Human Rights

[OldScratch]

What exactly is a so-called Human Right? This term is bandied about so frequently today, but does it really have any meaning or value? By whom are these "rights" supposedly granted? To me the notion, at the very least, implies that each and every human has some intrinsic "value" that demands that the productive and viable sustain and protect the decidely less so - even from themselves if needs be. It also suggest a "right" not to be put-upon by another, though history is filled from end to end with examples that expose this as so much modern wishful thinking.
Either way, from a philosophical standpoint what justification if any exists for these Human Rights and upon what authority are they deemed valid?

 

[Seditious]

I don't see any validation of modern morality at all.

not much more to say than that

 

[Norsemaiden]

Globalism ( the word for a fusion of capitalism and communism), human rights and democracy are all part of the same package.

The term "human rights" came into common usage post WWII -before that the nearest approximation was the notion of "natural law".

These so called rights are really only allowed so far as they complement or assist the globalist agenda, and they are ignored where they don't.

Human rights are usually held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. Yet how can there be a right to life and at the same time the waging of war? How can there be a right to liberty when we get locked in jail for disobeying the law? The only freedom of thought and expression has only been that which the rulers allow us, and there will always be a limit on this. There has never been equality before the law - some are "more equal than others" as the saying goes.

 

[speed]

What exactly is a so-called Human Right? This term is bandied about so frequently today, but does it really have any meaning or value? By whom are these "rights" supposedly granted? To me the notion, at the very least, implies that each and every human has some intrinsic "value" that demands that the productive and viable sustain and protect the decidely less so - even from themselves if needs be. It also suggest a "right" not to be put-upon by another, though history is filled from end to end with examples that expose this as so much modern wishful thinking.
Either way, from a philosophical standpoint what justification if any exists for these Human Rights and upon what authority are they deemed valid?

I've been pondering the value of rights in a democratic and capitalist society for sometime. One thing is clear: we are losing them. This is a long discussion and topic, that needs to be examined in greater detail.

Why are we losing our rights?

In my Speedian opinion (and focusing on the American Republic), the framers of the consitution at least figured it out: in a democracy, with no other divine or traditional values, some imaginary--and Locke inspired--rights had to be created, deified, and protected. Why? Well, democracy is a fickle institution: a majority of our voters, or even a majority of our elected representatives, can and will-- as we've seen over history, especially recent--throw out any rights if there is any short-term problem, a terrorist attack, a war, an economic crisis; citizens become complacent, their short term utility promotes personal safety and economic security at all costs. Look at the Civil War, the WWI, The Great Depression, WWII, The Cold War, Iraq today: all times were marked by severe and sometimes irreversible suspension of our rights and many parts of the Constitution.

Hence, these imaginery rights truly have little power. It is obvious in a capitalist country governed by a democratic republic, rights are not as important as they seem. Few will protest or fight for their rights; most will accept losing them without even so much as a whimper.

 

[OldScratch]

Essentially, I agree with most everything said thus far. We are so enamored of our rights real or imagined, it seems the very idea itself has become central to our western worldviews, despite the power of govenment to suspend or eliminate these rights, virtually on a whim - no matter many Constitutional provisions one invokes, there are always limits and loopholes for government to exploit or circumvent.
Add to this these nebulous "Human Rights," apparently cosmically bequeathed to the masses and our naive expectations are high...reality is something else however.

 

[Pessimism]

Legal Positivism takes care of the ontological foundations of human rights (there isn't any connection to ethical guidlines!) - hence why the UN can create the doctrine of Universal Human Rights and make up whatever bullshit they deem fit (this is also why many nations disagree about what a 'right' is).

Frankly, I prefer the notion that concepts such as these (rights, justice, equality, etc.) are nominal. In any case though, what then is the value of rights anyway?

 

[Seditious]

Legal Positivism takes care of the ontological foundations of human rights (there isn't any connection to ethical guidlines!) - hence why the UN can create the doctrine of Universal Human Rights and make up whatever bullshit they deem fit (this is also why many nations disagree about what a 'right' is).

Frankly, I prefer the notion that concepts such as these (rights, justice, equality, etc.) are nominal. In any case though, what then is the value of rights anyway?

that's a concept I've been curious about lately. I mean people want to say things like slavery are wrong, etc. all appeals against laws we have are on morality, and yet law is supposed to be beyond mere morality. 'sodomy' being illegal, people decide because it's not immoral it should now be legal... the whole system seems connected to morality, I have no clue where to start reading to understand the concept which says it's not.

 

[OldScratch]

that's a concept I've been curious about lately. I mean people want to say things like slavery are wrong, etc. all appeals against laws we have are on morality, and yet law is supposed to be beyond mere morality. 'sodomy' being illegal, people decide because it's not immoral it should now be legal... the whole system seems connected to morality, I have no clue where to start reading to understand the concept which says it's not.

This seems to be one of the great dichotomies, or perhaps hypocrisies of the western liberal-democratic world. It is not uncommon to hear the enthusiatic declaration that we, "cannot legislate morality" yet that is precisely the goal and function of much of our legislation. This stunning inconsistency is lost on most.
Regarding Slavery and the like, one of the problems we currently face today is our habit of rather arbitrarily declaring past practices or ideas as immoral or illegal, but never really addressing what that does to those who historically endorsed or engaged in such behaviors, or those who may disagree with the assessment in general. For instance, Americans are very fond or invoking our Founding Fathers with reverence and awe, yet to a man they were lousy with bigotry and racial wickedness by modern standards. We don't attempt to reconcile this dilemma, but we do occasionally sand-blast their names off a school facade or some such to symbolically expunge the name of the retroactively villainous.

We continue to perpetually, even compulsively reinvent ourselves "morally" and I find this practice vexing if not maddening, as we rarely justify the change beyond some vacuous claptrap about human "rights," morality, equality or some other utopian intangible. I'm not suggesting that all progress in human relations is wrongheaded, but our approach to it certainly is most of the time. We have arrived at the now sacrosanct conclusion that egalitarianism, for instance, is morally and legally sound as policy, long before we've even begun to support or prove it to be so. That isn't leadership or measured progress, but potentially disasterous social experimentation and moralistic pipe-dreams.

 

[Έρεβος]

that's a concept I've been curious about lately. I mean people want to say things like slavery are wrong, etc. all appeals against laws we have are on morality, and yet law is supposed to be beyond mere morality. 'sodomy' being illegal, people decide because it's not immoral it should now be legal... the whole system seems connected to morality, I have no clue where to start reading to understand the concept which says it's not.

The modern system of gov't destroys all meaning in laws an values by basing the legal system off the [christian inspired] code of linear absolute [though entirely subjective] morals. Laws in a non-retarded gov't would always be based off objective evidence for something having a negative effect on society, rather than the no-evidence-bullshit that society dictates as "right" and "wrong." This huge flaw in our modern democracies slowly turns us into a hedonistic society built on nothing but the moronic quest for masturbatory base pleasure. Our absolute "rights" and "wrongs" do nothing but to protect this society from falling apart [so quickly] at the seams, it keeps the people united under what the majority considers to be moral. But of course, the majority changes; and in our society the changes always gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. We've absolutely "right" and "wrong" morals that at any given time are supposed to be objective and absolutely correct by all in the majority, and then the next day these "rights" and "wrongs" change to whatever suits the majority, again becoming absolutely correct and objective [to them].

And for the topic at hand, human rights - as said before - are meaningless and baseless "rights" that were needed in order for democracy to ever function. Without some kind of fascism to keep people united under a single cultural aim and value system [as our retarded globalism will not allow such], something else was needed; so the early democratic philosophers came up with a system of rights--which have since been added on to quite alot. They protect the greedy and people in power by saying it is wrong to go against the system, to take away this fake freedom that democracy ensures, to do anything that conflicts with these fake rights. Quite good for tieing together this pathetic and doomed-to-suicidal-failure system, for a time.

 

[Seditious]

. Without some kind of fascism to keep people united under a single cultural aim and value system [as our retarded globalism will not allow such], something else was needed; so the early democratic philosophers came up with a system of rights--which have since been added on to quite alot. They protect the greedy and people in power by saying it is wrong to go against the system, to take away this fake freedom that democracy ensures, to do anything that conflicts with these fake rights. Quite good for tieing together this pathetic and doomed-to-suicidal-failure system, for a time.

I definitely agree on that---rights are a construct to make a philosophers larger ideal construct function. too often I hear argument against a serious reconsideration of morality answered with 'omg that wouldn't work' as if the goal is to find a cure for the common cold which doesn't kill cancer as a byproduct too because we have to preserve a certain sickly status quo as if it's not worth changing for something more valuable.

 

[Korona]

Rights can be based on past experience - this set of laws will allow us to live in the best and most productive way - if this is a truth learned through years of hard experience and pain then is has justification and a reason to take it seriously.
Something like that.

However most "human rights" groups aren't like that and just appeal to the "self-evidence" of the rights they espouse (the US Declairation of Independance and Bill of Rights in the Constitution are prime examples - for example - who in their right mind thinks it's self-evident that everyonehas the right to weild firearms??!)

All such assertions should be treated with contempt

 

[Έρεβος]

Rights can be based on past experience - this set of laws will allow us to live in the best and most productive way - if this is a truth learned through years of hard experience and pain then is has justification and a reason to take it seriously.
Something like that.

Few current rights make any sense based on past experience, they are mostly based off ignorant reactions to atrocities or the like. Humans should possess no more inherant rights than nature grants us, as all other animals.

"(the US Declairation of Independance and Bill of Rights in the Constitution are prime examples - for example - who in their right mind thinks it's self-evident that everyonehas the right to weild firearms??!)"

Inherant right? I don't think so. Should be able to in the current world? Absolutely.

 

[hibernal_dream]

that's a concept I've been curious about lately. I mean people want to say things like slavery are wrong, etc. all appeals against laws we have are on morality, and yet law is supposed to be beyond mere morality. 'sodomy' being illegal, people decide because it's not immoral it should now be legal... the whole system seems connected to morality, I have no clue where to start reading to understand the concept which says it's not.

HLA Hart.

Why are we assuming that a legal right has any moral content at all? By saying someone has a right to life simply means that all people have a duty not to take life. It doesn't necessarily say anything about whether killing is wrong or not. This is true because in some circumstances killing is not wrong - in self-defence and provocation for example. All western legal systems are based on this kind of legal positivism.

I see no problem with human rights unless the private sphere of the individual gets too large. For example, freedom of speech is obviously beneficial in any non-tyrannical system of government. But an excessively large freedom of speech will disintegrate the concept of society as a community by allowing all sorts of false and offensive slander. The person who spreads gossip and rumors like AIDS doesn't deserve to be considered part of that community.

I also don't see that we're losing our rights. On the contrary, they're getting so large that people rely on their legal rights rather than try to create a consensual resolution. This creates conflict in the community, moving people further apart. Instead of taking your neighbor to court for trespassing on your land, why not just talk to them about it? I don't mean sending legal letters threatening lawsuits but just knock on their door and try to sort it out. Everyone benefits that way.

But removing rights isn't going to solve anything - I see the problem as the governmental rather than legal. Encourage cooperation and cohesive communities and people won't be asserting their legal "rights" whenever someone steps on their toes and taking each other to court at their convenience. Make the people afraid of the consequences in society rather than the legal consequences - make them fear loss of standing, friends and reputation rather than a pecuniary fee, for these things are of far greater importance.

 

[Cythraul]

Humans should possess no more inherant rights than nature grants us, as all other animals.

And what would those rights be?

 

[charles_dexter_ward]

it just becomes another word for *capabilities* if you take that view

 

[Seditious]

HLA Hart.

Why are we assuming that a legal right has any moral content at all? By saying someone has a right to life simply means that all people have a duty not to take life. It doesn't necessarily say anything about whether killing is wrong or not.

this duty crap is the same thing that pissed me off about Kant.

why would you have the duty not to take a life? if it is not good or bad to take a life then there would be no reason to tell someone what they're supposed to do, it's just bullshit to say 'for no reason at all, you have a duty not to kill' as if you could equally have been fated with the unfortunate 'duty not to eat red m&m's' to which you can only say 'well hey, red m&m's aren't bad, but we're just stuck with this duty, ya know?'

 

[Seditious]

This is true because in some circumstances killing is not wrong - in self-defence and provocation for example. All western legal systems are based on this kind of legal positivism.

'killing except in self-defense, is wrong' seems to be an assumption of the law against it, does it not?

an excessively large freedom of speech will disintegrate the concept of society as a community by allowing all sorts of false and offensive slander.

so, freedom 'to say what you want people to say' would be ideal?

The person who spreads gossip and rumors like AIDS doesn't deserve to be considered part of that community.

so words are a disease now? I can infect you with what I say? should we then extinguish religion?

 

[Korona]

Well with Kant the idea is that you can generalise each action into a rule. If you can still find it acceptable to live in a world where everyone was bound by such a rule then it is okay to perform the action.
I don't see much wrong with saying this - its simply a matter of consistency. If your action is right, then it doesn't really matter if you perform it, or another does, and so it seems a fairly good ground to build a notion of right and wrong from.
However I think he goes wrong by begging the question in favour of generality. How far does an action need to be generalised in order to count as a rule? On the one hand you say that only the specific set of circumstances you are in would count - in which case you can pretty much act arbitrarily as every action would be subtly different and thus never repeated, so cannot be generalised.
On the other hand generalising too much leads you into dubious ethical waters, for example following the general rule "lying is wrong" would forbid you from lying even if it would save someone's life - for example lying to an SS man that there are Jews in the basement.
What the categorical imperitave generally ends up with is a massive list of "IF" statements which is normally an infinate regress requiring subclauses to cover every concievable action.

 

[Έρεβος]

And what would those rights be?

Rights? Basically, as charles_dexter_ward said, "capabilities." Our only inherant rights are to whatever we can protect and do. Though I prefer a somewhat less "primitive" idea of rights, and it also seems to fit well with nature. It is something like this, though the wording probably isn't perfect.

"You have the right to your own life and liberty when it does not harm the whole more than it aids the whole, and this right should be respected by other "creatures," as you should respect the same right of those "creatures." Though, violation of other creatures rights is acceptable when in protection of ones basic needs to live, or when that violation has a greater positive effect on the whole, or prevents a negative effect greater than it causes. But, when violating another creature's rights, that creature has the right to defend its own rights to its fullest capability."

This ties responsibilities into the possession of rights, as rights are not inherant. Creatures in this use means all living things within Earth's ecosystem. It is natural in that when you look at any species of animal they follow just this code, they only violate when there is need, in self-protective actions, or against actions of another creature that harm the whole; and possess these rights by staying in balance with the whole [all of nature].

 

[Seditious]

Rights? Basically, as charles_dexter_ward said, "capabilities." Our only inherant rights are to whatever we can protect and do. Though I prefer a somewhat less "primitive" idea of rights, and it also seems to fit well with nature. It is something like this, though the wording probably isn't perfect.

I myself fully support (a 'primitive' if you like), a natural law view on rights.

you have the 'capability' to kill, but that is not something you have the right to 'do' in modern society, so either rights aren't capabilities, or, as in my philosophy, you do have that right, but it has been taken from you. imagine you were born free, then put in chains, and you were told 'we give you the right to go 10 miles on your leesh' when the reality is 'we rob you of the right to go anywhere, and return to you only part of your right to go somewhere' and people today speak as if one should be grateful. (A very broad summary of the idea, but you see the point)