws, the United States government does not consider life, liberty, or property to be inalienable. It is unclear whether an absolutist interpretation suggested by the Wiki page is at all socially tenable.

Finally, I want to reiterate my original point: the modifiers in political philosophy have apt and useful legal definitions, and those legal definitions seem to carry at least as much (if not more) explanatory power in describing and explaining actual human social and political behavior.

[Dystopia]

Pyrrho, as a law student I think there's an obvious distinction between limiting or restricting one's right and completely taking it away - Going to prison does not mean that you lose your right to liberty - BTW, liberty itself is vast so I assume people mean "right to circulate freely" or to "move freely" - Prison just means your right to liberty is restricted because it is necessary to protect other members of society - Losing liberty would be if the State declare that you don't have it anymore and are subject to authorization to do anything you want - There's a difference between restriction and complete death of rights. Prison doesn't mean you lose your right to liberty because there's many things you can do in prison - I've been into a minimum security prison on a uni trip and it was much better than I expected - Prisoners are allowed to have personal belongings inside cells (like computers, books,etc.), they can take a degree and work, etc - And even in maximum security prisons, you don't entirely lose your right to liberty.

Inalienability just means you can't lose or give the right away - It doesn't mean that violating that right makes it non-existent - That's why we call it a "violation" and it's not acceptable as normal behavior - It doesn't literally mean that in reality you can't see your rights being violated, but that it is an abstractly desirable goal to maintain those rights as fundamental mechanisms for any human to react against oppressive forces.

I don't agree with the concept of inalienability as proposed by universal HR, but I agree that at any given time any constitution can proclaim any right as inalienable if the society in question values the object at hand - And that's acceptable.

[Dystopia]

It's also notable that all Western governments reserve the right to revoke all of the canonical "rights" of the United States Declaration of Independence: even those states that lack capital punishment legally condone killing in self defense and in war; they abrige the liberty of criminal prisoners, and they take property by taxation, fine, and civil judgment. If an "inalienable" right is one that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws, the United States government does not consider life, liberty, or property to be inalienable. It is unclear whether an absolutist interpretation suggested by the Wiki page is at all socially tenable.

Read my point in the previous point about distinguishing restrictions from complete loss of rights - Restrictions of rights are necessary in any society, we all voluntarily restrict our rights to avoid hurting the rights of others. The fact I don't go into a government's property doesn't mean that I have lost the right to free circulation, it just means I have to limit it to avoid colliding with other people's rights.

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho, as a law student I think there's an obvious distinction between limiting or restricting one's right and completely taking it away - Going to prison does not mean that you lose your right to liberty - BTW, liberty itself is vast so I assume people mean "right to circulate freely" or to "move freely" - Prison just means your right to liberty is restricted because it is necessary to protect other members of society - Losing liberty would be if the State declare that you don't have it anymore and are subject to authorization to do anything you want - There's a difference between restriction and complete death of rights. Prison doesn't mean you lose your right to liberty because there's many things you can do in prison - I've been into a minimum security prison on a uni trip and it was much better than I expected - Prisoners are allowed to have personal belongings inside cells (like computers, books,etc.), they can take a degree and work, etc - And even in maximum security prisons, you don't entirely lose your right to liberty.

In the U.S., there is capital punishment.  I would say that pretty much eliminates all of one's "rights."

Inalienability just means you can't lose or give the right away - It doesn't mean that violating that right makes it non-existent - That's why we call it a "violation" and it's not acceptable as normal behavior - It doesn't literally mean that in reality you can't see your rights being violated, but that it is an abstractly desirable goal to maintain those rights as fundamental mechanisms for any human to react against oppressive forces.

I don't agree with the concept of inalienability as proposed by universal HR, but I agree that at any given time any constitution can proclaim any right as inalienable if the society in question values the object at hand - And that's acceptable.

It seems a meaningless fiction.  What do the rights do for you?  How does one distinguish between a universe in which such rights exist, and a universe in which they do not?  It seems to be nothing at all, but empty words.

[Dystopia]

In the U.S., there is capital punishment. I would say that pretty much eliminates all of one's "rights."

In some States yes - But the US isn't seen as a role model by outside westerns - I'm sorry if you didn't know this As much as I hate the EU, they have a very strong anti-death penalty stance precisely because the highest right of all (to live, and breathe) shouldn't be taken away unless someone acts in self-defense.

It seems a meaningless fiction. What do the rights do for you? How does one distinguish between a universe in which such rights exist, and a universe in which they do not? It seems to be nothing at all, but empty words.

It would be meaningless if rights served no purpose - Because they do, it's a useful fiction. I'm used to working with legal systems influenced by Roman law, so I support writing down laws instead of appealing to legal precedents. I'm influenced by legal positivism, so I'm of the opinion that the law should represent the general and will and be written/codified to be valid and acceptable - Whatever the constitution says justifies the laws made according to the constitution. Most European constitutions are rights-friendly, so that justifies rights-friendly laws - And I'm all for that. I don't think there's literally natural rights that you are born with, you are born merely with the instinct of survival (and even so much less skillful than other animals, humans are born incomplete compared to other wild species) - Rights are social constructs that, like language, make our living together much easier - That's it. Inalienability if it means that all citizens must possess X or Y right and not be able to lose it (only justified restrictions can be put in place) is very useful as a fiction - Don't you agree? Or do you prefer if constitutions just say that all rights can be taken away at anytime?

[The Barefoot Bum]

Read my point in the previous point about distinguishing restrictions from complete loss of rights - Restrictions of rights are necessary in any society, we all voluntarily restrict our rights to avoid hurting the rights of others. The fact I don't go into a government's property doesn't mean that I have lost the right to free circulation, it just means I have to limit it to avoid colliding with other people's rights.

Noted. I merely observe that the behavior of all governments infringes on the absolutist definition mentioned in the Wiki page, leaving aside for the moment the justice or injustice of those infringements or the theological theoretical distinctions between different kinds of infringements.