The United States has not spent $ 300 million a day on war in Afghanistan.

[HappySkeptic]

I guess what I'm asking you, is that if human rights are true, do they or even can they actually be premised on some silly ghost story, or even on the rights (whatever those are) of their very human creators?  Such that, if the ghost story were false, human rights would be untrue?

True - human rights don't need a ghost story, but even the idea of "human rights" has to be believed as a "high ideal", in a similar way to any other mythical story.  Why are human rights even a thing?  Because we want them for ourselves, and if we believe in the golden rule, we want them for others.  But, what if we believed that our lot in life was to obey the Party?  Something has to be held up as a "high ideal", and to me that is myth (myth is just shared story, not necessarily anything supernatural).

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that's what I'm asking you. Do you think that human rights have to be believed in as a "high ideal", in a similar way to any other mythical story?

Do you think that they're an actual thing - or a useful fiction?

[HappySkeptic]

Well, that's what I'm asking you.  Do you think that human rights have to be believed in as a "high ideal", in a similar way to any other mythical story?

Do you think that they're an actual thing - or a useful fiction?

I don't believe they are given by a deity.  I think there are certain freedoms that we desire by our very nature, but that doesn't necessarily map to the current definition of human rights (it may be a larger or smaller list depending on who you ask).

It is very easy for humans to believe in "rights for me, but not for thee".  For it to be a "human right" people have to believe in its universality - and that is a "high ideal".

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, it's very easy for people to get things wrong - for me but not for thee - but...again, do you believe that absent some creator there are no human rights? If you don't, then what sense does it make to say that liberal democracies are predicated on the truth of that untrue claim? Is the universality of human rights a useful fiction?

[Jehanne]

Yes, it's very easy for people to get things wrong - for me but not for thee - but...again, do you believe that absent some creator there are no human rights?  If you don't, then what sense does it make to say that liberal democracies are predicated on the truth of that untrue claim?  Is the universality of human rights a useful fiction?

The United States has not helped itself in this area, in particular, in refusing to abide by the decisions of the World Court in the Hague in regards to execution of foreign nationals and the denial of state governments with respect to their consular rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not wondering about the united states. It's a gaggle of people from everywhere who have never fully agreed on anything.

I'm wondering who, if anyone, believes that human rights are a useful fiction.

[Jehanne]

I'm not wondering about the united states.  It's a gaggle of people from everywhere who have never fully agreed on anything.

I'm wondering who, if anyone, believes that human rights are a useful fiction.

Fiction or not, they are useful.  The US needs to be more consistent and stop treating human rights as if they are a fiction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Agreed. That might have meant a longer stay in afghanistan, though.

We traded a bunch of do gooder kids lives, after all. I'm entering my elder adulthood with just one living friend, for example. Setting places for dinner once a year even though I don't believe in ghosts, lol.

Off chance, you know, if anyone could by force of will be a ghost, it would be those dead assholes.

[Spongebob]

I don't see freedom as something that can be retained without the willingness to die for it, and I see very little will for that in any nation.  Democracy is not a default condition - it requires a balance between a strong educated populace, and a government strong enough to keep order.  If either side gets too powerful, we get populist autocratic revolution or an elitist oligarchy.

This is certainly true in the case of emergent democracies.  If you examine the case of the USA, we've had only three such challenges that truly required our people to die for democracy, the Revolutionary war, the Civil War and WW2, each nearly a century apart.  We chose to fight all other wars/conflicts.  I agree that democracy does not just happen, but it requires far more principled participation than anything else.  When leaders emerge who demonize large swaths of the population just for disagreeing, like Joe McCarthy and Trump, the truest danger to democracy becomes evident.  Our freedom is our worst enemy.  Because there is no one to swat down discontent, it has a tendency to spread like cancer if the circumstances are just right and there's no one to cut it out.  Unless something changes, I believe this will consume our very democracy in the near future.  Just consider the GOP's current behavior, destroying democracy in the name of saving democracy.

I see myths as central to the existence of a nation.  The myth of "divine right" held together kingdoms.  The myth of divine succession holds together theocracies.  The myth of "inherent rights given by a creator" holds together liberal democracies.

This has certainly been the case in the past, but I don't believe it is technically necessary.  No one has tried it so we really don't know.  The primary tenets upon which the USA was built are not inherently divine or religious.  If you remove just a couple of words from the DOI, it's basically a humanist manifesto.

Today, most people don't give a damn about liberal democracy, as long as they can buy the next iPhone.

On this you are absolutely right.  Selfishness (and rampant consumerism is but one aspect) is rotting the soul of our country.

[HappySkeptic]

Yes, it's very easy for people to get things wrong - for me but not for thee - but...again, do you believe that absent some creator there are no human rights?  If you don't, then what sense does it make to say that liberal democracies are predicated on the truth of that untrue claim?  Is the universality of human rights a useful fiction?

There are no human rights in a Platonic sense.  There are feelings and desires that we may agree on, as human beings.  If you believe that our wants for ourselves constitute "human rights", then I won't disagree - but I think everyone will have a different list (some very long).  For instance "gay rights" likely won't be on it, as most people aren't gay, and yet I believe in it strongly.  We have got to gay rights only recently (although being gay has been accepted in cultures of the past), and they don't exist in many countries.

Every category of philosophy we use is a fiction, in the sense that we created it.  We tell ourselves a story about how the world is, and how it ought to be.  That "myth" of our culture determines what we will fight for and become.  Human rights is definitely a "useful fiction", though I think it is rooted in our common humanity.