NationStates Jolt Archive

These are purely philosophical questions. The first asks you to consider what are the fundamental rights of all humans everywhere. The second part asks you to think about what gives humans those rights.

For example, is free speech a fundamental right? If so, why? What is it about life, humanity etc. that makes it so?

While that is one idea, I am interested in *all* fundamental rights, so please don't just debate free speech only. Let's try to make a list of what we think are fundamental rights, and then see if we can find the basis for those rights.

All rights are contracts between people. "Fundamental" rights is just a contractual question that depends on the opinion of the people.

Man's "inalienable rights" are given by man and are taken away by man. The only rights any organsim truly has are those biologically given to it by nature.

These are purely philosophical questions. The first asks you to consider what are the fundamental rights of all humans everywhere. The second part asks you to think about what gives humans those rights.

For example, is free speech a fundamental right? If so, why? What is it about life, humanity etc. that makes it so?

While that is one idea, I am interested in *all* fundamental rights, so please don't just debate free speech only. Let's try to make a list of what we think are fundamental rights, and then see if we can find the basis for those rights.
ooh! these are my ideas... Human rights are man's ideas of what is belonging to him as a result of him belonging in the group he calls humanity.

The source of man's rights is man's consciousness that recognizes ideals. I think, therefore I have rights. ;-)

'Free speech' is a civil right, not a fundamental human right. It is freedom to raise a voice against the government without fear of prosecution. Most "freedoms" are civil rights because it is the government or an authority that gives the freedom.

Civil rights are an agreement, on paper, between a government and its people, most specifically its citizens but also visitors to the State, of behaviour and conduct on behalf of the government in recognition of the status of its people. Civil rights serve as a basis for law within a country.

Basic human rights are recognition of behaviour, conduct and status between human beings. They do not have to be legally documented to be a right, just generally recognized and agreed upon, though most human rights have been included as a part of Constitutions in Western countries, and so become part of the law of the land.

The United Nations, as one of its first actions, made a splendid effort to document some of the most important and universally recognized human rights in the context of law, as a basis for forming an international law ("Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." - Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)) based largely on LaFayette's "The Rights of Man". These are, however, different from the ideals that individuals define relatively when they talk about "basic human rights".

Examples of basic human rights are:
- the right to be your own person "in dignity", expressed in civil rights like the freedom from oppression, the right to earn a minimum standard of living, outlawing of slavery and freedom from discrimination.
- the right of security of person, which finds expression in civil rights such as the right to privacy in the home, the right to safety in prosecution, and the right for chastity of women.
- the right to life and liberty, which finds expression in just about every civil right.
- the right to freedom of thought, consciousness and religion. I like this one in particular as it links the three ideas in one basic "right", and rightly so.

etc.

ooh! these are my ideas... Human rights are man's ideas of what is belonging to him as a result of him belonging in the group he calls humanity.

The source of man's rights is man's consciousness that recognizes ideals. I think, therefore I have rights. ;-)



I know this is going to annoy some of you, and I apologize in advance, but I really want to point this out...

I understand the argument that 'man' refers to 'human', but I don't support it. Human is unisexual, so let's use it. (even mankind is better) If you are talking about the rights of ALL humans, then leave sex out of it, or include BOTH genders.

Human rights are our ideas of what belongs to us as a result of belonging in the group we call humanity.

I'm not talking about changing names to people holes or saying things like firewoman (when firefighter is a fine gender neutral term). If you've read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you can see how careful they were in making it gender inclusive. It's not hard, and it's not just "PC". If we develop our ideas based on our language, we need to be aware of the biases inherent in our language, and how that affects our thought processes. There, end of lecture, I know it wasn't done in any mean-spirited way.

I'll get back to the rights part after lunch....:).

I understand the argument that 'man' refers to 'human', but I don't support it. Human is unisexual, so let's use it. (even mankind is better) If you are talking about the rights of ALL humans, then leave sex out of it, or include BOTH genders.
I knew someone would say this eventually. If you understand that "man" refers to "human" then why do we need to make a fuss? No, I'll stick with "man's rights" thanks. :)

The only rights any organsim truly has are those biologically given to it by nature.
Which are those?

Man's rights are hte opposites of his lefts. As for the source, cellular biomass comprises the overwhelming majority of such.

Man's "inalienable rights" are given by man and are taken away by man. The only rights any organsim truly has are those biologically given to it by nature.

In my opinion, "rights" are created by mankind out of the understanding that to NOT grant certain rights will have unacceptable consequences. They are also generated to a great degree by the spiritual understanding of mankind. Virtually every major religion recognizes the need of people to have a degree of freedom. The "rights" created by mankind are the particulars of this spiritually based need for freedom.

I know this is going to annoy some of you, and I apologize in advance, but I really want to point this out...

I understand the argument that 'man' refers to 'human', but I don't support it. Human is unisexual, so let's use it. (even mankind is better) If you are talking about the rights of ALL humans, then leave sex out of it, or include BOTH genders.

Human rights are our ideas of what belongs to us as a result of belonging in the group we call humanity.

I'm not talking about changing names to people holes or saying things like firewoman (when firefighter is a fine gender neutral term). If you've read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you can see how careful they were in making it gender inclusive. It's not hard, and it's not just "PC". If we develop our ideas based on our language, we need to be aware of the biases inherent in our language, and how that affects our thought processes. There, end of lecture, I know it wasn't done in any mean-spirited way.

I'll get back to the rights part after lunch....:).
:-) Human is the race of man --they mean the same thing. It's far too ingrained in the English language to be altered so easily, even by political correctness. And it only really has an effect on our thought processes if we're going to take an overly feministic stance in response to it. "Man", "him", "his" in this context are considered gender-neutral terms, in the same sense that "you" can refer to you specifically or to the general populace. This is inherited from the German language, which has only masculine or feminine nouns.

[QUOTE=Willamena #7]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostikos
The only rights any organsim truly has are those biologically given to it by nature.


Which are those?


There are no rights, only abilities. And all abilities create consequences.

What is any entity "able" to do..?

That is the entire extent of their "rights", as only those things that an entity is "allowed" to DO by the environment are do-able.

If the environment (the "local" environment which has direct influence on said entity) allows an entity to DO something, then it is a right, subject to some reaction or other (just like any other behavior) from the environment.

Thus,.. do I have the right to kill another human being for no particular reason? Yes, as it's possible to do so,.. but I will also expect the typical environmental reaction if I do so.

Do I have the right to see stars through the center of the sun at noon? No, as that's not do-able, unless I have some VERY interesting technology that would allow me to do so, then it WOULD be a right.

[QUOTE=Willamena #7]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostikos
The only rights any organsim truly has are those biologically given to it by nature.


Which are those?


There are no rights, only abilities. And all abilities create consequences.

What is any entity "able" to do..?

That is the entire extent of their "rights", as only those things that an entity is "allowed" to DO by the environment are do-able.

If the environment (the "local" environment which has direct influence on said entity) allows an entity to DO something, then it is a right, subject to some reaction or other (just like any other behavior) from the environment.

Thus,.. do I have the right to kill another human being for no particular reason? Yes, as it's possible to do so,.. but I will also expect the typical environmental reaction if I do so.

Do I have the right to see stars through the center of the sun at noon? No, as that's not do-able, unless I have some VERY interesting technology that would allow me to do so, then it WOULD be a right.
There are no "rights" biologically given, only abilities. That I agree with.

"Rights" are what it is allowable to do apart from the limitations imposed on the body by physical environment. Human rights are the ideals of behaviour of human interaction within the social environment --mind to mind, human to human:
"Respect me."
"Look at me. See me. Recognize who I am."
"Treat me well."
And, of course, that comes with an inherent "I will do the same."

It's doing what is right.

Everyone seems to have a different view of rights from me. :D

I think this idea ties very closely with the concept of morality. How can we know morality without God? In the United States' Declaration of Independence appeal was made to God as the ultimate arbiter of inalienability of certain enumerated rights. The same arguement is made with regards to morality. So long as there is some omnipotent other who defines, reveals, and proscribes - there can be no true debate on these issues. Simply put, it is so because God has decreed it so.

However, we live in a world of descriptive rights just as we live in a world of descriptive morality. Rather than being revealed prescriptively by some deity (by use of such, I permit the reader to insert highest supra- or extra-natural force of choice, it does not necessarily have to be a divine being) who prescribes to humanity what is right and wrong; and what things are forever removed from humanity's review and change; we live in a world in which both rights and morality are described by humanity in response to abuses by others. Such abuses are defined at the time of description as experienced by the framers of these.

That is why we have in a socially, politically, and culturally evolving world even the nature of things proscribed under recognition and observation of such rights changes. Thus public executions are deemed cruel and unusual when they once were the rule of the day. The 'right' of a woman to refuse sexual congress with her husband was once seen as the 'right' of the man to the benefits of marriage.

I do not think it is ever possible to have a comprehensive list of rights, because even in the act of listing them, they are evolving, and the list is growing. For better or worse, we live in a dynamic society in which it is only be stripping rights away, that one can halt this process, which by its very act results in the society one purports to uphold being corrupted.

There are no "rights" biologically given, only abilities. That I agree with.

"Rights" are what it is allowable to do apart from the limitations imposed on the body by physical environment. Human rights are the ideals of behaviour of human interaction within the social environment --mind to mind, human to human:
"Respect me."
"Look at me. See me. Recognize who I am."
"Treat me well."
And, of course, that comes with an inherent "I will do the same."

It's doing what is right.

Everyone seems to have a different view of rights from me. :D

When I say "environment" I mean the whole environment, physical and otherwise.

All rights are basically a reflection of action seen in the mirror of the golden rule (reciprocity principle).

"Would I like that action 'acted upon' me?"

Ideals are inherently dangerous to base anything on, as they are contracts that rely on "well behaved parties".

Once the ideal is violated, all hell (literally) breaks loose, and the battle between "I break this because.." and "We had an agreement.." ensues.

:-) Human is the race of man --they mean the same thing. It's far too ingrained in the English language to be altered so easily, even by political correctness. And it only really has an effect on our thought processes if we're going to take an overly feministic stance in response to it. "Man", "him", "his" in this context are considered gender-neutral terms, in the same sense that "you" can refer to you specifically or to the general populace. This is inherited from the German language, which has only masculine or feminine nouns.


Agreed ... we also cant assume that the original poster has english as his/her first language ... it may have just been trouble with the translation

I think this idea ties very closely with the concept of morality. How can we know morality without God? In the United States' Declaration of Independence appeal was made to God as the ultimate arbiter of inalienability of certain enumerated rights. The same arguement is made with regards to morality. So long as there is some omnipotent other who defines, reveals, and proscribes - there can be no true debate on these issues. Simply put, it is so because God has decreed it so.

However, we live in a world of descriptive rights just as we live in a world of descriptive morality. Rather than being revealed prescriptively by some deity (by use of such, I permit the reader to insert highest supra- or extra-natural force of choice, it does not necessarily have to be a divine being) who prescribes to humanity what is right and wrong; and what things are forever removed from humanity's review and change; we live in a world in which both rights and morality are described by humanity in response to abuses by others. Such abuses are defined at the time of description as experienced by the framers of these.

That is why we have in a socially, politically, and culturally evolving world even the nature of things proscribed under recognition and observation of such rights changes. Thus public executions are deemed cruel and unusual when they once were the rule of the day. The 'right' of a woman to refuse sexual congress with her husband was once seen as the 'right' of the man to the benefits of marriage.

I do not think it is ever possible to have a comprehensive list of rights, because even in the act of listing them, they are evolving, and the list is growing. For better or worse, we live in a dynamic society in which it is only be stripping rights away, that one can halt this process, which by its very act results in the society one purports to uphold being corrupted.

Those who pose that "god" is antithetical to reason and "sensibility" are simply misinformed.

Those who say "god says thus and anything other than that is not to be done" are either lazy or traumatized, and probably both.

The pendulum swings right, finds it's height, swings left, finds it height, and continues to do so.

The game continues. Do NOT try to stop it, but influence it to stay within the bounds that "seem best to you".

Agreed ... we also cant assume that the original poster has english as his/her first language ... it may have just been trouble with the translation
I appreciate the sentiment but English is definitely my first language. I just don't care to split hairs over irrelevant issues. We all understand what we're talking about, and no one needs to worry that we're excluding women and children from anything.

Look, here's an ideal, in this case a 'right to happiness': :fluffle:

Here's person A: ;)

And person B: :)

They both see the ideal, and recognize it as an ideal. But that does not dictate their behaviour towards the ideal unless they choose to uphold the ideal.

Here's person C: :( He's unhappy because he sees the ideal and feels he has the right to it, but is being denied it, for whatever reason, and blames person A. Suddenly he becomes :mad: and attacks person A with a knife, harming him!

Then the cops come in :cool: :cool: :cool: and take person C away. Their legal recourse is the civil right of person A, the 'right to life, liberty and security'.

Person C :( just was moved by a perceived denial of the right of happiness, the ideal which he preceived. He hasn't lost that right to happiness --he can still attain it at some point in his life, perhaps even in prison. :eek: But he doesn't loose that ideal, ever, unless he himself abandons it.

And there's people who believe in him who can uphold the ideal for him.

Also, note the layered level of ideals, namely the right to rights, which our society has created by turning rights into law.

EDIT: oops, I seem to have written over an old post of mine, but I think it basically said the same thing.

Ok, so the fundamental opposing viewpoints have come out: rights as a social contract vs. rights as given by God.

We still have yet to list what the fundamental rights are (for those who profess there is such a thing).

Another question that may help us along: are rights heirarchical? Meaning, if you have right A, does it automatically lead to rights b, c, and d? Meaning, do fundamental rights lead to derivative rights?

I guess we can call the right to live a basic fundamental right. To answer the question where this right comes from, that right comes from God. It is only by his grace that I wake up each and every day to live another day. So far as the authorities of this world:

Romans 13:1b "For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

While sin has caused certain evil regimes to rise and fall through the course of time, it is worth noting that all evil regimes eventually fall, generally through the hand of other nations.

That is why I think that it was right to invade Iraq. Saddam was brutal dictator who held his people down through fear while he built massive palaces for himself. A regime like that cannot last very long, the only reason his lasted as long as it did was because nations like France and Russia were propping him up, going under the table to avoid the sanctions.

I didn't mean to get off track and I don't want to hijack this thread and get if off course.

Carry on with your philosophical discussion.

I guess we can call the right to live a basic fundamental right. To answer the question where this right comes from, that right comes from God.

Excellent! A clear answer: a fundamental right is the right to life, and in your metaphysics, that is derived from God.

Any answers from the 'Social Contract' camp?

I believe it is my right as a man to vigorously copulate with any woman I deem worthy of bearing my seed regardless of her age, race, or social status. It is my right to terminate the existence of any man who dare interrupt me during intercourse. And it is the right of any woman impregnated by me to abort the fetus in any manner she deems appropriate.

I knew someone would say this eventually. If you understand that "man" refers to "human" then why do we need to make a fuss? No, I'll stick with "man's rights" thanks. :)

I do not understand that 'man' refers to 'human'. I said that I'm okay with 'mankind', though I prefer humankind. Mankind refers to the totality of the human race. However, so does 'human race' or 'humankind' or 'humanity' or 'humans'. Why use a gender-specific term if you are truly intending to include both genders? You would find it ridiculous, no doubt if I said, "woman" and meant ALL humans, so why is it okay to do it the other way around? For tradition's sake? Hey, traditionally racism was okay too...should it be allowed because of that?

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I don't think people using 'man' to mean 'humans' want to put women down. That's not my point at all. However, traditionally, 'man's' rights did NOT refer to women, and in many countries, that is still the case. If you want to talk about human rights, instead of the rights of man, then do so. It isn't difficult, or even awkward to use gender neutral language, but it does make a difference in the meaning of what you are trying to say. You couldn't say, "white humans" and argue that you MEANT "all humans", so don't do it with gender specific words.

[QUOTE=Willamena #18]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaiiaio
When I say "environment" I mean the whole environment, physical and otherwise.

All rights are basically a reflection of action seen in the mirror of the golden rule (reciprocity principle).

"Would I like that action 'acted upon' me?"

Ideals are inherently dangerous to base anything on, as they are contracts that rely on "well behaved parties".

Once the ideal is violated, all hell (literally) breaks loose, and the battle between "I break this because.." and "We had an agreement.." ensues.


Basing behaviour on ideals is not dangerous, as whether people choose to adhere is entirely relative and unique to each person. Surely that is inherently understood by all? Choice is relative. Behaviour, though, can be "dangerous" in that anyone is free to do what they please at any time, good or bad, and the only recourse for everyone else is punishment. So the ideals are supported by legal documents.

Once an ideal is violated, that is when the negotiation begins, to come to a mutual understanding. Violence is only ever a last resort.

Ahh,... "basing" is the "tricky" word here. :)

The only thing that CAN be based on ideals is behavior.

And reaction to behavior is based on the ideals of "rights".

The more comprehensive, yet simple, those codified "rights" (acceptable reactions to behaviors), the better, as negotiation has an environment to operate in. When even the operational environment of negotiation is violated, then other forms of communication (usually physical) happen.

Excellent! A clear answer: a fundamental right is the right to life, and in your metaphysics, that is derived from God.

Any answers from the 'Social Contract' camp?


The problem with the metaphysical reasoning is that if you do not recognize the authority of god (if you are atheist, agnostic, or have other religion) than you do not recognize that authority, nor that moral system, nor the rights proposed by that "god". Ence, you may reject them if you wish.

Rights are binded to morals. If you cannot establish a UNIVERSAL set of morals, than you cannot establish a universal set or rights (If you believe that the concept of property is good, than you will likely defend the right to have private property, yet, this is not universal. Go ask Brazillian Indians about this).

Since you cannot establish a universal set of rights that all human beings will naturally be compelled to follow, you have no other choice but to lay them in contract. A social contract, between the people and the goverment they form.

I believe it is my right as a man to vigorously copulate with any woman I deem worthy of bearing my seed regardless of her age, race, or social status. It is my right to terminate the existence of any man who dare interrupt me during intercourse. And it is the right of any woman impregnated by me to abort the fetus in any manner she deems appropriate.
This one serves as a great start to explain rights. Good Jesus Folk assigns himself some "rights". However, just because you think you have a right to do something, doesn't mean you really have that right. Rights, as has been pointed out, are a pact, a convention, between people that everybody agrees is the minimum necessary for peaceful living in the society.

Rights are agreed by the people and entrusted to the government to keep them. That's why only governments can commit human rights abuse.

There are no fundamental laws. There is a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that many countries suscribe to, but these are not fundamental rights, simply a guideline of what today is considered a minimum standard.

So, there are no fundamental rights, whatever rights people have in a country are merely dependant on that society, and the government decided how to uphold those rights.

Ahh,... "basing" is the "tricky" word here. :)

The only thing that CAN be based on ideals is behavior.

And reaction to behavior is based on the ideals of "rights".

The more comprehensive, yet simple, those codified "rights" (acceptable reactions to behaviors), the better, as negotiation has an environment to operate in. When even the operational environment of negotiation is violated, then other forms of communication (usually physical) happen.
That was the missing post. :-) Thank you.

'Codified' is a very good word! 'Concretize' is too, though you didn't use that one. Concretizing turns ideal ideas into pieces of paper and takes away their fluidic usefulness, but it gives them a usefulness of a different sort in their unchanging-ness. Trouble is, people today use both. Some turn to the fluidic idea of rights before even thinking of their paper rights, and hold it up as a weapon of protection. "You can't do that! You have no right!"

I think there's a lot of room for confusing the two.

:-) Human is the race of man --they mean the same thing. It's far too ingrained in the English language to be altered so easily, even by political correctness. And it only really has an effect on our thought processes if we're going to take an overly feministic stance in response to it. "Man", "him", "his" in this context are considered gender-neutral terms, in the same sense that "you" can refer to you specifically or to the general populace. This is inherited from the German language, which has only masculine or feminine nouns.

It is not too ingrained in our language to change...it has been changed in almost all legal documents. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (though not a binding document) tries as much as possible to NOT use gender specifics...using 'everyone', 'all persons' etc, so that there is no confusion. If this wasn't a real issue, legal documents would not have been changed to include both genders EXPLICITLY.

German, Spanish, Italian, French etc, ALL have gender specific nouns. They also have gender non-specific words (which are feminine and masculine, only in terms of the definite and indefinite articles). For example, in Spanish, you can say, 'hombre' (man) and 'mujer' (woman), but 'hombres' is not used to refer to all human kind. More commonly used is 'humanidad' (humanity). La humanidad is a feminine noun, but does not refer to females alone.

Yes, political correctness can be extreme, but I do not believe this is a case of that extremism. It is a case of wanting to be specific about rights, and that they are the same for males and females. That is important because to often, things are taken out of context and read literally. Language is a powerful tool. You might think it is a frivolity even arguing about this, but let me tell you about a time I was in a village in Peru, talking about human rights (the context was police violence and seizures of homes). We were talking about the right to property, when soldier put up his hand and said, "But this Declaration of Human Rights you are talking about only says 'his' property...and this woman says she owned that house. If her husband owned it, she would be fine!" Ridiculous? Obviously, but that is indeed what Article 17 (2) says. His. People will deliberately take things out of context when it suits them. Make it impossible to do so.

I appreciate the sentiment but English is definitely my first language. I just don't care to split hairs over irrelevant issues. We all understand what we're talking about, and no one needs to worry that we're excluding women and children from anything.

If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a need for a separate Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

The problem with the metaphysical reasoning is that if you do not recognize the authority of god (if you are atheist, agnostic, or have other religion) than you do not recognize that authority, nor that moral system, nor the rights proposed by that "god". Ence, you may reject them if you wish.

That is exactly correct. Positing that the basis of man's rights is a supernatural entity that cannot be proved serves only to discredit and undermine the concept of fundamental rights. It asks people to assume that rights for man are a matter of *faith*.

Rights are binded to morals. If you cannot establish a UNIVERSAL set of morals, than you cannot establish a universal set or rights
I think you have reversed the heirarchy here. Ethics are statements about what someone *ought* to do in a given circumstance. This is dependent on what man's fundamental rights are to begin with. One cannot say "this is right action that leads to rights," but rather, "these are the rights of all, and thus leads to this right action."

Since you cannot establish a universal set of rights that all human beings will naturally be compelled to follow, you have no other choice but to lay them in contract. A social contract, between the people and the goverment they form.

Anyone care to dispute this assertion?

Okay, now to the original point of the post:

I pretty much agree with the rights set down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, as will many (not all) rights, there are some exceptions, and herein lies the problem. If you have the right to liberty, does that mean you can't be put in jail for committing a crime? I don't agree. Does the right to security supersede all other rights (as sometimes happens when states get antsy...)? Even the right to life has problems, when you start talking about abortion. Tricky. I have a good idea of what rights I support, and I can argue against all the exceptions you could throw at me, but how do you put all that in a legally binding document? Rights change depending on interpretation. It's too bad we couldn't just all agree, but then we wouldn't be humans.

I am willing to defend any of the rights laid out in the Declaration of Human Rights, and defend my position on the exceptions to that right, if anyone wants to take me up on it. Otherwise, I'd be typing for ages trying to go through each one! :D

It is not too ingrained in our language to change...it has been changed in almost all legal documents. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (though not a binding document) tries as much as possible to NOT use gender specifics...using 'everyone', 'all persons' etc, so that there is no confusion. If this wasn't a real issue, legal documents would not have been changed to include both genders EXPLICITLY.

German, Spanish, Italian, French etc, ALL have gender specific nouns. They also have gender non-specific words (which are feminine and masculine, only in terms of the definite and indefinite articles). For example, in Spanish, you can say, 'hombre' (man) and 'mujer' (woman), but 'hombres' is not used to refer to all human kind. More commonly used is 'humanidad' (humanity). La humanidad is a feminine noun, but does not refer to females alone.

Yes, political correctness can be extreme, but I do not believe this is a case of that extremism. It is a case of wanting to be specific about rights, and that they are the same for males and females. That is important because to often, things are taken out of context and read literally. Language is a powerful tool. You might think it is a frivolity even arguing about this, but let me tell you about a time I was in a village in Peru, talking about human rights (the context was police violence and seizures of homes). We were talking about the right to property, when soldier put up his hand and said, "But this Declaration of Human Rights you are talking about only says 'his' property...and this woman says she owned that house. If her husband owned it, she would be fine!" Ridiculous? Obviously, but that is indeed what Article 17 (2) says. His. People will deliberately take things out of context when it suits them. Make it impossible to do so.

You know, I've never seen such intelligence wasted in my life.

If you would put this kind of thought behind your response to this thread instead of blatantly trolling it, we might just be able to get somewhere. I can't believe that you have such a big issue with the fact that the word "man" was used.

As for the rights of man and mankind, I see them as simple things. Man has the right to pursue the things that make him happy... as long as they don't intrude on the happiness of others. As long as you aren't violating the rights of your fellow man, game on.

It is not too ingrained in our language to change...it has been changed in almost all legal documents. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (though not a binding document) tries as much as possible to NOT use gender specifics...using 'everyone', 'all persons' etc, so that there is no confusion. If this wasn't a real issue, legal documents would not have been changed to include both genders EXPLICITLY.

German, Spanish, Italian, French etc, ALL have gender specific nouns. They also have gender non-specific words (which are feminine and masculine, only in terms of the definite and indefinite articles). For example, in Spanish, you can say, 'hombre' (man) and 'mujer' (woman), but 'hombres' is not used to refer to all human kind. More commonly used is 'humanidad' (humanity). La humanidad is a feminine noun, but does not refer to females alone.

Yes, political correctness can be extreme, but I do not believe this is a case of that extremism. It is a case of wanting to be specific about rights, and that they are the same for males and females. That is important because to often, things are taken out of context and read literally. Language is a powerful tool. You might think it is a frivolity even arguing about this, but let me tell you about a time I was in a village in Peru, talking about human rights (the context was police violence and seizures of homes). We were talking about the right to property, when soldier put up his hand and said, "But this Declaration of Human Rights you are talking about only says 'his' property...and this woman says she owned that house. If her husband owned it, she would be fine!" Ridiculous? Obviously, but that is indeed what Article 17 (2) says. His. People will deliberately take things out of context when it suits them. Make it impossible to do so.
Change is not impossible, but it is unlikely considering how ingrained the English language is the use of the masculine as a generic when referring to people. I suggest you learn to deal with it. :-)

Since you cannot establish a universal set of rights that all human beings will naturally be compelled to follow, you have no other choice but to lay them in contract. A social contract, between the people and the goverment they form.

I think this pretty much sums it up...now how can we governments to adhere to such contracts on a global level? We have tried, by getting nations to ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but we have no way to hold them to it...if a country breaks their side of the bargain, what next? Just as there is no universal set of rights we will be compelled to follow, there is no social contract that all governments will be compelled to honour. Unless we come up with some way of holding ALL governments accountable for human rights abuses that go against the social contracts they have entered into with their people.

As for the rights of man and mankind, I see them as simple things. Man has the right to pursue the things that make him happy... as long as they don't intrude on the happiness of others. As long as you aren't violating the rights of your fellow man, game on.
Nicely done. However, I would argue that you have also balled ethics up in there. You say that the right to pursue happiness is a fundamental right, and then provide ethics by saying that right action is not violating the rights of others to do the same. I would also ask you, what is the source of that right to pursue happiness?

One more thing: I agree with you that time spent on debating "man" vs. "human" is time wasted, but let's just move on. Ad hominems are strictly improper in a rational discussion. :)

If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a need for a separate Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
The Declaration of the Rights of the Child was created to afford children special legal protections, over and above the Declaration of Human Rights, such as "the child shall be the first in need to receive protection and relief".

Since you cannot establish a universal set of rights that all human beings will naturally be compelled to follow, you have no other choice but to lay them in contract. A social contract, between the people and the goverment they form.

C.S. Lewis can articulate this far better than I can, and this is also a concept from St. Augustine, but it is the concept of natural law. Take for instance the following situations:

I feel wronged when someone cuts me in line or if someone steals from me.

We all feel that it is wrong when someon is murdered.

These are basic situations where we all feel that these things are wrong. The question arises, where did these feelings come from?

Romans 2:14-15 "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,"

The Jews were handed down the law through the Ten Commandments and the Levitical laws in the Old Testament and they were held accountable for it. The gentiles were never given the law but they knew through instinct and through their conscience.

You know, I've never seen such intelligence wasted in my life.

If you would put this kind of thought behind your response to this thread instead of blatantly trolling it, we might just be able to get somewhere. I can't believe that you have such a big issue with the fact that the word "man" was used.

I'm sorry that you consider my responses thoughtless, especially since I have put a lot of effort into explaining why I think this is a valid issue, and not just a complaint. Just look at what you wrote though:

As for the rights of man and mankind, I see them as simple things. Man has the right to pursue the things that make him happy... as long as they don't intrude on the happiness of others. As long as you aren't violating the rights of your fellow man, game on.

You say that man has this right, assuming that everyone is going to know that implicit in this statement, woman is included in there somewhere. Let me make my argument here, and refute it on the argument itself, not on the issue:

The following is taken from:
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cjacobso/gender.html

The practice of assigning masculine gender to neutral terms comes from the fact that every language reflects the prejudices of the society in which it evolved, and English evolved through most of its history in a male-centered, patriarchal society. Like any other language, however, English is always changing. One only has to read aloud sentences from the 19th century books assigned for this class to sense the shifts that have occurred in the last 150 years. When readers pick up something to read, they expect different conventions depending on the time in which the material was written. As writers in 1995 [and now in 2004], we need to be not only aware of the conventions that our readers may expect, but also conscious of the responses our words may elicit. In addition, we need to know how the shifting nature of language can make certain words awkward or misleading.

This is not about freedom of speech... there is no rule insisting on gender-neutral language. This is an issue of audience and awareness. Gender-neutral language has gained support from most major textbook publishers, and from professional and academic groups such as the American Psychological Association and the Associated Press. Newspapers like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal avoid such language. Many law journals, psychology journals, and literature journals do not print articles or papers that use gender-inclusive language. If you anticipate working within any of these contexts, you will need to be able to express yourself according to their guidelines, and if you wish to write or speak convincingly to people who are influenced by the conventions of these contexts, you need to be conscious of their expectations.

Why shouldn't we use gender neutral terms? I can't think of any real problems with doing so. Sticking with gender specific terms however, denies the fact that 'man', 'he', and 'his' are NOT gender neutral. You might mean them that way, but there is still the connotation of gender, and if you want to get picky, it would not be acceptable in a legal document.

If you want to come up with some sort of written, binding social contract between governments and people, you have to be as inclusive, and explicit as possible, to avoid creating loopholes that allow discrimination or human rights abuses. You think it can't happen? It has, and it will. Just because we happen to live in countries where this is almost a non-issue, doesn't mean that is the case in the rest of the world. The language you are using is important if you truly mean rights to be global, not regional.

I know this is going to annoy some of you, and I apologize in advance, but I really want to point this out...

I understand the argument that 'man' refers to 'human', but I don't support it. Human is unisexual, so let's use it. (even mankind is better) If you are talking about the rights of ALL humans, then leave sex out of it, or include BOTH genders.

Human rights are our ideas of what belongs to us as a result of belonging in the group we call humanity.

I'm not talking about changing names to people holes or saying things like firewoman (when firefighter is a fine gender neutral term). If you've read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you can see how careful they were in making it gender inclusive. It's not hard, and it's not just "PC". If we develop our ideas based on our language, we need to be aware of the biases inherent in our language, and how that affects our thought processes. There, end of lecture, I know it wasn't done in any mean-spirited way.

I'll get back to the rights part after lunch....:).
I'm guessing you aren't aware that "man" comes from Old High German man, which meant "human". I usually use neuter terms, but since we have had such influence from romance languages, which are gendered, it is now nigh impossible to always be so careful about it. It all depends on context, so don't be so picky about it, sometimes man means human, and sometimes it means male human.

Originally Posted by Portu Cale
Since you cannot establish a universal set of rights that all human beings will naturally be compelled to follow, you have no other choice but to lay them in contract. A social contract, between the people and the goverment they form.
Anyone care to dispute this assertion?
I think we already have established universal rights that all humans recognize. Following them is a different matter. Even the government --who is undeniably made up of individual humans --actively engaged in violating human rights is aware that what it is doing is a violation (especially if it is a UN member nation). Violating rights that the people already have i.e. the ideal. Why can it get away with violating them? Because they are not yet codified as the social contract.

That we have rights, by virtue of recognizing them, does not automatically engender conformance of behaviour. Nor should it. Then people would have no free will.

Nicely done. However, I would argue that you have also balled ethics up in there. You say that the right to pursue happiness is a fundamental right, and then provide ethics by saying that right action is not violating the rights of others to do the same. I would also ask you, what is the source of that right to pursue happiness?
Aren't all rights balled up with ethics? I mean, what is good is right.

Why shouldn't we use gender neutral terms? I can't think of any real problems with doing so. Sticking with gender specific terms however, denies the fact that 'man', 'he', and 'his' are NOT gender neutral. You might mean them that way, but there is still the connotation of gender, and if you want to get picky, it would not be acceptable in a legal document.
Yes, well... this isn't the first instance I've seen where American English differs from the rest of the language.

If you want to come up with some sort of written, binding social contract between governments and people, you have to be as inclusive, and explicit as possible, to avoid creating loopholes that allow discrimination or human rights abuses. You think it can't happen? It has, and it will. Just because we happen to live in countries where this is almost a non-issue, doesn't mean that is the case in the rest of the world. The language you are using is important if you truly mean rights to be global, not regional.
Now, that is a good point, and well made. I shall endeavour to be more aware in the future.

And now a sadistic look at my rights...

I have the right to do anything that is in my power to do. Morality has nothing to do with my rights, because no matter what laws are in place, I still have the right to do anything that is in my power.

For example:

I do not have the right to fly without a mechanical aid. It isn't in my power to do so.

I do have the right to smash someone in the face with a brick. No matter what the consequences, I still have the power to do it, and therefore, the right to do it. (Note: I would never use this right of mine)

So, in conclusion, our free-will gives us the right to do anything that is in our power to do.

Change is not impossible, but it is unlikely considering how ingrained the English language is the use of the masculine as a generic when referring to people. I suggest you learn to deal with it. :-)

You're wrong about that. The English language already HAS changed drastically. Take the following quotes, that used the masculine as a generic. Would we say these things now?

*"Development of the Uterus in Rats, Guinea Pigs, and Men" (title of a research report)

*"The Pap test, which has greatly reduced mortality from uterine cancer, is a boon to mankind."

If the masculine really can be used as a generic, then you should have no problem with this:

"The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As he shaves or blow-dries his hair or pulls on his panty hose, he is easing himself by small stages into the demands of the day."

(these quotes taken from: http://www.stetson.edu/artsci/history/nongenderlang.html)

Our language is changing. We may say firefighter now, instead of fireman, and we say police officer, rather than policeman. These are not akward, or silly things to say, and they allow for both genders. Why would I "learn to deal with it", when that is not the reality?

C.S. Lewis can articulate this far better than I can, and this is also a concept from St. Augustine, but it is the concept of natural law. Take for instance the following situations:

I feel wronged when someone cuts me in line or if someone steals from me.

We all feel that it is wrong when someon is murdered.

These are basic situations where we all feel that these things are wrong. The question arises, where did these feelings come from?

Romans 2:14-15 "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,"

The Jews were handed down the law through the Ten Commandments and the Levitical laws in the Old Testament and they were held accountable for it. The gentiles were never given the law but they knew through instinct and through their conscience.

I don't want to offend anyone's religion, but you simply cannot base your moral rights in a natural law, that you cannot demonstrate, and that is relative of individual to individual, of society to society. If there was any such thing as a moral law, than all societies, troughout the ages, would have shared common grounds. And if you think of it, this is not true. For example. the aztecs believed that the way you died was more important than the way you lived your life. You could be a criminal, but should you be sacrificed, you would go to their heaven. In their heart, sacrificing someone (even against that someone's wishes) was a great honor. So, murdering someone for the aztecs, wasnt necesseraly something bad.
In Nigeria, a woman that as a child outside marriage is outright murdered. And this isnt necessarely considered bad. That depends of culture to culture.

The property aspects are only posed when you have a property concept. In very primitive societies, the concept of property does not exist, in most cases. Therefore, one is left with the reasoning that property is a concept that is built in societies, not innate to the human being.

All rights come from within man himself, IMHO.

The limit is when they begin to infringe upon another man's rights (that does leave one heck of a lot of freedom).

And now a sadistic look at my rights...

I have the right to do anything that is in my power to do. Morality has nothing to do with my rights, because no matter what laws are in place, I still have the right to do anything that is in my power.

For example:

I do not have the right to fly without a mechanical aid. It isn't in my power to do so.

I do have the right to smash someone in the face with a brick. No matter what the consequences, I still have the power to do it, and therefore, the right to do it. (Note: I would never use this right of mine)

So, in conclusion, our free-will gives us the right to do anything that is in our power to do.

Very saddistical :p but very true. If you get "beyond good and evil" (Nietzsche), beyond any moral concepts, you could do anything that you wanted. Anything, except what society as contractualy deemed to be wrong and punished.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Child was created to afford children special legal protections, over and above the Declaration of Human Rights, such as "the child shall be the first in need to receive protection and relief".

Right. So children's rights weren't adequately addressed in the original declaration. I'm addressing the statement made by Poderetti:

I appreciate the sentiment but English is definitely my first language. I just don't care to split hairs over irrelevant issues. We all understand what we're talking about, and no one needs to worry that we're excluding women and children from anything.

No, children were not specifically excluded, but neither were they included by the use of the word 'man'. The gender specific language that DOES exist in the declaration deals with specific gender issues. The language was not comprehensive enough to include children, so another declaration was written. Our language is limited in its scope at times, and we have to go into further explanations. The best thing to do is try to be as inclusive as possible so we don't have to constantly write in things like (oh yeah, we mean women and children to). Why not just say, 'everyone'?

Yes, well... this isn't the first instance I've seen where American English differs from the rest of the language.
Just to have it on the record...I'm not American:).

And now a sadistic look at my rights...

I have the right to do anything that is in my power to do. Morality has nothing to do with my rights, because no matter what laws are in place, I still have the right to do anything that is in my power.

For example:

I do not have the right to fly without a mechanical aid. It isn't in my power to do so.

I do have the right to smash someone in the face with a brick. No matter what the consequences, I still have the power to do it, and therefore, the right to do it. (Note: I would never use this right of mine)

So, in conclusion, our free-will gives us the right to do anything that is in our power to do.
That is the furthest-removed concept of rights from my own that there could possibly be.

Just to have it on the record...I'm not American:).
But your quoted sources were. ;-)

Fundamental Rights:

Life, Liberty and Property
These rights are derived from our simply being human.

There are other rights that are given as the result of a social contract. These rights vary by time and region. They can be given and taken as the contract deems fit.

Rights also end when they actively infringe upon others rights.

That is the furthest-removed concept of rights from my own that there could possibly be.

So I win? What I was getting at, is you can have all the rules and laws you want about what someone's rights are. When it comes down to it though, these are just pieces of paper, and you have the choice to disobey these rights. The nature of humans, or their free-will, ultimately determines what one's rights are.

I think we already have established universal rights that all humans recognize. Following them is a different matter. Even the government --who is undeniably made up of individual humans --actively engaged in violating human rights is aware that what it is doing is a violation (especially if it is a UN member nation). Violating rights that the people already have i.e. the ideal. Why can it get away with violating them? Because they are not yet codified as the social contract.

That we have rights, by virtue of recognizing them, does not automatically engender conformance of behaviour. Nor should it. Then people would have no free will.
Ok, so let me try to deconstruct this here...

I assume when you say 'we' that you mean 'society at large.' You then suggest that just because we have established what we think they are, that does not guarantee that all people will follow them. So far, so good.

You then say that violations are allowed to occur because we have not codified them, i.e. provided punishments for those who would break them. Still, this does not answer what the source is of these rights. If they are rights even without the protection of law, are they truly fundamental? If they are only rights only if codified into law, what makes them fundamental?

EDIT: goofed here... meant to say "If they are not rights without the protection of law, are they truly fundamental?"

Fundamental Rights:

Life, Liberty and Property
These rights are derived from our simply being human.

This is what I would argue. Rights are determined by the reality of human nature. The fact that we are alive but will not always be alive gives us the one fundamental right: the right to life. Without that, no other rights are possible. From that, all other rights are derived.

There are other rights that are given as the result of a social contract. These rights vary by time and region. They can be given and taken as the contract deems fit.

I would say that this is true if you substitute the word "freedoms" for "rights" in the above. Fundamental rights are just that - fundamental. They are dictated by the laws of identity and existence. They cannot be changed or willed out of existence by the collective. They can of course be violated by one or more people, but never eliminated.

Ok, so let me try to deconstruct this here...

I assume when you say 'we' that you mean 'society at large.' You then suggest that just because we have established what we think they are, that does not guarantee that all people will follow them. So far, so good.

You then say that violations are allowed to occur because we have not codified them, i.e. provided punishments for those who would break them. Still, this does not answer what the source is of these rights. If they are rights even without the protection of law, are they truly fundamental? If they are only rights only if codified into law, what makes them fundamental?


The source of rights are taste, will, and strategical interaction. You have the right to property because most of the people (or at least, most of the power) wants it, because they like it (and have the power to implement it), and because if one person is allowed to violate that right, than all will have that right. But if all have that right, people perceive that their tastes and will are violated, so they go against it, and terminate the violator of the right of property. This reasoning is valid for any other right.

Right. So children's rights weren't adequately addressed in the original declaration.
But the reason for the second Declaration was also to give "the welfare of the child" special rights that adults do not have. For instance, freedom from persecution based on association with the parents, for the beliefs of the parents; ensuring access to day care centres; ensuring the State cannot arbitrarily take a child away from its parents; ensuring a child born and living out of country can be united with family in a country; etc.

As an atheist, I don't see rights as coming from any higher power. I see rights as stemming from a need within us to create a more just world. It's a struggle that has gone on for as long as humans have gathered together and formed societies. This need comes from our own personal desires to be safe. Unfortunately, it has been historically easier to provide ourselves with this safety by taking away the safety of others, by enslaving them, warring upon them (before they make war on us), and by building up communities stronger than the surrounding ones. However, it is a fragile safety, and has never lasted. Now that our world is a much more interconnected one, that idea of safety is even more important. In order to provide for our own safety, we need to ensure that others do not feel threatened by us. (or so much stronger that it would be easy to crush us) Frankly, the current 'war on terror' is a good example of this. This 'war' in no way makes the U.S or supporting nations safer, and in fact may encourage more retaliatory action.

To ensure rights are being respected, we need to create a society on a wider level that respects the safety of the individual and the wider community, WITHOUT taking away the rights of others. Therefore, if we deem the right to life to be inalienable, then we can not turn around and take that right away (or support governments that take it away). Does the right to life include the right to have access to food? Does it include the right not to live in an environment poisoned by contaminants? To me, it does, and the only way we can guarantee that such rights are respected, is to agree to respect them on a global, not regional level.

To me, the invasion of Iraq broke the back of an already crippled and ineffecient United Nations. The UN was a good tool at the time it was created, but it did not evolve with the changing political and social structure of the world. We still need some sort of international body that pushes the human rights agenda, and that countries feel comfortable dealing with...but that is the political sphere, and we are talking here about the ideal, not the mechanism.

To sum up, I feel that human rights will only be guaranteed when ALL humans have them, equally, regardless as Article 2 says of "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status". Of course, there will always be abuses of these rights, but when they truly ARE universal, then we can deal with those abuses in a more just fashion. As it stands now, human rights abuses are very subjective...the abuses by "them" are MUCH worse than those by "us".

Excellent! A clear answer: a fundamental right is the right to life, and in your metaphysics, that is derived from God.

Any answers from the 'Social Contract' camp?

The social contract ideal is an interesting thought, but a little impractical. With the contract you get the problem of tacit consent and majority tyranny, which can essentially damage the rights given by the contract to small minority groups within the society.

As to fundamental human rights? Everyone has the right to life and the right to death. The rights to basic life necessities, food, clothing and shelter. Everyone has the right to pursue what makes them happy, without infringing on the rights. If you get off on hurting other people, well, too bad. You don't have that right. Its the whole "the right of my fist stops at your face" principle. Oh yeah, people also have the right to pursue education, free speech, and freedom of assembly. I think that covers it.

But for the whole "God problem"... many people get their moral opinions, and ideas on fundamental rights from organized religions. However, because many relgions (and people who base their ideas outside of religious doctrine) have different ideas on what consists a fundamental right, which means that there are many different rights now, not all of which are universal. So I think that fundamental rights need to be decided outside of relgion by the society as a whole, so that the society is goverened by universal human rights. And yes, I know that does sound like a social contract. What can I say, I'm idealistic.

But your quoted sources were. ;-)
So they were:) Just making sure I wasn't being called an American...(are my prejudices showing?)

But the reason for the second Declaration was also to give "the welfare of the child" special rights that adults do not have. For instance, freedom from persecution based on association with the parents, for the beliefs of the parents; ensuring access to day care centres; ensuring the State cannot arbitrarily take a child away from its parents; ensuring a child born and living out of country can be united with family in a country; etc.

Granted, and agreed. I was making a point purely on the language, not the content:)

So I win? What I was getting at, is you can have all the rules and laws you want about what someone's rights are. When it comes down to it though, these are just pieces of paper, and you have the choice to disobey these rights. The nature of humans, or their free-will, ultimately determines what one's rights are.
Rights that are unique to each individual are not rights at all. It's not a right if only one person recognizes it for themselves. A right is something recognized for all people --it can be only one person recognizing it, but it must be *for* all.

Fundamental Rights:

Life, Liberty and Property
These rights are derived from our simply being human.

There are other rights that are given as the result of a social contract. These rights vary by time and region. They can be given and taken as the contract deems fit.
Property is one I never understood. After all, the only property that is truely "ours" is our bodies. Everything else can be bought, borrowed and disposed of.

The notion of entitlement to any abstract idea like justice is tricky as what exactly is true justice? For that matter does the notion of justice even hold any truth? One may say that human notions of morality such as justice are subjective and unstable and therefore impossible to hold any for of truth. For example is it just for Saudi Arabia to imprison people because they express ideas outside of the cultural bounders, and for the Royal family to publicly behead criminals? Was it a just act of the Russian communists to purge intellectuals in order to maintain order? Or for someone to get there hand cut of for stealing bread? Was is a just act for the Romans to enjoy watching the slaughter of Christians? Are the Iraqi insurgents just in there beheadings of Americans etc. To those it must have been viewed as a just act or they would of not acted in such a way. The only thing it seems we humans need to perform acts of violence is justification in ones own mind.

Property is one I never understood. After all, the only property that is truely "ours" is our bodies. Everything else can be bought, borrowed and disposed of.
I agree with this. We collect material things throughout our lives to help us do certain things, but they are just tools. People hold onto the idea of property a little too tightly, and defend it a little too zealously. Is it really that important? That doesn't mean I think you should be able to kick someone out of their house, but are you necessarily guaranteed property? How much, and of what value?

Ok, so let me try to deconstruct this here...

I assume when you say 'we' that you mean 'society at large.' You then suggest that just because we have established what we think they are, that does not guarantee that all people will follow them. So far, so good.

You then say that violations are allowed to occur because we have not codified them, i.e. provided punishments for those who would break them. Still, this does not answer what the source is of these rights. If they are rights even without the protection of law, are they truly fundamental? If they are only rights only if codified into law, what makes them fundamental?

EDIT: goofed here... meant to say "If they are not rights without the protection of law, are they truly fundamental?"
The source of human rights is recognition of them by humans for all humans. They exist as ideals. They are fundamental in that they are integral to a functioning human society.

Civil rights are law. They can be comprised of and based on human rights but they are codified, the pieces of paper. Laws are fundamental, too.

We see on TV violations, and say that violations of human rights (indignity, wrongful imprisonment, government inflicting harm, etc.) deprives someone of their human rights. What does that mean, really? It says that we recognize that they have human rights that they are not getting recognition for from others. They probably recognize it too, although it may not be as immediate a concern as survival.

They have no protection of the law, but still we point a finger and say, "Violation of human rights!"

The notion of entitlement to any abstract idea like justice is tricky as what exactly is true justice? For that matter does the notion of justice even hold any truth? One may say that human notions of morality such as justice are subjective and unstable and therefore impossible to hold any for of truth. For example is it just for Saudi Arabia to imprison people because they express ideas outside of the cultural bounders, and for the Royal family to publicly behead criminals? Was it a just act of the Russian communists to purge intellectuals in order to maintain order? Or for someone to get there hand cut of for stealing bread? Was is a just act for the Romans to enjoy watching the slaughter of Christians? Are the Iraqi insurgents just in there beheadings of Americans etc. To those it must have been viewed as a just act or they would of not acted in such a way. The only thing it seems we humans need to perform acts of violence is justification in ones own mind.

You're right, there is no absolute when it comes to justice, or to rights. However, I do not believe in cultural relativity which sanctions female genital mutilation, capital punishment, or torture. In my mind, there is no justification, however great, for any of these acts. I think my ideas of justice come out of a very simple-seeming, yet rather complex belief in 'the golden rule'. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I attach no religious symbolism to this. I think that there may be variations amongst individuals as to what this golden rule covers, but on the whole, I doubt our concepts are all that different. Things change as our social organisation becomes more stratified, and as it grows larger. An individual may live this way, but nations do not follow this maxim. Is it because they can not? Or because their goals become corrupted by individuals who no longer believe in worrying about the rights of others...the belief that their own rights supersede all others? Would a woman truly, if she was free to choose and not culturally trained to agree to genital mutilation, advocate it for others? Would a man who lost a hand wish it upon others in anything but a bitter, revengeful way? We as humans can justify anything under the sun, but we are also capable of great compassion. That compassion, and understanding needs to be encouraged more, instead of greed and corruption.

You're right, there is no absolute when it comes to justice, or to rights. However, I do not believe in cultural relativity which sanctions female genital mutilation, capital punishment, or torture. In my mind, there is no justification, however great, for any of these acts.
By admission of your own first sentence there is no basis to deny them either. If there is not absolute for justice and rights, then you *do* sanction cultural relativity, though you may not realize it.

I think my ideas of justice come out of a very simple-seeming, yet rather complex belief in 'the golden rule'. Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
There are plenty of people out there who could do things I do not agree with and still meet your definition of justice.


I attach no religious symbolism to this. I think that there may be variations amongst individuals as to what this golden rule covers, but on the whole, I doubt our concepts are all that different. Things change as our social organisation becomes more stratified, and as it grows larger. An individual may live this way, but nations do not follow this maxim. Is it because they can not? Or because their goals become corrupted by individuals who no longer believe in worrying about the rights of others...the belief that their own rights supersede all others? Would a woman truly, if she was free to choose and not culturally trained to agree to genital mutilation, advocate it for others? Would a man who lost a hand wish it upon others in anything but a bitter, revengeful way? We as humans can justify anything under the sun, but we are also capable of great compassion. That compassion, and understanding needs to be encouraged more, instead of greed and corruption.
All of this is derivative of the original discussion: what are rights and what are their source.

By admission of your own first sentence there is no basis to deny them either. If there is not absolute for justice and rights, then you *do* sanction cultural relativity, though you may not realize it.

Perhaps in a sense I do. I do in the sense that I do not feel, for example that the right to life means a woman should be prevented from having an abortion. Nor do I feel that right to liberty means a person should stay free if they have committed a crime. Yet for other rights, I DO feel they are absolute: the right to be safe from torture, or the right to be not be enslaved for example. I can think of no exceptions to these rights. Of course, my beliefs are based in my culture, and that is something I can not escape. My beliefs are a blend of absolutes and exceptions-to, but I admitted that freely earlier. As I said then, I could make my position absolutley clear on each article of the Declaration of Human Rights...but that could take days:)


There are plenty of people out there who could do things I do not agree with and still meet your definition of justice.
Then you have misunderstood my idea of justice. I said nothing of not agreeing with someone. I spoke of acting towards others as you would have them act towards you. I may be disgusted by a racist's remarks, but I would not take away their freedom of speech simply because it offends me. Nor would I want someone to silence me simply because they did not like my ideas. If someone out there enjoys stealing from others, and doesn't mind being stolen from in turn, then that person still is living by my idea of justice.

You're right, there is no absolute when it comes to justice, or to rights. However, I do not believe in cultural relativity which sanctions female genital mutilation, capital punishment, or torture. In my mind, there is no justification, however great, for any of these acts. I think my ideas of justice come out of a very simple-seeming, yet rather complex belief in 'the golden rule'. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I attach no religious symbolism to this. I think that there may be variations amongst individuals as to what this golden rule covers, but on the whole, I doubt our concepts are all that different. Things change as our social organisation becomes more stratified, and as it grows larger. An individual may live this way, but nations do not follow this maxim. Is it because they can not? Or because their goals become corrupted by individuals who no longer believe in worrying about the rights of others...the belief that their own rights supersede all others? Would a woman truly, if she was free to choose and not culturally trained to agree to genital mutilation, advocate it for others? Would a man who lost a hand wish it upon others in anything but a bitter, revengeful way? We as humans can justify anything under the sun, but we are also capable of great compassion. That compassion, and understanding needs to be encouraged more, instead of greed and corruption.

Yes I agree it seems the only way to reach any understanding of morality is to empathizes with anyone you activly attempt to effect. I bet if one based their desions on empathy we whould find that people are less self centered in there actions.

Perhaps in a sense I do. I do in the sense that I do not feel, for example that the right to life means a woman should be prevented from having an abortion. Nor do I feel that right to liberty means a person should stay free if they have committed a crime. Yet for other rights, I DO feel they are absolute: the right to be safe from torture, or the right to be not be enslaved for example. I can think of no exceptions to these rights.
The things you are explicity against, as stated above are extensions of the right to life. As for abortion, we are talking about the right to life for man, not fetuses. I will *not* drag abortion into this, as it is messy and touchy, and probably has many threads elsewhere.

Then you have misunderstood my idea of justice. I said nothing of not agreeing with someone. I spoke of acting towards others as you would have them act towards you. I may be disgusted by a racist's remarks, but I would not take away their freedom of speech simply because it offends me. Nor would I want someone to silence me simply because they did not like my ideas. If someone out there enjoys stealing from others, and doesn't mind being stolen from in turn, then that person still is living by my idea of justice.
Clearly one of us has misunderstood your notion of justice. If the only guiding principle is to "do onto others...", than a masochist would be just in his sadism. I personally enjoy neither, and would not like to be treated how this individual would like to be treated.

What I think you are doing is what is known as the fallacy of concept stealing. You are denying objective fundamental rights, and then defining justice in a way that relies on objective fundamental rights. Your "Golden Rule" is built upon people not doing some murky set of bad things, but you neither provide what rights are (other than a list created by the U.N.) nor justify what makes them rights (other than they were created by the U.N. and you think they make sense).

I'm not trying to be harsh to you, so please take no offense. I'm trying to make some headway lest we go in circles. :)

The things you are explicity against, as stated above are extensions of the right to life. As for abortion, we are talking about the right to life for man, not fetuses. I will *not* drag abortion into this, as it is messy and touchy, and probably has many threads elsewhere.

Okay, before I go home, let me clarify.
Yes, I believe that all rights stem from the right to life. That is why I mentioned earlier the right to live in a poisoned environment. (thanks for not going into the abortion thing, I just mentioned it, because whenever I say, "I believe in the right to life," people spout, "Oh, but what about...", so I wanted to make that clear at the beginning)


Clearly one of us has misunderstood your notion of justice. If the only guiding principle is to "do onto others...", than a masochist would be just in his sadism. I personally enjoy neither, and would not like to be treated how this individual would like to be treated.
Yes, obviously throwing the golden rule up in the air and expecting it to cover us all in a justice we could agree on is silly. I didn't mean to be vague, and after all my talk about being explicit, I rather foolishly felt that my belief in certain rights was implicit in my statements.

What I think you are doing is what is known as the fallacy of concept stealing. You are denying objective fundamental rights, and then defining justice in a way that relies on objective fundamental rights. Your "Golden Rule" is built upon people not doing some murky set of bad things, but you neither provide what rights are (other than a list created by the U.N.) nor justify what makes them rights (other than they were created by the U.N. and you think they make sense).

I'm not trying to be harsh to you, so please take no offense. I'm trying to make some headway lest we go in circles. :)

So, to be explicit:

Objective fundamental right: the right to life

What I meant with the subjective parts of my statments was that out of this right, which I do believe is inalienable, stem many subjective rights. I use the Declaration as an example, because it pretty succinctly lists the other rights I believe in. However, some of these rights, to me, are open to interpretation, such as the right to liberty. In my mind, rights are what people SHOULD NOT have taken away from them (not can not, because it is obvious that all of these rights can be denied). What makes them rights is that people accept them as such. If we agree that these are the rights we give ourselves, then there they are. Does that mean we can all come up with our own code of rights? I don't think so. As a community, as a people, we need to render our beliefs down to the basics and say, "This is what all of us have a right to". The sadist may not agree, and perhaps that is the 'tyranny of the majority'...in any case, I'm too tired to go deeper into it, although I would like to revisit this at some point:)

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I guess I just need to think about how to explain my position better (which means I need to think about it when it's not time to go home:)).

Chau!