Do you believe there are HUMAN RIGHTS? Does every single individual have rights, given by God before birth which cannot be taken away?
Printable View
Do you believe there are HUMAN RIGHTS? Does every single individual have rights, given by God before birth which cannot be taken away?
I fail to see how I could be given anything by a mythical figure.
Taking God out of it, I don't believe there is much you can have that someone couldn't take away if they were determined enough.
Rights come with duties. Nothing more tiresome than someone bleating about their rights without having done anything to earn them.
Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to inherit them.
I fail to see how I could be given anything by a mythical figure.
Taking God out of it, I don't believe there is much you can have that someone couldn't take away if they were determined enough.
I firmly beleve That all things are equal.
I am no better than you and you are no better than me,
You may be able to do somethings better than i can and at those things you are better than me,
but never the less over all you are no better than i am.
Even if you can do Everything better than me,
i am no better nor worse than you,
for instance i also beleve
I am no better than a tree and should have no more rights than a tree
or prehaps the tree should have all the same rights as i have.
Humans have a lack of respect,
and deem them selfs to be better than animals.
But we are not, so becous of this lack of respect some may say humans are worse than animals, and there for animals are better.
i say were no better than any 1 or any thing els, and neither are we any worse,
Btw,
I am not at all religious,
ShambleS
:bow:
Only if he or she is born in the west. It has clearly been proved in the discussions in this very forum..... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
I believe in human rights, but they most definitely do not come from God.
Human rights are merely things which every human possess' and should never be taken away - even though they are able to be taken away. Every human retains human rights regardless of what they have done to breach others human rights, because to simply be part of the human race is to have these rights - such as the right to life.
Exactly ^^^^^^^^^
Good work Jag
ichi :bow:
If human rights are not granted by a spiritual being (God)Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
And they are not derived from a legal document
And diverse peoples do or do not recognize the existance of such rights
Then where do you believe they come from?
I don't think I've ever agreed with you quite so much as on this Jag. Just one quick poke though... :duel:Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Is the right to self-defense a human right? ~;)
The aspect of the queston is good - Do you believe in Human Rights?
The answer is yes - where they come from can be a matter of debate depending upon one's belief.
Where does the concept of individual rights come from - it does not come from what Jag is alluding to with this statement; Human rights are merely things which every human possess' and should never be taken away because as a human being you can not possess a right.
Here is how the United Nations teaches "Human Rights" to children.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/abc.htm
Then there is a lot of documents on what Human Rights actually are.
http://www.takingitglobal.org/themes/hr/
Even here the defination is ambigous (SP) at best. What is a fundmental human right? Is it the right to life? If so then why does the world allow abortions? Why is their a death penelty in many nations? This is where even in the Western world we violate one basic principle of human rights according to Jag's statement. The west practices not only abortion but once again as in the United States we have the death penelty for certain crimes. So the right to life is disregarded by all sides in the dicussion about what are human rights.Quote:
Think of all the major issues happening in the world today and you are sure to find that they are all linked to Human Rights. But at a time when Human Rights are so important, few people can truly define them. Without a definition though, there are no banks and no river, life is simply a swamp, filled with murky water polluted with sewage. So what exactly are Human Rights? Although the obvious answer would simply be behavioral guidelines in a legal document, they are much more than just a set of statements in a declaration. They are an understanding of how all people should be treated and an acceptance that every person has a responsibility to protect each individual on this earth. They are a constant promotion of equality and respect for every single inhabitant regardless of distinguishing factors or personal preferences. Human Rights are the framework in which we set our actions and base our decisions.
Now that we have defined Human Rights we have formed banks for our river, but they are not very strong and the water is still dirty. There is still a long way to go until we reach that goal of a life flowing with freedom and dignity.
Where do rights come from - the answer is really rather complex - individuals within the society determine what rights will be granted to all within that society. Certain concepts will make it throughout all societies - and others will fall flat on their face. International treaties concerning Human Rights are worthless pieces of paper unless their is a power to insure that those rights are protected and honored throughtout all of humanity. (Yea right the UN can force Human RIghts onto all nations.)
If society does not grant the rights to the people through the established form of government for the society - the people can raise up and force the government to establish certain "rights" based upon the people.
Now for me - I believe in the certain rights were endowed by the Creator - just like the Declaration of Independence shows. However that does not prevent me from understanding where secular human rights come from. And because they are secular - those rights require a human agency to enforce and define those rights.
The Only human rights we humans can have are the once we create for our selfs. There is no mythical force out there, in the nothingness that gives us any kind of universal rights.
Even if someone points at the bible and says, This book proves we have such rights, and so forth, that stills proves that the human rights in question is created by man.
So, No, we dont have any universal human rights. But we have the rights written down by law in the books made by man. Its all about us humans writing good books ~;)
:bow:
As long it doesn't include a gun it is. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I suppose I should clarify my agreement. I haven't had a sudden anti-conversion and have taken to referring to the Almighty as a 'mythic figure'.
However, what I meant was that human rights are fundamental to the basis of civilization, and with or without a belief in a supreme being, they must be included in any codes of conduct.
Ironside,
So you believe in a right to self-defense, but only a very limited one that guarantees you'll be weaker than an agressor who choses not to respect human rights? Is that really a right to self-defense?
Human rights is a kind of law. If it's not a law then people wouldn't know they were breaching it. People are not all so affluent as to care about how other feel. If we are to create a society where everyone is free to live in peace then human rights are a must. Now what makes these rights is very simply the logical societal ideas. Everyone has to lave the right to life. Everyone has to have the right to speak out his mind. But there should also be restrictions. One cannot say anything anything they wish or else we'd be in a mess. I don't wanna walk around and have someone swear at my mother for example.
Do I believe in human rights per se? No. It's not a matter of believing in it, it's about having it installed to protect citizens. It's not something god given or spiritual or even ideological. It can differ from place to place depending on the predispositions. On whatever from it exists though it's a very positive step forward for all of humanity.
What we call human rights are the distilled values from various codes various civllizations followed through time. I dont believe they come from god or any supreme power. They are based on the first unwritten laws of humans. The very laws that allowed the thing we called society become true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
Nicely stated ~:cheers:
Inherently people believe they deserve to be treated, at the least, as equals to those around them.
I agree.
Yes, I do believe in human rights, and that all people should have THE EXACT SAME rights as everyone else. This is something else, in response to the title, in which I believe:
HTML Code:< HR WIDTH="50%" COLOR="RED" ALIGN="LEFT">
I believe essentially what JAG said.
I do not believe the rights come from God, but I do believe we as human beings can decide to afford all other human beings some basic rights, attempt to prevent others from infringing upon those rights and punish those that do.
As to the question of abortions: I don't want to hijack the thread, but most abortion rights activists would say abortion is not a violation of human rights because a fetus is not a human.
A very interesting and honourable way of thinking. But if you were religous to the christain, catholic, or jewish faith, many would believe that because the bible states very early in the bible {of which I choose to believe but am not trying to force my opinion apon anyone here.} that we were given dominion over all else by god himself. But from a human or more scientific aspect, like ja's, to exclude god, then you become realistic about it, we can do basicly whatever we want in a hierarchy or form of government, which in turn would give ranks to people and advantages and disadvantages over others. I believe that not all are equal, but should be treated as such. I treat all equaly untill they give me a good reason not to. For instance if I hold a door for someone and they kick me you know were, odds are after I'm able to get up, I wont hold the door open for that person again, therefore making him unequal to those around him in the aspect that I am more likely to hold a door open for them than I am to hold one open for him. A poor example, but you get the jist of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
So the choice between swerving to avoid 5 children or 30 ants on a road would be resolved by you in what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
The utopian question on "the right to live" will of course be when a choice is necessary. As with a mother and a fetus. Who have the "most" right to live?
The reality of today is that the human rights are only available to the people with the proper location of birth and ethnic background. This makes human rights to a privilige given to the fortunate. The lack of will to create a global justice system further entrench this reality. Human rights of today is what is portraited in media...........
No i do not believe in Human Rights.
It is clear throughout history that the individual liberties we enjoy in the modern western world are fragile and fleeting. They must be upheld by strength of will and arms.
All human rights are subject to the powers that be. There is nothing inherent about them.
Just because we have grown accostomed to liberties and occasionally enjoy trying to give them to people less fortunate does not mean they are the right of every person on earth.
If people in, say China, are not willing to fight for their human rights, they niether have nor deserve them.
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.....Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
This is a little irrelevent but what human rights exactly are the Chinese being denied?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
The right to not being runned over by tanks ?? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Well as we in Sweden has successfully avoided to get guns common in society, so the average crook don't have a gun, so it would be stupid to introduce guns for the average citizen as it would most likely give the average criminal a gun too.Quote:
Ironside,
So you believe in a right to self-defense, but only a very limited one that guarantees you'll be weaker than an agressor who choses not to respect human rights? Is that really a right to self-defense?
So you stay at the same level as the aggressor, but both are using a weaker weapon, thus reducing the amount of killing. Going any further, as in reducing the amount of weaker weapons (like knifes) used is ineffective as it's used regularly, while the only purpose for guns is either protecting yourself, use it for robbery, hunting and practice shooting (for fun or training). Only allowing it for the two last points (with license) gives the least amont of guns.
The very heavy criminals do get hold of guns, but they seem to be using assult weapons and robbing money trucks, or killing other criminals, and shootouts with civilians involved havn't happen here for a while (as long as I can remember that is), so getting a regular gun for that would be stupid, as it would probably only endanger yourself in that case.
For America, first you find out exactly why the Americans on average are much more trigger happy then the population of Switzerland and adapt on thereafter.
To be on topic:
IMO there exist no absolute haman rights, but there exist some rights that it's easiest to build a society on and those rights are good to follow and to apply to all of humanity. So while it might not be absolute, there's some laws that it's best for humanity to follow.
In few words even if human rights didnt existed-exist we should invent them. Things like that shows that humanity progress. Otherwise we just switched spears for bullets
No.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
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?
What you have you given for your rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
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. ~;)
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
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 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
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.
Was not my intention to make a cheap shot. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
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.
Big_John, do you believe trees exist?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?
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. ~;)
i agree with his point hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
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
maybe im a dummy, but i dont fully understand your point hereQuote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Ok, I was just trying the Socratic Method. The tree is my favorite analogy in this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
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:
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?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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
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?
The second sentence does not follow from the first.Quote:
they are powerless for anyone who chooses not to believe in them.
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.
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:
when said murderer is punished what 'force' is doing this?
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.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?
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"......
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
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.
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.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).
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.
yes, i've already said as much in other words a couple of times.Quote:
I`m saying that what we call "rights" are categories of interpersonal behaviour we make for ourselves
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.Quote:
You can say that rights are subjective, but you can`t say they don`t exist.
*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
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
well, i don't know about 'logical'.. i mean it looks like saturnus is the one with a background in formal logic. but i agree with you (and myself lol) that my stance seems more sensible. but i wouldn't be surprised if we've been arguing two separate issues wthout knowing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
from my limited understanding of the real world having only lived for 21 years - i agree with your understanding of human rights
without faith based reasoning (which i have an INCREDIBLY difficult time buying),
acting off of a basic presumption that there is no truth that can be defined that could give meaning to "rights" beyond temporary circumstance and power to back it up
AND that the only evidence of rights i have seen is death
your point of view is the one i subscribe to as the most logical
if there was a truth of some sort, that would be different
i tend to cede the win to those who have much more background in logic than i, but if they cant convince a 21 year old of their ideas then i wouldnt be so quick to say that they are the more logical
not saying that saturnus is wrong, but i dont buy his arguement as easily
Human Rights... if you have to fight for them they are not an inherent attribute of humans.
They could be construed as the inherent attributes of a type of society... the required social rules that allow the society to exist.
I read somewhere that ants don't allow killing each other in their society. I don't think that some of the basic human rights we are discussing here are unique for the human race. There are some other societies with their sets of rights which in many surely must have similarities.....
Ants are like a huge family in each colony. A lot of sisters normally.
However ants will invade other colonies, wipe them out, take slaves, behead the queen and take her place and lots of other nasty things...
Only if the other colonies have WMD's...... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
not sure why you'd want to use ants as an example.. wouldn't chimpanzees or another social ape be a better analogy? in any case, i imagine the rules of animal societies vary quite a bit from species to species, and to a lesser degree, from one population to the next.
However ants will invade other colonies, wipe them out, take slaves, behead the queen and take her place and lots of other nasty things...
They will really take slaves? Thats fascinating.
Only black ants though..... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Warning: Sarcasm....
yes it is.. couple of links for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
http://www.denverhughes.net/Ants/Behavior.htm
http://www.antcolony.org/news/Fromth...ntBehavior.htm
I think it is obvious to anyone but the severely empathically challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
HR follow very easily from Kant's categorical imperative; for example "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
How can you disagree with that? ~;)
I really liked this passage on the ant links....
What Herbers and Foitzik discovered is that the enslaver ants in West Virginia behaved much differently than the enslaver ants in New York -- even though the ants in both locations belonged to the same species. In turn, the enslaved ants in West Virginia also behaved differently than did those in New York.
~;)
lol i read the article in 'science mode' and that passage didn't even jump out at me.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
One can certainly argue HR are political constructs. This means there are no HR outside of that standard. Thus, the base appeal made by the Founding Fathers would have to be rejected. The stance taken by Martin Luther King would have to be rejected. Any extra legal standard: whether it be slave revolts or objections to genocide would have to be rejected insofar as a legal standard existed.
The rub is that rights appeals contain more than legal license there is also a moral appeal. If one says: "I have a right to X" the implication is both legal and moral.
sure, and both legal and moral appeals are appeals to some responsible power. a society at large can reject appeals against genocide, slavery, what-have-you, because it has the power to do so. if a person or group believes that those things are not correct, that such things should not be, they can try to affect change, in any number of ways. in doing so, such persons are, by definition choosing to recognize a different responsible power than the society. for the sake of argument, i'm admittedly taking an overly simplistic and static view of what constitutes a 'society'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
What if you define HR as the social interactions required to create a type of society. Without HR other types of despotic nations do exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The fact that one has to legislate and use power to make HR happen would be a hint that HR are not an inherent trait. They are the foundation of certain types of societies.
A right's appeal is a positive assertion regarding some X. Based on the above argument: HR do not exist outside of political mandate. Thus, the slave has no right (justification) to rebel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
Politically derrived HR means: any attempt to effect change has no justification outside of legal dicta. Gandhi must therefore be condemned.Quote:
...if a person or group believes that those things are not correct, that such things should not be, they can try to affect change, in any number of ways. in doing so, such persons are, by definition choosing to recognize a different responsible power than the society.
I understand.Quote:
for the sake of argument, i'm admittedly taking an overly simplistic and static view of what constitutes a 'society'.
Here it comes to the crux. It will only be condemned if there is a will and a way. Condemnation just like HR just like the law just like politics are (social) constructs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
BTW Churchill condemned Gandhi in terms very similar to how he condemned Hitler...
If one takes HR as required to create society there are counter-examples. There are societies that exist that make no reference to HR. HR is a Western construct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
If one argues HR are required to create a certain type of society then assuming one believes such a society is desirable the argument becomes a moral question even though it would appear to simply be a practical concern. For example: the model would seem to be: one desires society X. To get X one must have HR Y. Y appears to have value insofar as it brings about X. Thus the tenor is practical. Now what if a member of society doesn't agree with either the goal X or the mode of operation Y? Can that one be justifiably coerced? If so, why? Justification is necessarily concerned with justice which means it is a moral question. Thus, one must already have an established moral dynamic in order to answer the question. This means efficacy questions are of a secondary order.
Standard HR theory traces such to Deity: ultimate meaning is therefore tied to an overarching theology. If this were a standard Christian model: the notion of free-will means Deity has voluntarily created space for the creature to act and be responsible for that action. The choices of the creature do not necessarily effect the will of the Creator.Quote:
The fact that one has to legislate and use power to make HR happen would be a hint that HR are not an inherent trait. They are the foundation of certain types of societies.
Legislation is the codification of will. The manifestation of power, whether political or no, does not equal the lack of a trait, but the opposite. The Cheetah's burst of speed is not based on an external, but comes from within.
This doesn't follow. The ability to condemn is not that same as the power to enforce that condemnation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Given Churchill and Gandhi were opposed one must choose between them: they cannot both be right about the same thing. One either accepts self-determination or Empire.Quote:
BTW Churchill condemned Gandhi in terms very similar to how he condemned Hitler...