Do you believe in HR

the idea of innate or god-given rights is, to me, romantic and nonsensical. the freedom of interaction between peoples is defined by the societies (laws) they live in/under. if one agrees to be part of a society, they agree to the rules of that society. without a social ordinance, life (nor happiness, liberty, etc.) is no more a right for humans than it is for sheep, spiders, or rose bushes.


let's take a look at 2 hypothetical examples:

- two people live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because person 1 wants more space, he/she kills person 2.

- two bears live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because bear 1 wants more space, it kills bear 2.

what's the difference here? did human 1 commit a crime? did bear 1? did the human have a right to live that the bear did not? if so, why?

without an empowered society, there are no 'rights' to anything. power decides at that point. so now aren't you glad you live in an empowered society?

How could the Chinese people fight for their human rights ? Their oppressing regime is financed by the western consumers in such numbers that it's impossible to fight the regime without a new revolution. We in the west don't even give them our support by not purchasing the products produced on their slave labor.....

I didnt say the world was fair.

But then again who would have thought a bunch of ragtag militia could muster the willpower to fight the greatest military in the world in north america?

And who would have thought the afghanis had the will power to fight the soviets?

If human rights is what youre after, you had better be prepared to give blood and sweat to the cause.

[QUOTE=PanzerJager]How could the Chinese people fight for their human rights ? Their oppressing regime is financed by the western consumers in such numbers that it's impossible to fight the regime without a new revolution. We in the west don't even give them our support by not purchasing the products produced on their slave labor.....

I didnt say the world was fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

But then again who would have thought a bunch of ragtag militia could muster the willpower to fight the greatest military in the world in north america?

And who would have thought the afghanis had the will power to fight the soviets?

---

The first example cannot be compared with the struggles of the people living within the PRC. The situation faced by people living in the PRC and colonial America are completely different.

In the second example the Afghans had help from the worlds most powerful nation.

I have a few questions for you Panzer

If I took over the most powerful country in the world, made slavery legal, kidnapped people from another country, and worked them to death would, you blame the enslaved for being unable to defend themselves? Did they deserve to be enslaved and worked to death because they were unable to defend themselves?

If I raped a woman would it be her fault because she was unable to defend herself? Did she deserve to be raped because she was unable to defend herself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

If human rights is what youre after, you had better be prepared to give blood and sweat to the cause.

---

What you have you given for your rights?

If I took over the most powerful country in the world, made slavery legal, kidnapped people from another country, and worked them to death would, you blame the enslaved for being unable to defend themselves? Did they deserve to be enslaved and worked to death because they were unable to defend themselves?

I cannot answer the question without knowing how the nation that these poor souls were taken from reacted.

I can see where you are going with this though, and i dont think you understand my reasoning.

The collective populace of a nation can choose to make that nation as strong or as weak as they want. They can push their government to build a strong defense force, and if the country is weak, they can push for alliances.

My point was that if a nation doesnt do all that it can to ensure its "human rights", i feel no sympathy for them if they loose those priveledges.

The collective populace of China, for example, had a clear choice between a free and authoritarian system, they chose communism. Now we are supposed to feel sorry for them that they can be summarily arrested and shot, im afraid not.


If I raped a woman would it be her fault because she was unable to defend herself? Did she deserve to be raped because she was unable to defend herself?

Again you are interpreted my response on an individual level. This is probably my fault for not making myself clear.

If we look at you as one country and we look at her as another, the question is: Did she do everything she could to ensure her protection?


What you have you given for your rights?

Absolutely nothing. In fact much of my family fought to ensure the preservation of a government that didnt believe in rights.

But remember, im not the claiming everyone has inherent human rights. If the time comes when i have to fight for my rights or allow them to be eroded, i will have to make that decision with my ballot or my gun. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The collective populace of China, for example, had a clear choice between a free and authoritarian system, they chose communism. Now we are supposed to feel sorry for them that they can be summarily arrested and shot, im afraid not.

---

So the people that died in 9/11 had no right to live, since their nation did not protect them good enough ?? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

But remember, im not the claiming everyone has inherent human rights. If the time comes when i have to fight for my rights or allow them to be eroded, i will have to make that decision with my ballot or my gun. ~;)

---

Bottomline would then be that violence over a turf of land is something we should encourage? Everyone should have their own little gun to get the neighbour coming to close and make sure that they elect a leader that ensure their increased expansion ?

Don't you think that if all humans feels they are equal that the reason behind wars and terrorism would vanish ?

So the people that died in 9/11 had no right to live, since their nation did not protect them good enough ??

Yet another emotionally charged response.. possibly a cheap shot.. who knows.

Let me state again.

No one has an inherent right to live. Such priveledges are guaranteed by strong governments.

The 9/11 victims did not have a right to live. That isnt the same as saying they should have been killed or that it wasnt a bad thing that they were killed.

They had the priveledge of living in a society that recognizes the importance and value of every life, and the government that society supports failed them.

So one more time for you - Living in a society that values life is a priveledge, not a right. That priveledge has been defended with blood and tears by people like the veterans we have on this board. "Human Rights" only exist when a government, supported by a populace, recognize them and are willing to stand up and defend them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

So the people that died in 9/11 had no right to live, since their nation did not protect them good enough ??

Yet another emotionally charged response.. possibly a cheap shot.. who knows.

Let me state again.

No one has an inherent right to live. Such priveledges are guaranteed by strong governments.

The 9/11 victims did not have a right to live. That isnt the same as saying they should have been killed or that it wasnt a bad thing that they were killed.

They had the priveledge of living in a society that recognizes the importance and value of every life, and the government that society supports failed them.

So one more time for you - Living in a society that values life is a priveledge, not a right. That priveledge has been defended with blood and tears by people like the veterans we have on this board. "Human Rights" only exist when a government, supported by a populace, recognize them and are willing to stand up and defend them.

---

Was not my intention to make a cheap shot. Sorry.

I think that we mean the same thing. What I call Human Rights you call Human Priviledge. I believe that the Global Society have a responsibility to grant everyone this Human Priviledge....... ~:grouphug:

problem is, humans are still highly tribal animals, and don't often care to afford protection to members outside of their group. while many americans, for example, may say that 'human rights' or life or whatever must be protected, how many people are actually willing to risk their life or their families lives for some people dying in a civil war in nigeria? there really isn't a 'global society' except in the minds of a few. certainly not one that can protect the people of the globe from each other in the way that tribes and nations protect their own.

i don't agree that any society has the responsibility to grant 'human privilege' or rights. philosophically, i don't think a society can have responsibilities unless there is a authority to which that society is responsible.

Quote:

---

let's take a look at 2 hypothetical examples:

- two people live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because person 1 wants more space, he/she kills person 2.

- two bears live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because bear 1 wants more space, it kills bear 2.

what's the difference here? did human 1 commit a crime? did bear 1? did the human have a right to live that the bear did not? if so, why?

---

Big_John, do you believe trees exist?

sure why not, what's the angle?

Well, what is a tree then?

a tree is some type of perennial woody plant, usually. instead of the crytpic questions, could you just skip to the point you are trying to make? i'm kind of in a hurry. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

let's take a look at 2 hypothetical examples:

- two people live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because person 1 wants more space, he/she kills person 2.

- two bears live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because bear 1 wants more space, it kills bear 2.

what's the difference here? did human 1 commit a crime? did bear 1? did the human have a right to live that the bear did not? if so, why?

---

i agree with his point here
there needs to be more than science and instinct involved in human consciousness
and these need to be backed up by more than just laws
otherwise rights are in all of our imaginations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Big_John, do you believe trees exist?

---

maybe im a dummy, but i dont fully understand your point here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

a tree is some type of perennial woody plant, usually. instead of the crytpic questions, could you just skip to the point you are trying to make? i'm kind of in a hurry. ~;)

---

Ok, I was just trying the Socratic Method. The tree is my favorite analogy in this topic.
The point is that there is no biological property that identifies anything as a tree. The things we call trees are not more related to each other than other types of plants. The category "tree" is not a biological reality, it is a category humans have made on the basis of external analogy. If we would choose not to call anything trees there would be no rational argument to convince us otherwise except maybe practicability. "Tree" is just a discription about an arbitrary group of objects. But we wouldn't say trees don't exist just because the concept "tree" does not refer to anything material.
Now, what does that have to do with it?
Well, if a person kills another, we find that undesirable. On the other hand if bear kills another bear, that's their business. What people do is of more relevance for us. That is why we discribe human behaviour in terms like "good", "bad" or "right". We can classify an arbitrary set of behaviour as "morally good" or "in concordance with someone's rights" just as we can discribe things as trees. If we can say that trees exist, we can also say human rights exist.

we are talking about different types of categories. unlike "human rights", the class "tree" does not depend on an authority to which something is resposible. "human rights" can be thought of as the rules of interaction given to humans by contract with an authority. without an authority (god, society, etc.) "human rights" has no meaning. maybe i'm missing your point?

I did my military service in the 80ies. Cold war. We stood with our NATO allies against the Soviet block. We were defending the ideals of a free world.

Lately I see some of our allies leaving these common values. And I am surprised about some statements in this forum.

The fundament of the free world that we were fighting for are the human rights. They are filed at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. They include:

• Right to life, liberty and security of person
• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
• …
These rights are not “nice to have” they are the fundament of a free world. They are our shield and our sword against each kind of terror and dictatorship. They make the difference between the free world and the terrorists and dictators. Anyone who violates them is part of the evil we have to fight.
Everyone who agrees on that will find an easy answer to the questions about colonialism, slavery, war … .
Sorry for this pathetic statement. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

• Right to life, liberty and security of person
• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
• …
These rights are not “nice to have” they are the fundament of a free world. They are our shield and our sword against each kind of terror and dictatorship. They make the difference between the free world and the terrorists and dictators. Anyone who violates them is part of the evil we have to fight.
Everyone who agrees on that will find an easy answer to the questions about colonialism, slavery, war

---

While these are rights that our civilisation has fought for, and would probably die to defend, they cannot be God given. The reason I say this is that I believe there is no such being, and if there is which one is the right one, all the religions can't be right, or can they?

I would also disagree that they are not "nice to haves" as they are innumerable cases of when they have been taken away, maybe not in this country but does that mean that human rights are dependant on where you are born? If so they are not "Human" rights but European or American etc rights.

So, are there human rights? I would say that we like to think so, but in fact there is no such thing, the fact that poeple have to fight for them proves this. Should there be? Undoubtedly, but I don't believe mankind is really ready to accept everyone as equal, and not only everyone but everything, we are too busy looking to see what we can exploit rather than nurture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

While these are rights that our civilisation has fought for, and would probably die to defend, they cannot be God given. The reason I say this is that I believe there is no such being, and if there is which one is the right one, all the religions can't be right, or can they?

I would also disagree that they are not "nice to haves" as they are innumerable cases of when they have been taken away, maybe not in this country but does that mean that human rights are dependant on where you are born? If so they are not "Human" rights but European or American etc rights.

So, are there human rights? I would say that we like to think so, but in fact there is no such thing, the fact that poeple have to fight for them proves this. Should there be? Undoubtedly, but I don't believe mankind is really ready to accept everyone as equal, and not only everyone but everything, we are too busy looking to see what we can exploit rather than nurture.

---

Thanks for your reply.
I agree that you do not need to believe in God to accept human rights.
I do not agree that these rights do not exist just because they are broken every day. They exist and are a benchmark to judge the behavior of a country, a government and every individual. They really seperate the good from the bad. And they are the vision for the future when everybody will not only have these rights but will be able to enforce the claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

we are talking about different types of categories. unlike "human rights", the class "tree" does not depend on an authority to which something is resposible. "human rights" can be thought of as the rules of interaction given to humans by contract with an authority. without an authority (god, society, etc.) "human rights" has no meaning. maybe i'm missing your point?

---

Why does the existence of human rights depend on an authority to which something is responsible? Because you say so? Well, I say otherwise. Human rights can be thought of as the rules of interaction given to humans not by contract with an authority. The rules do not need an authority to exist, they just need the perception of existence to exist because they are a description. If someone - or even everyone - breaks the rules they don't cease to exist, they are just broken. Human rights are a description of human interactions. And since they are a description, they have to exist, otherwise we couldn't talk about them, as we couldn't talk about trees if the category "trees" wouldn't exist. Whether they have a moral force may be another matter, but this, too, is a question of perception. Descriptions get force by influencing behaviour and moral norms influence behaviour via the conscience. If I perceive a human interaction as immoral because it violates my idea of the human rights, I may avoid it. This way, the description called "human rights" has influenced may behaviour and it couldn't do that if it wouldn't exist. Since that actually happens, human rights must exist. QED.

the only human right is to live and then to die

everything else is privilege based on circumstance

those privileges can be spread through diplomacy, diffusion of ideas or wars of liberation

those privileges can be defended diplomatically or physically

the only people who will spread these are people who believe in something larger than themselves
some sort of design

egoism does not allow for one (or a community) to risk his/her life to save the lives of others

that takes altruism - and must be based on an idea of a greater good than simply preservation of self

and even greater than preservation of species

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Why does the existence of human rights depend on an authority to which something is responsible? Because you say so? Well, I say otherwise. Human rights can be thought of as the rules of interaction given to humans not by contract with an authority. The rules do not need an authority to exist, they just need the perception of existence to exist because they are a description. If someone - or even everyone - breaks the rules they don't cease to exist, they are just broken. Human rights are a description of human interactions. And since they are a description, they have to exist, otherwise we couldn't talk about them, as we couldn't talk about trees if the category "trees" wouldn't exist. Whether they have a moral force may be another matter, but this, too, is a question of perception. Descriptions get force by influencing behaviour and moral norms influence behaviour via the conscience. If I perceive a human interaction as immoral because it violates my idea of the human rights, I may avoid it. This way, the description called "human rights" has influenced may behaviour and it couldn't do that if it wouldn't exist. Since that actually happens, human rights must exist. QED.

---

i'm not sure what you're after, to be honest. i've never argued that the concept of "human rights" doesn't exist. 'existence' is your bugaboo. explicitly, in fact, i've stated that they are a part of social contracts. and humans, being social animals will usually be allowed some set rights by their societies. but as far as i can tell, these rights are essentially created from a "what would you not want to happen to you" proposition: no stealing, killing, raping, etc. because you wouldn't want those things to happen to your or yours, would you?

this is a fine criterion. it is especially necessary in a multi-tribal society of tribal animals. but they are still arbitrary rules, as far as i can see. and as you note, the main difference between this arbitrary set and the arbitrary set of "trees" is that these "human rights" are empowered with the ability to meaningfully and drastically affect/limit human interactions. but why? where does this power come from? are you maintaining that the power is created by the person that believes in human rights? if so, they are powerless for anyone who chooses not to believe in them. so a murderer who honestly does not believe in something akin to "thou shalt not kill" should expect no consequence if he is discovered? when said murderer is punished what 'force' is doing this? certainly not his conception of human rights. it must be other people's conceptions.. it must be society. society is both the originator (if one does not believe in god anyway) and enforcer of these rules.

this is to say that clearly these rights can exist, and clearly they are contingent. they may be contingent on social ordinance or on divinity or on something else. but contingent they must be. QEDon't. ~:)

again:

- two people live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because person 1 wants more space, he/she kills person 2.

- two bears live in a field, outside of any external social organization. because bear 1 wants more space, it kills bear 2.

what's the difference here? did human 1 commit a crime? did bear 1? from what i can tell, you maintain that the difference is that you care about the human interaction but not about the other. my question is why? more than that, why does your caring about such imbue the people with rights? would they have had rights if you never read this hypothetical?

There is a jump of logic between these two sentences of yours:

Quote:

---

are you maintaining that the power is created by the person that believes in human rights?

---

Quote:

---

they are powerless for anyone who chooses not to believe in them.

---

The second sentence does not follow from the first.
If person A believes in human rights then this grants them power. From this follows that human rights can have power over person B which does not believe in human rights contrary to your reasoning in as much as person A has power over person B.

Quote:

---

when said murderer is punished what 'force' is doing this?

---

That depends on what drives the punishers. If it is the concept of human rights, we can say that the human rights have enforced punishment on the murderer. Of course, human rights cannot enforce anything without first influencing the minds of potential punishers, since it is only a description. You insist that there is a difference to the concept of trees, but there is none. The concept of trees does certainly influence our behaviour in some way. It is real and has influence on the world, in spite of being arbitrary. Just as human rights.

Quote:

---

what's the difference here? did human 1 commit a crime? did bear 1? from what i can tell, you maintain that the difference is that you care about the human interaction but not about the other. my question is why? more than that, why does your caring about such imbue the people with rights? would they have had rights if you never read this hypothetical?

---

Why do I care more about humans than bears? Because I interact with humans and rarely with bears. My caring about such imbues people with rights because it drives me to create categories of human interaction. These categories exist independently of this hypothetical. You could apply my concpet of human rights to a hypothetical situation without showing me. And if you don't, they still would apply if you did.

Let's get into detail:

Assume a toy world. In the toy world we have a set of entities {A, B, C, D, E, F} and a set of actions {v, w, x, y, z}. O is a placeholder for an entity.
Let AxB be an interaction between A and B with action x where A is the iniciator and B the object of the action.
Now we can put interactions into arbitrary categories.
The following interaction belong to category +
AvO (except E and F for O); OzOO; OyA (except B for O); CvD and EwF.
Any interaction that significantly increases the chance of one of these interactions to happen belongs also to category +

The following interactions belong to category -
FzO; AvE; AvF; OwF (except E for O); OyOO and AxO.
Any interaction that significantly increases the chance of one of these interactions to happen belongs also to category -

All other interactions don't belong to either category.

Now assume we approve of interactions of category + and disapprove of interactions of -
If we call the interactions of category + "rights", then we have introduced rights into our toy world. Equally we can introduce crimes by calling - that way.
Now lets look at an hypothetical situation like yours:
- AxE occurs
- BxF occurs

what's the difference here? did A commit a crime? did B? if so, why? Simply because we defined crime that way. Of course, anyone could define crime differently. If so, which definition prevails is decided by the biggest stick.

A crime could be definied as anything that decreases the best strategy available in game theory.

Bears don't kill each other over turf. They believe in "Bear Rights"......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

If so, which definition prevails is decided by the biggest stick.

---

this was my point. the biggest stick carriers in the modern world are nation states, and they get to define the limits of human interaction (i.e. human rights). justification of these rights is entirely arbitrary and up to the wielder of said stick. none of this defines anything essential about the character of personal interaction, other than, all else being equal, power prevails (as with most any animal). one could also argue that an essential part of human character is to recognize power as an authority, this is true of many from what i can see.

so, human rights certainly can be conceptualized and defined, but they need not be. what's more, without a responsible power, these rights are essentially empty, since their meaning is derived from their effect. in the bear scenario, there is no responsible power. from what i can tell, neither bear B nor human B had any right to not be killed, unless that right was decided by the more powerful of the two (in which case, that individual would become the responsible power).

i'll concede that the distinction between "tree" classification and "rights" classification may be one of degree and not of type. that really has nothing to do with my stance on human rights.

Quote:

---

so, human rights certainly can be conceptualized and defined, but they need not be. what's more, without a responsible power, these rights are essentially empty, since their meaning is derived from their effect. in the bear scenario, there is no responsible power. from what i can tell, neither bear B nor human B had any right to not be killed, unless that right was decided by the more powerful of the two (in which case, that individual would become the responsible power).

---

Why should their meaing be derived from their effect? The meaning of a word is not dependend on what effect it has. "Rights" are not empty since they aren`t defined so.
The categories in my last post do exist and they are not empty. Of course you can hit me on the hand untill I agree to define these categories otherwise, but that is irrlevant.
I`m not sure you got yet my point. I`m saying that what we call "rights" are categories of interpersonal behaviour we make for ourselves. Given that, I don`t know how anyone could claim with a straight face that they don`t exist. If you say that rights are something else than that, ok than they might not exist. But then we`re not talking about the same thing. That rights are categories of course does not imply that they are universal or have any necessary force. They are just categories in our cognitive landscape. Like other cognitive entities they can influence our behaviour. Those cognitive entities that influence a lot of people, have of course more power than those that only influence a lot.
That I think a man should not kill another man does not prevent this from happening nor does it necessary lead to a punishment. But that makes these rights still existend in my personal view. In my cognitive landscape killing another man is classified as immoral. Since that is so, there is nothing missing to make a right. You can say that rights are subjective, but you can`t say they don`t exist.

once again, i don't know why you're hung up on the "existence" angle. that's not my concern. but perhaps instead of "meaning" i should have said "force" (what's more, without a responsible power, these rights are essentially empty, since their force is derived from their effect). maybe my language is much too imprecise.

Quote:

---

I`m saying that what we call "rights" are categories of interpersonal behaviour we make for ourselves

---

yes, i've already said as much in other words a couple of times.

Quote:

---

You can say that rights are subjective, but you can`t say they don`t exist.

---

sure from the very first time anyone ever conceived of such, "human rights" in any form has always "existed" as a concept. is that your point? what i've been trying to say is that since these rules are conceptual and arbitrary, without an enforcing entity, they are just an empty* concept. that enforcing entity can be all of us (society), it could be imaginary like god (imo of course), it could be just you. you can give the concept power over yourself if you want. but, imo, the concept need not be of concern to someone else unless something is enforcing that concept over them.


*i.e. without force. i'm essentially equating the concept of meaningfulness to the ability to control behavior. so a concept without effect loses meaning (is empty), imo. just my personal outlook, and certainly semantically suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

once again, i don't know why you're hung up on the "existence" angle. that's not my concern. but perhaps instead of "meaning" i should have said "force" (what's more, without a responsible power, these rights are essentially empty, since their force is derived from their effect). maybe my language is much too imprecise.

yes, i've already said as much in other words a couple of times.

sure from the very first time anyone ever conceived of such, "human rights" in any form has always "existed" as a concept. is that your point? what i've been trying to say is that since these rules are conceptual and arbitrary, without an enforcing entity, they are just an empty* concept. that enforcing entity can be all of us (society), it could be imaginary like god (imo of course), it could be just you. you can give the concept power over yourself if you want. but, imo, the concept need not be of concern to someone else unless something is enforcing that concept over them.


*i.e. without force. i'm essentially equating the concept of meaningfulness to the ability to control behavior. so a concept without effect loses meaning (is empty), imo. just my personal outlook, and certainly semantically suspect.

---

john i agree with you on this, for the most part
your arguement is the more logical of the two
doesnt mean that you are right - but it does make more sense