Surely that claim alone proves that HR is not inherent otherwise we would be immortal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Printable View
Surely that claim alone proves that HR is not inherent otherwise we would be immortal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Why the present progressive here? You didn't answer my question. I will answer yours: no, I am not proving it exists, I could do so, but I don't think a simple logical formula is really at issue. I could also prove Martians wear striped pants. I don't think we are concerned with basic validity. What is at issue (in this instance) is the existence of morality. If you reject morality there is no need to make any HR appeal. I accept morality exists, because I am a moral being: notions of good and evil are meaningful and impact my life. My guess is it is the same for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I understand, I am asking the basis of this claim. The longest surviving political system I can think of is Rome. Rome did not appeal to HR so your statement seems to lack merit.Quote:
I'm saying that HR may be valuable as a concept as it allows societies to last longer.
I think you are confused about what an HR is. A human right is a value judgment. It is not a biology statement. It typically has legal and moral underpinnings and is therefore tied to the basic notion of justice. This does not mean one is compelled to follow an identified HR, but it may be ignoring such means one is unjust.Quote:
Surely that claim alone proves that HR is not inherent otherwise we would be immortal?
Yes I am moral. But why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The reasons I am playing the devils advocate are more to figure out what is HR and can the concepts be reduced to an axiom set and do they cover enough. Also I like to understand how people get to a view point.
I believe HR exists. What I would like to figure out is are the just extensions of our family values and other biological wirings. Or are they a genuine case of our memes raising ourselves above our genes. Have we as a civilisation nutured ourselves above our nature?
However it may be proven that HR gives our societies a real advantage in surviving. In which case we have memes that are equivalent of the selfish gene scenario. Apparent altruism covering real greed.
So you are a businessman after all..... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Discussing the existence of a thing and the source of that existence are two different things. I think the standard for HR claims remains the two I initially put forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Historically the axiomatic set for HR would be found in the larger corpus of Christian theology as that is the only system to develop along those lines.
How people get to a point of view is a social/psychological question and not directly related to HR as a concept. I would guess that most people 'get to a view point' based on experience and/or tradition.
Biological appeals seem flawed given the shear number of peoples that never made any HR appeal as well as some of the other difficulties I pointed out earlier in the thread.Quote:
What I would like to figure out is are the just extensions of our family values and other biological wirings. Or are they a genuine case of our memes raising ourselves above our genes. Have we as a civilisation nutured ourselves above our nature?
Are you sure that only Christian theology has been the only system to develop HR. It seems quite a sweeping statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Since the Cyrus Cylinder predates Christianity by a mere 500 years and is said to be the first example of human rights.
I'm sure a lot of the Christian traditions also can find roots in Greek philosophy. And surely a lot of HR has come from those who have seen flaws in the Christian religion and have struggled to make something more fair.
I said that HR is a meme. I certainly don't think it is inherent ie coded into our genes to implement HR. Some people may flourish better in an HR environment while others would not do as well. Genghis Khan in a modern HR environment would have a difficult time spawning as many children short of becoming a sperm donar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Cyrus was attempting to make himself a legitimate king of assyria, agade and sumer by saying all the nice things he did and how he avoided the mean things
i have heard that "human rights" in this case were developed as a novel way to approach ruling a foreign land
rather than strip the people of their gods and livelihoods, it would be better to let them do what they do and appreciate you for not taking advantage
he did as much as he could to inject his line into the legitimate royal branches of mesopotamia
this was a means to that end
Cyrus decided that the old gods would stay, the old palaces etc etc etc
he was comparing himself to nabonidus by showing his own "devotion" to marduk and how benevolent his rule would be
i am interested in how cyrus brain worked, but im not sure if his "Human rights" were anything more than an appeal to allow others to more easily bend to his rule
what were they based on? a new concept? his religious beliefs?
what authority did they actually have beyond his rule?
how often did he adhere to his own tenents?
anyway - this cylinder is an appeal for some sort of rights based on a religious belief
what about without religion? can there logically be any HR?
HR is not the pronouncements of a Persian King establishing his throne. HR is not the writing of a Prophet returned from Mt. Sinai. HR is not a product of the Orient. HR is a subset of natural law. Natural law is a byproduct of the rational tradition which means it is tied to the West. I mentioned earlier there are natural law precursors in Stoic thought: specifically Cicero, but it is not developed. The real fruition of natural law is with St. Thomas. This was not a critique of the 'flaws' of the Christian ethos but rather a study in the metaphysics of jurisprudence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I see.Quote:
I said that HR is a meme. I certainly don't think it is inherent ie coded into our genes to implement HR. Some people may flourish better in an HR environment while others would not do as well. Genghis Khan in a modern HR environment would have a difficult time spawning as many children short of becoming a sperm donar.
Isn't HR just something practical to live by and therefore people like it ?
When I was thinking ofQuote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I was thinking of Voltaire.Quote:
those who have seen flaws in the Christian religion and have struggled to make something more fair.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm
i didnt really read it
So is HR a product of man that we impose?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Did he really know that HR was ? The rolling of heads comes in mind... ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
If everyone followed HR would we need judges, law and police?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
what does that mean?
voltaire was before the revolution
im not sure what that means
No. not really. And I don't believe in Human Rights, simply because Human's were never granted nor given rights by anyone but ourselves. The Human Brain has not evolved passed our relatively new Homo-Sapien Roots, Humans now are no different than the Humans that forged the first tracks across Siberia and into America, or built the Egyptian Pyramids. Civilization is built on the backs of slaves, it is a human trait to want make things better, more grandeur, and to do this, one has to have servants, wether forced or not. It is also in Human Nature to want... to have... to need something that they do not have access to, this is how war is made, because obviously the other side doesn't want to give up what it already has. Jealousy, hatred, and greed have strong roots, and undeniable in our genetic make-up.
I'm looking at this with a realistic view-point, cultures have been bred into believing that woman are inferior, or African-Natives are good athletes, but dumb, petty criminals. Or Jewish people are greedy. This train of thought may have been learnt, but it is also part of our thought process. To prove this, A Person who is accepting of all races and cultures, also hates criminals and people who like and live on war and the suffering of others. The person who steals, or makes war or lives by slave-labour, also is mostly accepting of all races and cultures as well, but hates people that have no motivation, and also hates people that steal from him. Humanity needs to fight for what it wants, wether diplomatically, or by force, and when it has it, it needs more. With the growing and expansionistic nature of humanity, it has no time or need for Human Rights... either join them or die... or be outcasted, or incarcerated. And Until the Day the Human Brain evolves into something else, perhaps a higher intellect, and lower competitivism, Humanity will not change, and time, nor civilization, does not care wether you want basic rights, or not.
Wazikashi(King of Saxony)
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
I see. Voltaire is good reading, but he wasn't a system builder. His attacks on Christianity, until his late conversion to Catholicism, aren't usually tied to HR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Depends on one's views of HR. If HR is simply a human construct one has to explain the 'ought' that motivates and justifies action as well as provide a schema that avoids solipsistic tendencies. The Thomistic tradition would have HR inextricably tied to the Divine order. This is what gives it force even in the face of government stricture. This is what the Founding Fathers were about when they claimed inalienable rights contra the Monarchy. This is what Martin Luther King was about when he ushered in the Civil Rights movement contra Jim Crow Laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Depends on the parameters of HR. Can good men disagree? If so, then judgments might be needed.Quote:
If everyone followed HR would we need judges, law and police?
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
ive never heard of this late conversion to catholicism
interesting though
how did it occur?
I'd say that humans themselves created Human Rights. I believe that it is we should always treat each other well, and respect each other always, but I don't think we are magically granted something that makes us more worthwhile than other animals.
I just think it's the right thing to do, as apposed to something that we must do.
I'd say so... I think it is more based on a morality, than perhaps relgion, even though religon does influence morality for many people and societies.Quote:
what about without religion? can there logically be any HR?
im just saying that, if there is no judge and morality is created by man
what is the incentive to adhere to it
how can something be "wrong" if it is beneficial to me and there is no superlative judgement of my actions?
is it just because of society? why is that all that important?
what if social unity isnt too important to me and serves only to deter my basic will? in that case, wouldnt morality only be a hindrance to me?
also, if there is no identifiable truth, why should we take any laws seriously?
if they were created by man and existed before i agreed with them - how can they have authority over me?
since laws are all created by people, what gives one group of people the right to enshrine laws over later generations?
to those who belive that morals are secular, i jut think it doesnt make much sense.
Voltaire's attacks on Christianity were rather aimed at the feudal system created by the Catholic church (he did believe in a Supreme Being, but not in the way the Church wanted people to do).Quote:
I see. Voltaire is good reading, but he wasn't a system builder. His attacks on Christianity, until his late conversion to Catholicism, aren't usually tied to HR.
He has always been a catholic, I don't really understand what you mean by 'late conversion' ?
Maybe not the best us of terms on my part. I was thinking of conversion as in the Latin: convertere meaning to 'turn around' not as in a formal rite. Voltaire had most certainly received that sacrament as a baby. Perhaps, reapprochement would be a better, more precise term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Poor use of words on my part. Late in life Voltaire seems to have turned to a piety that may have warmed the hearts of his Jesuit teachers from his youth.
If HR are something to be granted by men then they most certainly can be withheld by the same. Thus, the claims of the Jew being led naked to the slaughter, who cries for some recognition in the dignity and the sanctity of life can be rightly dismissed and pushed further along in the line. Persona non grata have no standing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wazikashi
Man and the mosquito have the same standing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
How do you distinguish right from must? If a moral judgment claims some X is 'right' does that not suggest a compelling interest?Quote:
I just think it's the right thing to do, as apposed to something that we must do.
No. I believe it is worse to kill a human than an animal. But animals are in my mind precious as well, and must be treated with respect, and when they are killed, done so with as little pain as possible, and then used properly, not just killed and dumped on the side of the road (mainly talking about mammals, fish, reptiles, and birds, not as much insects here). They aren't equal, but should also be treated with respect.Quote:
Man and the mosquito have the same standing?
I don't know. This I believe is similar to Tuffy's question about how it could be secular. I honestly don't know, but I don't believe that humans were granted something by God or another higher being that makes them superior, and granted them these rights.Quote:
How do you distinguish right from must? If a moral judgment claims some X is 'right' does that not suggest a compelling interest?
It is the right thing to do to follow these rights, but... Well I can't really explain myself. :bow:
Which also proves that HR is made by man as no higher power stepped in and said 'You can't do that as he as Human Rights which are inalienable therefore you must obey them.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The Declaration of Independence was a step forward for governments declaring HR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by Enlightenment philosophers. Of which Voltaire is one of the noted ones.