NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there any way to define an objective value for human rights?

Most will agree that the government has an obligation to protect and provide human rights, but there is a wide array of opinions about what rights it should protect and provide. It is quite obvious that the government cannot provide all things for all people, so it must choose and prioritise the rights it can provide.

This leads to a more specific question:

If you must rank or prioritise human rights, how would you do it.


For some added fun, let's try and keep this on the discussion level, not full on debate. Let's see some concessions you mule-headed jerks.

Anybody?

Five religious threads never leave the front page, and I can't even get a discussion on human rights started.

This is a political and government simulation, correct?

Define human rights. I've seen lists that put paid vacation as a basic human right. WTF.

As a Fascist and a Roman Catholic Christian, I can only say that humans are accorded rights that only come with duties and fufill our role within the natural order of humanity and God's Divine Plan for our world.

I am totally opposed to the modern concept of human rights, which can be traced to the 18th Century 'Enlightenment'.

I support the death penalty and the use of torture, if it serves a beneficial usage for the greater good of us all.

I also am opposed to Feminism of any sort, homosexuality, abortion and other social ills.

I would like to see women focus more on motherhood, homosexuals should either repent to God or be executed, abortion is the murder of the innocent, nothing less.

Astraeus']Define human rights. I've seen lists that put paid vacation as a basic human right. WTF.

for me it's really:

freedom of speech
freedom of religion
private property
right to privacy
no cruel or unusual punishment

I think those basically cover everything.

Astraeus']Define human rights. I've seen lists that put paid vacation as a basic human right. WTF.

I would imagine that you would have to answer that for yourself, at least if you are to answer the question. "Human Right" is a concept with a very open-ended definition.

For me, there is pretty much one base right, the right to liberty. All other rights extend from that

As a Fascist and a Roman Catholic Christian, I can only say that humans are accorded rights that only come with duties and fufill our role within the natural order of humanity and God's Divine Plan for our world.

I am totally opposed to the modern concept of human rights, which can be traced to the 18th Century 'Enlightenment'.

I support the death penalty and the use of torture, if it serves a beneficial usage for the greater good of us all.

I also am opposed to Feminism of any sort, homosexuality, abortion and other social ills.

I would like to see women focus more on motherhood, homosexuals should either repent to God or be executed, abortion is the murder of the innocent, nothing less.

I'm just curious, but what are your views on race?

As a Fascist and a Roman Catholic Christian, I can only say that humans are accorded rights that only come with duties and fufill our role within the natural order of humanity and God's Divine Plan for our world.

This has absolutely no rational foothold, even if you assume the existence of a interventionary God. If rights are granted by divinity, how are we, as imperfect mortals, to interpret them and carry them out.

Even with the existence of God, we must hold ourselves to certain standards, as God is extremely unwilling to let us in on his plans.

for me it's really:

freedom of speech
freedom of religion
private property
right to privacy
no cruel or unusual punishment

I think those basically cover everything.

What about the most basic, the right to life? I'd put that on top. Next I think would be the right to liberty and security.

for me it's really:

freedom of speech
freedom of religion
private property
right to privacy
no cruel or unusual punishment

I think those basically cover everything.
These, with right to self-determination and existence as the most basic.

The right to worship me.


Seriously, self-determination I suppose.

These, with right to self-determination and existence as the most basic.

Which would be liberty. All of that is liberty.

But the question is why, what is the justification for an essential right to liberty? Why does it carry so much weight?

Which would be liberty. All of that is liberty.

But the question is why, what is the justification for an essential right to liberty? Why does it carry so much weight?
A resentment for authority? No one really has a real right to rule over you. Any such right is artificial.

Is the 'Roman Catholic' poster above aware of the Catholic Church's position on the death penalty?

Human rights huh?

I'm pretty much against absoloutism, and the concept of human rights is pretty flawed anyway.

I'm just curious, but what are your views on race?

Im NOT a racist, in the way Neo-Nazi 'Skinhead' groups are.

Im a racialist, that means I consider race to be the MAIN basis for the organisation of a social unit, but that all races a equal with DIFFERENCES.

Each race is different, by their common background, their heritage and culture and their evolution.

Thus each race needs it's own nation.

I am opposed to fake nations which fail to reflect the racial composition of the area of land they occupy. Many artificial nations were creations of the old Empires of Europe that ruled Africa.

In 1994, when aparthied collapsed, some Black Africans and some White Boer nationalists argued for the dissolution of the Republic of South Africa.

If that were done, South Africa would become 30 or so ethnically pure nations, rather than the now poverty ridden, democratic mixed race society it has become.

The ANC and Nelson Mandela only really represented the majority Black race (Xhosas) of the many black races in South Africa.

The Zulus want their own nation, for Zulu society is organised with a nobility and a Royal Family.

Im English and I support the abolition of the United Kingdom for an Independent State of England with freedom for the Scottish and Welsh Nations.

I also would like to see a reversal of the Norman (French) domination of our culture and of the English Nation.

I would seek a return to the Anglo-Saxon English Kingdom that existed before October 1066.

What about the most basic, the right to life? I'd put that on top. Next I think would be the right to liberty and security.

Maybe I should put it like this:

Personal rights - The right to life, liberty and security.
Political rights - freedom of speech, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, etc
Sosial and economic rights - property rights etc

In that order...

In 1994, when aparthied collapsed, some Black Africans and some White Boer nationalists argued for the dissolution of the Republic of South Africa.

If that were done, South Africa would become 30 or so ethnically pure nations, rather than the now poverty ridden, democratic mixed race society it has become.

The ANC and Nelson Mandela only really represented the majority Black race (Xhosas) of the many black races in South Africa.

The Zulus want their own nation, for Zulu society is organised with a nobility and a Royal Family.

Whilst I agree with you on that there should be the right to secede from the current Republic, being South African myself, I will however note to you that it is not poverty ridden. At least not entirely. There is still a wealthy upper class. However, I am dismayed at what is going on there. Things are improving, albeit slightly.

In any case, I think you confuse race for culture. Races, in a biological sense, do not exist. Cultures, however, do and they tend to differ.

Maybe I should put it like this:
freedom of speech


Even if you incite hatred or cause riots and crime?

To me the very concept that governments grant human rights is completely absurd. Human rights are something you are born with and the value of a government is judged by the ones they protect and refrain from taking away.

Even if you incite hatred or cause riots and crime?
I have not claimed that freedom of speech is an absolute value. There must be limitations, but it's still an important human right.

A resentment for authority? No one really has a real right to rule over you. Any such right is artificial.

The resentment for authority is far from universal, and considering the generally accepted form of human rights is, I don't think that is ample justification.

The resentment for authority is far from universal, and considering the generally accepted form of human rights is, I don't think that is ample justification.
Generally accepted means nothing when it comes to individual rights. Authority to which you do not consent should have no power over you in theory. Otherwise it infringes upon your liberty.

I have not claimed that freedom of speech is an absolute value. There must be limitations, but it's still an important human right.
One such limitation being that it should not violate the liberty of other humans?

To me the very concept that governments grant human rights is completely absurd. Human rights are something you are born with and the value of a government is judged by the ones they protect and refrain from taking away.

It depends on your definition of human rights. There are many positive rights supported by different definitions that are not present in nature. Healthcare is one major example, civil rights are another.

Even by your definition, how are rights weighted in deciding what rights society will protect?

I have not claimed that freedom of speech is an absolute value. There must be limitations, but it's still an important human right.

so we've established that you don't have a RIGHT to freedom of speech, unchecked and unlimited. Or are human rights only applied when it's practical?

The fact is, amigos, human rights is just a phrase and have zero value as they're so subjective.

Think about it:
"the contents of list x are my human rights and I was born with them, you can only violate them and not take them away"

"the contents of list y are my human rights and I was born with them, you can only violate them and not take them away"

the extent of the truth behind each statement is subjective, human rights are unquantifiable to the point of meaninglessness.

Generally accepted means nothing when it comes to individual rights. Authority to which you do not consent should have no power over you in theory. Otherwise it infringes upon your liberty.

You are begging the question. You justified the right to liberty with the right to liberty.

I am also not arguing with you, just picking your brain, so whatever you do, don't get defensive.

You are begging the question. You justified the right to liberty with the right to liberty.

I am also not arguing with you, just picking your brain, so whatever you do, don't get defensive.
Generally, authority is a right to power over you that you have conceded and are willing to abide by. Usually obedience to this doctrine is assumed. If, however, you do not concede to it, this authority technically loses any validity it had formerly.

And don't worry, I'm not on defensive. I am just trying to get round your question.

Generally, authority is a right to power over you that you have conceded and are willing to abide by. Usually obedience to this doctrine is assumed. If, however, you do not concede to it, this authority technically loses any validity it had formerly.

The key is, however, what gives one the right to refuse authority. And furthermore, how to make that universal.

And don't worry, I'm not on defensive. I am just trying to get round your question.

There seems to be a tendency of posters to treat someone as an opponent on NS, just trying to avoid that.

The key is, however, what gives one the right to refuse authority. And furthermore, how to make that universal.
To be honest, I am not that well-read on this. I think it ties with existentialism, as well as individualism vs collectivism. Nor have I put that much thought into the issue as of yet. Maybe when I get through Sartre and Nietzsche I'll be more able to answer.

There seems to be a tendency of posters to treat someone as an opponent on NS, just trying to avoid that.
I know, it annoys me. I'd let you know if I was treating you as such. :)

It depends on your definition of human rights. There are many positive rights supported by different definitions that are not present in nature. Healthcare is one major example, civil rights are another.

Even by your definition, how are rights weighted in deciding what rights society will protect?

Defining entitlements as human rights would tend to confuse anyone as they are in no way related. Human rights are very basic and universal across all people. They include such things as the right to life, the freedom to choose ones own direction, beliefs etc. Human rights do not include such obligations on anyone to provide free heathcare or any of the other entitlements or arbitrary social engineering adjustments that so proudly tread on one groups rights in favor of another.
There should be no greater weight given to any paticular inherient individual right as they must be protected unconditionally for each and every individual. If this is done on an individual basis then the rights of all are automatically covered. The problem is, that governments being the cruel master that they are, do, have and will extend their divinity far beyond what is their proper place.

To be honest, I am not that well-read on this. I think it ties with existentialism, as well as individualism vs collectivism. Nor have I put that much thought into the issue as of yet. Maybe when I get through Sartre and Nietzsche I'll be more able to answer.

From what I understand, Sartre should help a great deal.

I don't know if individualism vs collectivism matters much, as both are different ideologies attempting much the same result. At least for the most part.

First of, to clarify, my list is based on what I perceive as "Western human rights", based on democracies. The universal human rights would be slightly different, as would probably list of human rights based on other (i.e. non-western) values. No matter...

One such limitation being that it should not violate the liberty of other humans?
Sort of, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "liberty" in this case.

so we've established that you don't have a RIGHT to freedom of speech, unchecked and unlimited. Or are human rights only applied when it's practical?
Rights and responsibilities. You do initially have an unlimited freedom of speech, but because you can use that freedom to cause harm to others, limits are imposed. The question is where the lines are drawn and where they should be drawn.

If you look at my previous post, my idea is that the further down on the list you get, the easier is it to impose limitations. For example, the right to life is virtually absolute, while the economic rights are easier to regulate and impose limits on.


The fact is, amigos, human rights is just a phrase and have zero value as they're so subjective.

Think about it:
"the contents of list x are my human rights and I was born with them, you can only violate them and not take them away"

"the contents of list y are my human rights and I was born with them, you can only violate them and not take them away"

the extent of the truth behind each statement is subjective, human rights are unquantifiable to the point of meaninglessness.
I disagree. I believe that at least the most basic (the right to life and such) are universal and objective.

From what I understand, Sartre should help a great deal.
Yes. I am currently attempting Being and Nothingness, which is opus magnus on existentialism.

I don't know if individualism vs collectivism matters much, as both are different ideologies attempting much the same result. At least for the most part.
I think the one tries to disprove the other's validity. Not sure if they are fully fledged philosophical theories though.

Sort of, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "liberty" in this case.

Basically anything which would interfere with a person's raison d'etre, such as physical harm, being killed, having their property taken from them and so on.

A basic human right is that to live. It gets more complicated you delve deeper into this, but suffice to say that I believe that abortion is right (1, it tends to save more lives anyway and 2, it makes for a more open and freer society) and that the death penalty is wrong (1, more death penalties usually equal more crime and 2, a fully developed and educated person most certainly has the basic right to live, if humans have that basic right at all).

Other human rights, though not necessarily basic, but certainly desired are:
Self-determination (therefore, a right to vote, freedom of religion and freedom of expression).
Free Education (not a basic right per say, but definitely one that pushes for a better society. Especially vital if education is hard to get privately.)

And to those who say freedom of speech causes riot, who has more of a basic right? Those practicing a right to express themselves through violent words or those practicing a right to express themselves through violent actions?

To me, violent words will always be better than violent action. People can bark as much as they want, but biting is not to be tolerated.

Im a racialist, that means I consider race to be the MAIN basis for the organisation of a social unit, but that all races a equal with DIFFERENCES.

Each race is different, by their common background, their heritage and culture and their evolution.

If that were done, South Africa would become 30 or so ethnically pure nations, rather than the now poverty ridden, democratic mixed race society it has become.

I also would like to see a reversal of the Norman (French) domination of our culture and of the English Nation.

I would seek a return to the Anglo-Saxon English Kingdom that existed before October 1066.

You are aware there are more differences within a race than between races? Genetically speaking? You are also aware that it is perfectly possible for cultures to blend together, meaning they have the same history and culture?

You are also aware, I hope, that those 30 ethnically pure states would Still be poverty ridden and probably with more warfare going on?

You are also aware that english is pretty much a mixture of french, germanic and scandinavian influences along with the locals of course? Either way, most of the french influence came long after england was invaded.

I disagree. I believe that at least the most basic (the right to life and such) are universal and objective.

I disagree, and in doing so, prove my point about subjectivity

Basically anything which would interfere with a person's raison d'etre, such as physical harm, being killed, having their property taken from them and so on.
Ok, then I don't agree with you quite so much. I don't think you for example should limit freedom of speech due to property rights. There is a huge difference between someone threatening to kill me and someone threatening to take my house away.

But I agree with the physical harm-part.

Defining entitlements as human rights would tend to confuse anyone as they are in no way related. Human rights are very basic and universal across all people. They include such things as the right to life, the freedom to choose ones own direction, beliefs etc. Human rights do not include such obligations on anyone to provide free heathcare or any of the other entitlements or arbitrary social engineering adjustments that so proudly tread on one groups rights in favor of another.

Surely healthcare can be construed as being necessary for choosing one's own direction and certainly necessary for the right to life. Furthermore, by being considered a universal human right, healthcare would be applied universally, and not just to specific groups.

There should be no greater weight given to any paticular inherient individual right as they must be protected unconditionally for each and every individual. If this is done on an individual basis then the rights of all are automatically covered. The problem is, that governments being the cruel master that they are, do, have and will extend their divinity far beyond what is their proper place.

There are obvious conflicts between natural rights, for example liberty and property rights.

Ok, then I don't agree with you quite so much. I don't think you for example should limit freedom of speech due to property rights. There is a huge difference between someone threatening to kill me and someone threatening to take my house away.
Even if your property secures your financial viability?

Right to live
Right to liberty/self-determination
Right to free thought, free speech, free religion
Right to property
Right to equal representation and equal power in matters concerning one's own life
Right not to be tyrannized by the majority, in matters not concerning the majority

I would say it's a marginal cost/benefit problem, really. The amount of benefit/cost would be directly related to the society itself, which helps explain why a right in one country may not be beneficial to another of a different degree of social freedom and culture.

Increasing human rights is an objective goal for me because more human rights when implemented in a society able to balance their effects increases the ability of that society to allocate its various resources be they physical, intellectual, or human. It really boils down to economic scarcity in many ways.

Generally, the freer the society, the more efficent these systems are and the better the system works. However, societies that have too much freedom relative to their ability to manage cost/benefit see these systems decline and recede rather than improve; this explains the situation in Somalia or Liberia, where a state of anarchy exists and yet people are badly repressed/deprived by the breakdown of social order.

Is there any way to define an objective value for human rights?

No, because human rights assumes a universal objective of respecting human rights (and, practically, of respecting that particular version of human rights.)

Since there is no such universal objective, the value of human rights will always be subjective, depending on one's personal objectives.

If you must rank or prioritise human rights, how would you do it.

1. Right to equal treatment - the elimination of arbitrary systems of privilege, and thus implying a right to collective sovereignty and non-hierarchy
2. Right to consent/individual sovereignty - the right to control what effects you and only you; slightly broadened, the right of two or more individuals to, through unanimous consent, to control what effects them and nobody else.

All the others are elements of those two.

Even if your property secures your financial viability?
Yes, I do believe so. Again, I stick to my list where economic rights are ranked behind political rights. Only when your political rights are secure would you be in a position to enjoy your economic rights, because otherwise they would both be insecure. Picture a kind of pyramid, where the right to personal security forms the base, the political rights form the next step and onwards.

In a democracy, there may be compelling reasons for the removal of property from prvate ownership. Outside of a democracy, there needs not be any reasons. And a democracy is only functioning when freedom of speech is restricted as little as possible (when it comes to political discourse, at least). I believe it would be problematic if you limited freedom of speech concerning property rights.

And besides, if anybody really takes your property you should recieve a fair compensation, so it's not something to be too scared of in the western world.

(I hope I make myself clear, I'm a bit tired - it's been a long day :) )

Outside of a democracy, there needs not be any reasons.
Meaning? I understand what you say as it applies to a democracy, but outside it's a different story entirely.

Surely healthcare can be construed as being necessary for choosing one's own direction and certainly necessary for the right to life. Furthermore, by being considered a universal human right, healthcare would be applied universally, and not just to specific groups.



There are obvious conflicts between natural rights, for example liberty and property rights.

It sounds good, and many agree that it is a very noble cause, but there simply is no way to tie universal heathcare into basic human rights. One cannot simply declare a governmental endorsed and enforced entitlement as an inherient right applicalble to all people if for no other reason than, in order to accomplish their goal they must forceably take money from some to provide the "service" to others.
Our (yours and mine) basic human rights do not include the right to have anything provided for you, short of that which your parents are obligated to provide until such time we can survive and thrive on our own. It sounds cruel to us now, but to many it is all they could ever dream of. Think of the right to life as the right not to be killed simply because someone doesn't want you to live.
The freedom to choose ones direction does not include protection from the consequences of that choice should you choose unwisely. Basic human rights are nothing more than the right to play the hand with which we are delt in life. Anything else is an entitlement based on the generosity of others, and usually in the long term for the benefit of others.

Meaning? I understand what you say as it applies to a democracy, but outside it's a different story entirely.
That's an extremely poor sentence to boot - Sorry about that... I think I was trying to say the same as above, namely
Only when your political rights are secure would you be in a position to enjoy your economic rights

That's an extremely poor sentence to boot - Sorry about that... I think I was trying to say the same as above, namely
No problem. I thought you meant a situation of anarchy, in which case property rights would be sacrosanct.

No problem. I thought you meant a situation of anarchy, in which case property rights would be sacrosanct.
Would it? With no set laws or property rights, and without any authority to back up claims of ownership? And if so, it isn't because it's regarded as a human right, is it?
Well, I'm off for a few hours of sleep, but feel free to respond anyway - I'd like to know your thoughts on this...

Would it? With no set laws or property rights, and without any authority to back up claims of ownership? And if so, it isn't because it's regarded as a human right, is it?
Well, I'm off for a few hours of sleep, but feel free to respond anyway - I'd like to know your thoughts on this...
It would depend on the kind of anarchy. In the case of anarcho-capitalism, yes private property is sacrosanct. To the point that defending it through force is seen as legitimate. Protection of the right to property would exist in the form of private providers of law and order, such as insurance agencies serving in an extended capacity. Historically, stateless societies have not lacked protection and security.

It is not a human right, but as it is vital in establishing financial success, it is nearly equiparated to one. Property ownership would continue to change via contractual exchanges and so on.

I believe that there is an objective set of human rights, however I don't believe that it's possible to objectively prove it.

My ranking:
1. The right to life/The right to live. These both go together. The right to live means the right to the things which are required to sustain life, based upon the principle that a right is useless without the ability to exercise it.
2a. Freedom of thought
2b. Freedom of expression. These two go together also, but I'd view thought as ever so slightly more important than expression. Expression includes the freedoms of speech, religion, press, and the right to vote.
3. The right to use (use, not own) property, most especially for the fulfillment of the above rights.

There are probably more, and I will add them if need be.

This thread is interesting, so I shall BUMP it.

I believe that there is an objective set of human rights, however I don't believe that it's possible to objectively prove it.

I would agree that there exists a correct balance of rights and that would be impossible to prove it. I do believe the correct way to find it is to remove all subjective valuations from it.

Only those that are universal truly apply.

1. The right to life/The right to live. These both go together. The right to live means the right to the things which are required to sustain life, based upon the principle that a right is useless without the ability to exercise it.

I would just like to point out that a right is non-existent without the ability to use it. But, outside of just splitting hairs, I agree with you.

3. The right to use (use, not own) property, most especially for the fulfillment of the above rights.

There is a problem here, as usage and ownage are closely linked. Most ownership is simply the reservation to use, and collective property does nothing to guarantee usage.

I would imagine that you would have to answer that for yourself, at least if you are to answer the question. "Human Right" is a concept with a very open-ended definition.

For me, there is pretty much one base right, the right to liberty. All other rights extend from that

Liberty is not a right. Liberty and rights are two different things.

Example ... animals are grazing in a field. They are at liberty to eat the grass, but they do not have a right to do so (as in they get to do it, and can exclude others).

For me, there is pretty much one base right, the right to liberty. All other rights extend from that
Problem is, that's just so fucking vague. Liberty means a different thing to everyone.

I prefer specifics:

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

This has absolutely no rational foothold, even if you assume the existence of a interventionary God. If rights are granted by divinity, how are we, as imperfect mortals, to interpret them and carry them out.
He said that opposes the enlightenment. Rationalism came from the Enlightenment. Thus he opposes rationalism.

To me the very concept that governments grant human rights is completely absurd. Human rights are something you are born with and the value of a government is judged by the ones they protect and refrain from taking away.
How can one be naturally born with any rights? I don't understand that. Nature doesn't even give you a right to live, do you think that government should not protect that?

Basic human rights are nothing more than the right to play the hand with which we are dealt in life.
What does this mean?

No problem. I thought you meant a situation of anarchy, in which case property rights would be sacrosanct.
Without government there can be no private property rights. It would only be a matter of taking whatever you were strong enough to fight for (i.e. whatever you could loot).

Liberty is not a right. Liberty and rights are two different things.

Example ... animals are grazing in a field. They are at liberty to eat the grass, but they do not have a right to do so (as in they get to do it, and can exclude others).

Rights are not solely claimant in nature. Many rights are LIBERTY rights, in which your freedom of action and thought are unimpugned.

How can one be naturally born with any rights? I don't understand that. Nature doesn't even give you a right to live, do you think that government should not protect that?

Nature gives us, by our mere existence, the right to live. However, nature didn't give its other inhabitants the reason that is required to understand the necessity of an exchange of rights, and are more than willing to take you rights.

What you wish to think is that all rights are inviolable, but natural rights are not. Even if nature allows you to die, it, throughout every moment of your existence, has provided you with the right to live.

Human rights are overrated. Certian people can not be afforded human rights.

Problem is, that's just so fucking vague. Liberty means a different thing to everyone.

How about this, freedom of experience, autonomy in existence. All rights are based on the maxim that all we can truly value is our experience, our existence. We should be allowed the basic human rights that allow us to freely exist.

He said that opposes the enlightenment. Rationalism came from the Enlightenment. Thus he opposes rationalism.

You may oppose rationalism, but there must come a point where simple logic must weigh in on your beliefs.

So, does anyone have an opinion on explaining human rights in terms of an economizing problem?

Is there any way to define an objective value for human rights?

Most will agree that the government has an obligation to protect and provide human rights, but there is a wide array of opinions about what rights it should protect and provide. It is quite obvious that the government cannot provide all things for all people, so it must choose and prioritise the rights it can provide.

This leads to a more specific question:

If you must rank or prioritise human rights, how would you do it.


For some added fun, let's try and keep this on the discussion level, not full on debate. Let's see some concessions you mule-headed jerks.

I question the very premise of this post: that the government "provides" human rights. Totally backwards, buddy. The government and society take rights away, or rather, citizens willingly (theoretically) give up certain rights to their government. That's the whole point of human rights: their source is the state of personhood, not the government's forebearance. The limit or prioritization comes with what rights the government limits or removes, not what rights they supposedly 'give'.

Right to liveDeath penalty mean anything to you?
Or do criminals have no rights? I am all for the death penalty, I'm just merely pointing out the fallacy of that statement.

I would seek a return to the Anglo-Saxon English Kingdom that existed before October 1066.

Humanity worked too damn hard to get out of that nightmare...We need not revert back to that time.

So, does anyone have an opinion on explaining human rights in terms of an economizing problem?

What do you mean?

I question the very premise of this post: that the government "provides" human rights. Totally backwards, buddy. The government and society take rights away, or rather, citizens willingly (theoretically) give up certain rights to their government. That's the whole point of human rights: their source is the state of personhood, not the government's forebearance. The limit or prioritization comes with what rights the government limits or removes, not what rights they supposedly 'give'.

Society can make rights inalienable, society can create positive rights. Agree with it or not, there are concepts of positive rights to health, education, and housing.

I would agree that there exists a correct balance of rights and that would be impossible to prove it. I do believe the correct way to find it is to remove all subjective valuations from it.

Only those that are universal truly apply.How would you go about removing all subjective valuations from it?

I would just like to point out that a right is non-existent without the ability to use it. But, outside of just splitting hairs, I agree with you.Well, I would agree, but there are plenty of people who talk about the rights to do or have something but say nothing about how people would have the ability to do or have something (such as property).

There is a problem here, as usage and ownage are closely linked. Most ownership is simply the reservation to use, and collective property does nothing to guarantee usage.I agree with the second part of the statement, that collective property in itself does nothing to guarantee usage, but I don't agree with the first, although you did say "most ownership", which takes care of most of my objection.

Human rights are overrated. Certian people can not be afforded human rights.
And that kind of thinking is the reason we have human rights today. Or rather, to combat that kind of thinking...

Human Rights:

The fundamental individual Freedoms that are necessary for the maintenance of a Free and Democratic Society.


First and foremost: Freedom of Speech.
Definetely not to be included: Freedom of Religion.
Whenever Religion interferes with the working of a Free and Democratic Society ( example, if a religious group tries to get its members of the hook of simply complying with majority decisions ), Religion should be curtailed as necessary.
Undeniably: Freedom to hate.

No positive rights whatsoever - merely a list of non-interference-clauses.

These rights should be granted as necessary for the function of a Free and Democratic Society.

How would you go about removing all subjective valuations from it?

Base human rights on objective maxims.

Base human rights on objective maxims.I suppose that could work. I don't think I saw your list of what human rights should be... (So I can get an idea of what you believe objective maxims are.)

I suppose that could work. I don't think I saw your list of what human rights should be... (So I can get an idea of what you believe objective maxims are.)

I based human rights on liberty. I base liberty on the value of human existence.

It is very, very vague, I must admit.

I based human rights on liberty. I base liberty on the value of human existence.

It is very, very vague, I must admit.That's true, I do remember seeing that. Could you be more specific?

That's true, I do remember seeing that. Could you be more specific?

The only thing that we know we all can value is existence. Once we get beyond that we have subjective valuations based on personal biases.

Therefore, I believe ever person should have the freedom to extend and enjoy their own existence. That requires autonomy, liberty.

Liberty rights would include:

Right to Life
Right to Thought
Right to Expression
Right to Movement
Right to Information
Right to Labor
(others that I have failed to think of)

Notice that rights to property and political input are not included. However, political rights are included as well, as they are required for the protection of the other rights. Property rights are largely included as a protection for labor rights.

Another interesting one would be healthcare rights. In one hand there it is a key factor in the right to life and extension of existence. On another hand it tends to go against the right labor.

The only thing that we know we all can value is existence. Once we get beyond that we have subjective valuations based on personal biases.Yes, that's part of the reason I asked you to explain. I mean, there are positive liberties and negative liberties, though you seem to have struck a delicate balance between them.

Nature gives us, by our mere existence, the right to live.
I disagree. You get to be born, but there's nothing in nature that stops you dying or being killed soon after birth.

Human rights are overrated. Certian people can not be afforded human rights.
Then they're not human rights, they're civil rights. All humans have human rights.

How about this, freedom of experience, autonomy in existence. All rights are based on the maxim that all we can truly value is our experience, our existence. We should be allowed the basic human rights that allow us to freely exist.
So we should have the right to live? I agree. That means the right to continue living without being killed (which is not given by nature) until we die of disease or old age.

You may oppose rationalism, but there must come a point where simple logic must weigh in on your beliefs.
Under the 'street' definition of "rationalism", it is equated with logic. Rationalism =/= logic. I like logic, and I think rationalism is too often inappropriately applied.

I question the very premise of this post: that the government "provides" human rights. Totally backwards, buddy. The government and society take rights away, or rather, citizens willingly (theoretically) give up certain rights to their government.
In reality, rights are given by the government. You rights can't be taken away if you never had them in the first place.

I disagree. You get to be born, but there's nothing in nature that stops you dying or being killed soon after birth.

It doesn't give you an inviolable right to live, it only gives you a right to life. Nothing about giving a right to life implies protection of the right to life.

So we should have the right to live? I agree. That means the right to continue living without being killed (which is not given by nature) until we die of disease or old age.

Yes, basic human rights should be protected by government, as they cannot be granted.

The government cannot grant us life, it can only prevent others from taking it. The government cannot give us the ability to speak, it can only protect us when we do it.

Under the 'street' definition of "rationalism", it is equated with logic. Rationalism =/= logic. I like logic, and I think rationalism is too often inappropriately applied.

I understand that. By that comment I meant that you can oppose rationalism, but you at least have to be logical, meaning that they are not the same thing.

Is there any way to define an objective value for human rights?

Most will agree that the government has an obligation to protect and provide human rights, but there is a wide array of opinions about what rights it should protect and provide. It is quite obvious that the government cannot provide all things for all people, so it must choose and prioritise the rights it can provide.

This leads to a more specific question:

If you must rank or prioritise human rights, how would you do it.


For some added fun, let's try and keep this on the discussion level, not full on debate. Let's see some concessions you mule-headed jerks.


The primary right is the right to life, because it is life that people naturally seek to preserve. If someone tried to deprive you of your life, it would be both natural and fully rational to seek to preserve it.

Following from this right is two closely subordinate rights: liberty and property (properly understood). The right to liberty is implicit in the right to life because depriving a person of their liberty puts them in a position where they are effectively unable to engage in the natural function of preserving their life. For example, it would be difficult to suggest that I have a natural right to life but claim that I had no right to avoid being permanently shackled in a cellar, because such a condition places my continued survival purely in the hands of another's whims. The right to property (properly understood) is also implicit in the right to life, because it makes little sense to suggest that a person has a natural right to preserve his life but in the same breath argue that he has no right to eat. Following from their natural right to life, all men are by nature entitled to sufficient goods produced by nature and man to survive.

Now, it is of course obvious that any society isn't going to be able to perfectly balance rights, for two basic reasons. First, any society is necessarily going to abridge rights to property and liberty, and it will do so unequally by necessity: there are only certain ways a road can pass over a mountain, for instance, and if you own that property and the society needs the road, then necessarily your liberty and property will be infringed upon by societal need more so than if your land is nowhere near where a road must exist.

A just society, however, is one that constructs its rules and implements them in a way that self-interested rational people constructing a society would say is fair. If, for instance, a disinterested group of people were to discuss possible laws for a possible society, and they were to construct a road-building law in such a way as all rational people would agree is fair to the aggrieved party (for instance, by compensating the person for the value of his land and only engaging in road-building as necessary), then we could call such a law just.

I do not believe there is such a thing as a 'human right'.

The very concepts of most of the 'rights' people are discussing are fairly recent inventions of modern society. They are therefore not human rights.

Being born does not entitle you to anything.
The society in which you live can grant you such concepts, but they are not inherent in you being a member of the species.

If you ask people who live in the US or EU what are the inalienable rights of man, then ask some members of an isolated tribe in the Amazon, some African tribesmen, some diehard communist in Beijing, and wherever else, you will likely get different answers.

Rights are not something inherent in being alive, they are constructs of the society in which you live, which have been developed as some rules for that society to sustain itself.

I do not believe there is such a thing as a 'human right'.Fair enough.
The very concepts of most of the 'rights' people are discussing are fairly recent inventions of modern society. They are therefore not human rights.Simply because modern society is the first to recognize them as rights does not mean the rights weren't there before, and simply unrecognized.
Being born does not entitle you to anything.
The society in which you live can grant you such concepts, but they are not inherent in you being a member of the species.Why not?
If you ask people who live in the US or EU what are the inalienable rights of man, then ask some members of an isolated tribe in the Amazon, some African tribesmen, some diehard communist in Beijing, and wherever else, you will likely get different answers.This doesn't mean that there are no human rights, but that humans have different ideas of what human rights are, or should be.
Rights are not something inherent in being alive, they are constructs of the society in which you live, which have been developed as some rules for that society to sustain itself.Perhaps, it's an interesting theory. I don't agree for various reasons, but at this point I can't disprove it.

I do not believe there is such a thing as a 'human right'.

The very concepts of most of the 'rights' people are discussing are fairly recent inventions of modern society. They are therefore not human rights.

The concept of gravity is just about as old as the concept of rights. Locke was a peer of Newton.

Does that mean gravity is a "fairly recent invention of modern society?"

You can argue the definition of rights, what rights are, what rights do, but you can hardly say that rights do not exist.

Being born does not entitle you to anything.
The society in which you live can grant you such concepts, but they are not inherent in you being a member of the species.

Existence is your only true entitlement, as long as there is a "you", you have the right to exist.

If you ask people who live in the US or EU what are the inalienable rights of man, then ask some members of an isolated tribe in the Amazon, some African tribesmen, some diehard communist in Beijing, and wherever else, you will likely get different answers.

That is hardly a detraction from the existence of rights. For one thing, our rights are not inalienable. If you were lucky enough to live in a liberal country, the government may attempt to make your rights inalienable, but they cannot do it perfectly.

But more to the point, the subjective opinion of human rights does not mean they do not exist.

Rights are not something inherent in being alive, they are constructs of the society in which you live, which have been developed as some rules for that society to sustain itself.

Rights pre-existed society. Their collective protection did not. Society was largely an attempt by man to escape the state of nature. A man in the state of nature had complete rights, bound only be the laws of nature, but he didn't know if he would have any when he woke up in the morning. As a result, he rationally decided to trade in some of those rights for the greater chance that he would maintain the rights that he truly wanted.

Rights don't exist to maintain society, society exists to maintain rights.

Society can make rights inalienable, society can create positive rights. Agree with it or not, there are concepts of positive rights to health, education, and housing.

Society cannnot "create" rights, does not make true rights inalienable, etc. Rights exist as rationally derived from logical principles and the nature of man, and are inalienable by definition. So-called "positive economic rights" are not rights at all; they're privileges, falsely called rights, instituted by the government at the expense of true, personal rights.

Society cannnot "create" rights, does not make true rights inalienable, etc. Rights exist as rationally derived from logical principles and the nature of man, and are inalienable by definition. So-called "positive economic rights" are not rights at all; they're privileges, falsely called rights, instituted by the government at the expense of true, personal rights.

You cannot possibly argue that all rights are natural and inalienable.

EDIT: For example, prove the inalienability of property rights.

What are human rights to me? Doing whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else either directly or indirectly. With that, I leave the definition of 'harm' open for interpretation.

What are human rights to me? Doing whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else either directly or indirectly. With that, I leave the definition of 'harm' open for interpretation.I suppose that's the problem. Most people seem to have that concept of human rights, but with very different ideas of what harm is.

All you have a right to is to attempt to defend what you think is yours.

Anything else comes from how well you can do that, whether that be by physical, mental, or social means.

This becomes clear in times of scarcity. The classic example is two people on a life-boat, food enough for one. Is the survivor in the wrong for violating the other person's rights? Let's make it more interesting, one of the people is a renowned doctor on his way to curing cancer. The other is a petty criminal. Do the rights of either in this situation change?

Liberty? If there was truly a right to liberty, then everybody would have the liberty to live off the fruits of the land. However this is impossible because it is a scarce resource. In Western society, we give the liberty to first-come, first served. For a long while, this liberty was given to blood-lines instead. For time before that, this liberty was given to he with the largest tribe. In future, we may decide to give it to the person who would create the most value for society from it. It's completely arbitrary. Since it is arbitrary, there is no "objective" value you can apply to it.

What about personal liberty, to do what you want, so long as it doesn't interfere with others. What's interference? If you wind up smelling my pot, is that interference? If I hear your party, is that interference? What if the building is particularly bad, and you hear me having sex? Perhaps the plumbing is bad, and when I flush the toilet, your toilet burbles and you smell what I've done. Which one of us should be made to fix our toilet? Or should I just be required not to flush, as clean air is a limited resource, and I violate your right to it when I take it away.

The only "objective" right that exists is the right to attempt to defend what you think is yours.

Astraeus']Define human rights.

I would define "human rights" as "those immunities fundamental to the concept of human dignity."

I suspect that the term "fundamental" restricts my list somewhat more than most.

Is there any way to define an objective value for human rights?

If you must rank or prioritise human rights, how would you do it.
Um ... by letting the people decide for themselves as body politic which rights are most worthy of support and what their various rankings should be? Just a silly thought. :rolleyes:

freedom of speech
Applying the "fundamental to the concept of human dignity" test, I would respectfully disagree.

While I think that freedom of speech is an important political right in a liberal society, and I would not choose to live in a society lacking in freedom of speech, I do not think that such a freedom is so fundamental to what it means to be human that a government violates "human rights" when it infringes the freedom of speech.

I do believe that some freedom of conscience is so fundamental, because having moral free will is a part of what makes us human. But I can have freedom of conscience without having the freedom to publicize my views.

freedom of religion

I'll agree to this under the broader term, "freedom of conscience."

private property

No. Or yes, with qualification.

There have been and are many human societies (e.g primitive communists) who persist without "private" property in the sense we know it in capitalist countries today. That is, private property in land and other resources having a "public nature." Since I do not believe that these societies degrade human dignity in any way--certainly so far as they encompass long traditions with full (internal) popular support--I would not insult them by claiming that they violate a human right.

On the other hand, all cultures in all times have had personal possessions, items belonging to individuals and making up part of their personal space. I do think it violates human rights to deprive people of such possessions without due process... but, I think this falls under the right to "privacy" below.

right to privacy

Yes. I believe it is fundamental to human dignity that individuals are accorded some sphere of personal autonomy and privacy. (But the proper extent of this sphere would be difficult to determine in the abstract. I think it depends on the customs of the society.)

no cruel or unusual punishment

Sure, but again it may depend on the customs of the society to determine what is "cruel and unusual."

For me, there is pretty much one base right, the right to liberty.

Liberty from what/to do what?

This is almost identical to the question "what is a human right?" Thus, it does not answer the question, it merely restates it.

Which would be liberty. All of that is liberty.

Yes, which just goes to show that "liberty" in the abstract is a rather meaningless term. As soon as you attempt to answer the question "liberty from what?" or "liberty to do what?" you need to give a more detailed explanation of what you consider to be protected rights. And you could have done this without using the term "liberty" (as an abstract) at all.

This is why every real right can be stated as "liberty to" or "liberty from" (or, equivalently, involves "freedom").

But the question is why, what is the justification for an essential right to liberty? Why does it carry so much weight?

It carries so much "weight" because it says whatever you want it to say. Virtually everyone can agree to a "right to liberty," so long as they are not constrained to discuss what kind of liberty.

There are many positive rights supported by different definitions that are not present in nature. Healthcare is one major example, civil rights are another.

As far as positive rights such as healthcare, I would fit them under the "fundamental to the concept of human dignity standard" with the proviso that the right is only violated when governments "unreasonably or arbitrarily deny" such rights.

In other words, a country that clearly cannot afford healthcare, or which has pressing concerns (for instance, internal stability and security) that preclude offering healthcare, should not be accused of a "violation of human rights" for failing ro provide healthcare.

If, however, a government has the resources and every opportunity to provide healthcare to its citizens, but it fails to do so... then I would say they "unreasonably" deny services that are fundamental to human dignity--human dignity being read to include freedom from unnecessary suffering. (You see how the "unnecessary" suffering and the "unreasonable" denial go together.)

The fact is, amigos, human rights is just a phrase and have zero value as they're so subjective.

This is precisely why simply providing "lists" is pointless. If you want to get anywhere, you need to describe what standard unifies your list. What makes something a human right?

For me, human rights are "fundamental to the concept of human dignity."

Now, obviously subjective judgments will still intrude on deliberations over this standard. Indeed, words do not exist which are wholly unambiguous. However, if we agree to a standard in theory, then we at least have something around which to structure out debates, a set of shared meanings with which to find consensus.

Of course, feel free to disagree with my standard. The point is merely that if you want to make progress, you need a standard first, lists second.

You are begging the question. You justified the right to liberty with the right to liberty.

This is not far from the fact of the matter. In political theory, the concept of rights--of individual freedom as a matter of right--derives from an understanding of individuals as, in fact, morally autonomous.

Now, it is of course invalid to derive "ought" from "is"... but that is not exactly what happens. Rather, from the recognition that people are "naturally" free, it is argued that this freedom is unalienable: it cannot be freely relinquished to another.

Rousseau states the essential point in The Social Contract: "To say a man gives himself gratuitously is to say something absurd and inconceivable; such an act is illegitimate and null, for the simple reason that whoever does so is not in his right mind. To say the same of a whole people is to assume a people of madmen; madness does not make right."

Since autonomy cannot be freely transferred, the only other way in which absolute authority might be just is through some form of the "might makes right" argument. Probably you would be skeptical of this anyway, but for completeness I will offer Rousseau's critique:

"Let us assume this alleged right for a moment. I say that it can only result in an unintelligible muddle. For once force makes right, the effect changes together with the cause; every force that overcomes the first, inherits its right. Once one can disobey with impunity, one can do so legitimately, and since the stronger is always right, one need only make sure to be the stronger. But what is a right that perishes when force ceases? If one has to obey by force, one need not obey by duty, and if one is no longer forced to obey, one is no longer obliged to do so. Clearly, then, this word 'right' adds nothing to foce; it means nothing at all here."

Thus, the assumption of the "right" to liberty is buried in an assumption of human beings as "naturally free." To some extent, the logic underlying this right has been undermined by results in the social sciences demonstrating that people are not nearly so free as Enlightenment thinkers liked to believe.

I would argue that the only way out of this quandary lies through some version of German Idealism (which, through Kant, was inspired by Rousseau): the only philosophy of which I am aware that can reconcile the fact of our objective (deterministic) nature with the ideal of our moral freedom.

I bet you did not think it was so complicated?

;)

Generally, authority is a right to power over you that you have conceded and are willing to abide by.

"Generally" only because we live in a modern world that assumes individual moral autonomy.

If one rejects either a) the claim that human beings are morally free; or b) the claim that most people are morally competent to give "consent"--both of which are contestable claims--then it is possible to make an argument that authority derives from some source other than consent: wisdom, perhaps; or even some positive law.

The key is, however, what gives one the right to refuse authority.

"Authority" is a normative term that already contains its own limits.

To have "authority" is not the same as to have "power." One can be powerful without having any authority; likewise one can have great authority without having any power.

I don't know if individualism vs collectivism matters much, as both are different ideologies attempting much the same result. At least for the most part.

Well, it all depends on what kind of "individualism" and "collectivism" you are talking about. "Moral collectivism" would have little use for individual freedom of conscience.

Even if your property secures your financial viability?

Well, if it did that would make it a valuable positive right in societies in which it secures one's financial viability.

Some societies do not have private property (in the way we think of it). Clearly, private property does not "secure one's financial viability" in any universal sense.

Thus, Thomas Jefferson and his French contemporary Jean-Jacques Rousseau could consider property a positive (not a natural) right... and yet without contradiction call it the "most sacred right" in a market society. Rousseau's words, but Jefferson makes precisely the same point... in fact, Jefferson argued that property possession was so fundamental to freedom, any (adult male) citizen who did not have any should be given some by the state!

No, because human rights assumes a universal objective of respecting human rights

Since when? I have yet to discover a human end that assumes itself to be a universal objective. The very reason that some of us believe human rights need to be defended is that we are aware that there are those who disregard or abuse the notion.

If human rights were a "universal" objective, there would be no reason to talk about them.

Since there is no such universal objective, the value of human rights will always be subjective, depending on one's personal objectives.

The fact that people are bound to disagree on something does not preclude the possibility of an overlapping consensus. And in democratic societies, all we really need is a majority.

It sounds good, and many agree that it is a very noble cause, but there simply is no way to tie universal heathcare into basic human rights.

Sure there is.

Basic human right: freedom from unnecessary suffering.
Circumstance: government with ample means and opportunity to supply healthcare or healthcare related support.

For such a government to refuse to alleviate the suffering of their citizens when they have ample means and opportunity to do so would in fact be in violation of their right to freedom from unnecessary suffering.

Now, you may disagree on the logic of this argument--indeed, I expect you to. However, you must at least admit that it is plausible, i.e. that it is possible to understand how a reasonable person could be convinced by it. Thus, it is unrealistic to claim that there is "no way" to tie universal healthcare to the concept of basic human rights.

One cannot simply declare a governmental endorsed and enforced entitlement as an inherient right applicalble to all people if for no other reason than, in order to accomplish their goal they must forceably take money from some to provide the "service" to others.

In democratic government, at least, the "some" are taxpayers and members of the Sovereign authority. They are precisely the ones who violate human rights if they unreasonably refuse to offer assistance to those in need.

Basic human rights are nothing more than the right to play the hand with which we are delt in life.

Ah! At least you provide a standard, which is better than I can say for most other people. And obviously, our standards differ. My standard for human rights is "those immunities fundamental to the concept of human dignity." From this, I can argue that allowing fellow human beings to suffer and die when the means to prevent this situation are readily available is repugnant to the concept of human dignity.

I would argue that my standard is, in fact, better than yours... because I can justify it on the grounds that "human dignity" is a collective concern that affects us all. When we behave in a manner that degrades human dignity, we are only degrading ourselves.

How can one be naturally born with any rights? I don't understand that. Nature doesn't even give you a right to live, do you think that government should not protect that?

Well, in a theoretical sense my standard ("fundamental to the concept of human dignity") rests on the sense of shame.

When we behave in a way that degrades human dignity, we degrade ourselves as well: a healthy sense of shame opposes this kind of behavior.

The very concepts of most of the 'rights' people are discussing are fairly recent inventions of modern society. They are therefore not human rights.

Since the notion of human rights encompasses ideas about how we should treat other human beings, the fact that we have rarely done so is no argument against them. Nor is the fact that human rights are a recent "invention." So is, in a conceptual sense, the idea of "humanity."

The question is, once we come to regard others as having intrinsic value simply because they are human, what immunities does this value entail? what privileges?

This perspective of universal humanity may be "constructed" in a certain way, yes. But unless you want to propose an alternative construction (for which you would have to provide reasonable arguments if you expect anyone to agree), the question of "human rights" is relevant as a way of dealing with the moral construction of our world.

Personally, I would reject the UN's Fundamental Charter of Human Rights and introduce a flexible system, that adapted to the changing needs of the times. Like now, Gypsies and Asylum Seekers need to lose their rights and need t be transported ruthlessly and economically, basically fifty to a swan pedal paddle boat.

Maybe a more interesting question than the broadly theoretical one is this:

Assuming that a society obtains consensus on what it considers human rights, and that it has also resolved to abide by multicultural values in its relations with others, how does it reconcile the two?

When we encounter a culture that does not share our conception of human rights, are we in a position to "insist" on them? In what way? For the European/American West, does this mean forcing "Western" values on cultures where they do not belong?

Political theorist Drucilla Cornell has provided what I consider to be the best answer to date, in a book titled The Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, and Equality.

Cornell argues that while we cannot simply impose our Western values on other cultures, that does not mean we have to accept the dominant interpretation of another culture's values as controlling.

In other words, if we encounter a culture with practices we consider immoral or oppressive, and where there is a true cultural consensus within the society... then any claims we make to defend "human rights" against that culture are flimsy indeed. We may think that women in a particular society are "oppressed" through certain practices, but if they (the women) don't think so, then multiculturalism should be the controlling value.

On the other hand, if we find a society whose practices are at odds with our conception of "rights," and it turns out that there is resistance to these practices within this society, we are in a position to choose sides... and there is nothing about multicultural values that says we must accept one indigenous interpretation of that culture over another. Supposing that the oppression in question is that of men over women, if we accept the male patriarchal interpretation as "the" culture, then we are not making a neutral value-judgment: we are taking patriarchy for granted.

The key here is that we can behave in this way without "forcing" our "Western" values on anyone else. Women in a Muslim culture may resist certain practices, not for reasons we would recognize in Western philosophy, but through an alternative interpretation of the Koran, or identity in their own culture.

It it not up to us to tell other cultures what they should value or why. But when we are presented with an existing conflict, multiculturalism does not demand that we side with the (existing) winners.

Liberty from what/to do what?

This is almost identical to the question "what is a human right?" Thus, it does not answer the question, it merely restates it.

Autonomy, self-sufficiency, liberty to be Rousseau's "noble savage."

Autonomy, self-sufficiency, liberty to be Rousseau's "noble savage."

I know you don't care much for the thoughts of philosophers anyway, but just for the sake of accuracy I would not go too far with Rousseau's "noble savage." While it is true that he admired his image of the "savage," in his political philosophy he uses this more as a rhetorical device--an imaginary position from which he can criticize the decadence of civilization--than as a substantive moral/political ideal.

Compare the Discourses to The Social Contract (Book I, Chapter Eight):

This transition from the state of nature to the civil state produces a most remarkable change in man by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and endowing his actions with the morality they previously lacked. Only then, when the voice of duty succeeds physical impulsion and right succeeds appetite, does man, who until then had looked only to himself, see himself forced to act on other principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although in this state he deprives himself of several advantages he has from nature, he gains such great advantages in return, his faculties are exercised and developed, his ideas enlarged, his sentiments ennobled, his entire soul is elevated to such an extent, that if the abuses of this new condition did not often degrade him to beneath the condition he has left, he should ceaselessly bless the happy moment which wrested him from it forever, and out of a stupid and bounded animal made an intelligent being and a man.

Let us reduce this entire balance to terms easy to compare. What man loses by the social contract is his natural freedom and an unlimited claim to everything that tempts him and he can reach; what he gains is civil freedom and property in everything he possesses. In order not to be mistaken about these compensations, one has to distinguish clearly between natural freedom which has no other bounds than the individual's forces, and civil freedom which is limited by the general will, and between possession which is merely the effect of force or the right of the first occupant, and property which can only be founded on a positive title.

To the preceding one might add to the credit of the civil state moral freedom, which alone makes man truly the master of himself; for the impulsion of mere appetite is slavery, and obedience to the law one has prescribed to oneself is freedom.

As far as positive rights such as healthcare, I would fit them under the "fundamental to the concept of human dignity standard" with the proviso that the right is only violated when governments "unreasonably or arbitrarily deny" such rights.

In other words, a country that clearly cannot afford healthcare, or which has pressing concerns (for instance, internal stability and security) that preclude offering healthcare, should not be accused of a "violation of human rights" for failing ro provide healthcare.

If, however, a government has the resources and every opportunity to provide healthcare to its citizens, but it fails to do so... then I would say they "unreasonably" deny services that are fundamental to human dignity--human dignity being read to include freedom from unnecessary suffering. (You see how the "unnecessary" suffering and the "unreasonable" denial go together.)

You do realize how subjective the "concept of human dignity" is, don't you? You can hardly call out the usage of liberty as a basis and then use a vague abstraction like human dignity.

This is precisely why simply providing "lists" is pointless. If you want to get anywhere, you need to describe what standard unifies your list. What makes something a human right?

Which is where I am trying to steer this discussion from the very first post. I am not looking for what constitutes human rights, but what is the basis for human rights.

Because of that simply saying liberty and dignity are a little insufficient as neither can be assumed to be axiomatic. Each must have their base in something greater, at which point we get into epistomology and other ridiculous discussions.

I bet you did not think it was so complicated?

Considering the amount of thought I have put into the subject and the lack of conclusive results, I had my suspicions.

To tell the truth, it is more complicated in my own mind. Thats what I like about you, you can often take all of the thoughts that are flying around in my mind and order them in a way that I couldn't.

"Authority" is a normative term that already contains its own limits.

To have "authority" is not the same as to have "power." One can be powerful without having any authority; likewise one can have great authority without having any power.

I don't follow you here. I can understand power without authority, but I can't grasp authority without power.

It is understood that people cannot surrender their own autonomy, that it must be taken. So for someone to have authority over another, there must be some use of force, and to me the ability to use force is power.

Well, it all depends on what kind of "individualism" and "collectivism" you are talking about. "Moral collectivism" would have little use for individual freedom of conscience.

I would consider moral collectivism to be an impossibility.

Thus, Thomas Jefferson and his French contemporary Jean-Jacques Rousseau could consider property a positive (not a natural) right...

Property is not a positive right, the peaceful defense of property is the positive right.

In other words, if we encounter a culture with practices we consider immoral or oppressive, and where there is a true cultural consensus within the society... then any claims we make to defend "human rights" against that culture are flimsy indeed. We may think that women in a particular society are "oppressed" through certain practices, but if they (the women) don't think so, then multiculturalism should be the controlling value.

What if their condoning of the status quo is because of ignorance and not preference?

On the other hand, if we find a society whose practices are at odds with our conception of "rights," and it turns out that there is resistance to these practices within this society, we are in a position to choose sides... and there is nothing about multicultural values that says we must accept one indigenous interpretation of that culture over another. Supposing that the oppression in question is that of men over women, if we accept the male patriarchal interpretation as "the" culture, then we are not making a neutral value-judgment: we are taking patriarchy for granted.

I can state with reasonable assuredness that we could not find a society that did not have any resistence to cultural norms. If 5% of the women in a population felt that they were oppressed and resisted what we and they saw as a violation of human rights, would we be justified in taking sides?

I know you don't care much for the thoughts of philosophers anyway, but just for the sake of accuracy I would not go too far with Rousseau's "noble savage." While it is true that he admired his image of the "savage," in his political philosophy he uses this more as a rhetorical device--an imaginary position from which he can criticize the decadence of civilization--than as a substantive moral/political ideal.

Compare the Discourses to The Social Contract (Book I, Chapter Eight):

The noble savage was an individual who was left to his own devices and was noble because of it. Self-sufficiency is the most noble (and dignifiable) property a person can have.

While the "noble savage" may have been a "stupid and bounded animal," prior to the advent of society, our near conquer of nature in present times could mean that people, through natural law, could regain our nobility.

You do realize how subjective the "concept of human dignity" is, don't you? You can hardly call out the usage of liberty as a basis and then use a vague abstraction like human dignity.

Liberty is not just vague, it's analytic. It doesn't add anything to "right". To say I have a "right" to "liberty" says nothing more than that I have "rights." It tells me nothing about what those rights are.

Yes, the concept of human dignity is vague: all language is. The point of having a standard is not that it immediately tells you what it encompasses, but that it gives you a point around which to structure the debate.

Because of that simply saying liberty and dignity are a little insufficient as neither can be assumed to be axiomatic.

There is no "axiomatic" basis in the sense that there is a definition of "human right" from which the particulars will flow. No matter how you cut it, this is going to be a synthetic judgment.

To tell the truth, it is more complicated in my own mind. Thats what I like about you, you can often take all of the thoughts that are flying around in my mind and order them in a way that I couldn't.

Well, that is why you would benefit from a serious study of political theory. The point is not so much to study philosophers so that you can quote them, but so that you can learn how thoughts "fall together" in political thinking.

;)

I don't follow you here. I can understand power without authority, but I can't grasp authority without power.

One has authority without power when one has people's trust or respect without having any way to make them do what one wants. People may do what you tell them to do because they respect your opinion, but they don't have to.

So for someone to have authority over another, there must be some use of force, and to me the ability to use force is power.

No, authority does not require force. I may have authority because I am highly educated, or because I am very experienced, or simply because I am very articulate. People may choose to follow me or listen to me (employing their own autonomous will), while I exert no "force" over their actions.

I would consider moral collectivism to be an impossibility.

Think about it in terms of the direction of flow of moral will. Collective morality is "top-down" in the sense that the individual's moral obligations are defined by his or her position/role in society. Feudalism was "collective" in this sense. So are a variety of other societies.

Property is not a positive right, the peaceful defense of property is the positive right.

I doubt we will ever agree on this, and I am not currently in the mood to debate it. (Especially since in a few hours I am leaving for a few days, and probably will not be on NS.)

What if their condoning of the status quo is because of ignorance and not preference?

We presume that if the West has intercourse with them, they are capable of making comparisons to how "we" do things.

I can state with reasonable assuredness that we could not find a society that did not have any resistence to cultural norms. If 5% of the women in a population felt that they were oppressed and resisted what we and they saw as a violation of human rights, would we be justified in taking sides?
Yes, we certainly would. As long as we are not imposing "our" moral viewpoint, and our role is merely supportive of "theirs." As it turns out, many people the world over support individual rights without having any concept comparable to the insular, autonomous "self" of Western philosophy.

The noble savage was an individual who was left to his own devices and was noble because of it.
Not exactly. The noble savage referred to an individual outside or prior to society who was noble because he did not vainly compare himself to others.

Self-sufficiency is the most noble (and dignifiable) property a person can have.
Yes, and here Rousseau would agree. However, he thinks it is noble in society precisely because it allows one to regard other human beings as ends in themselves deserving of respect and compassion.

While the "noble savage" may have been a "stupid and bounded animal," prior to the advent of society, our near conquer of nature in present times could mean that people, through natural law, could regain our nobility.

Rousseau was highly pessimistic that scientific advance could restore human dignity, because he saw that the more human beings rely on technology, the less they cultivate personal virtues of body and mind. The more idle they become, the more inclined they are to adopt vain posturings and affect inauthentic manners.

He valued simplicity, honesty, forthrightness. He valued personal economic independence because he thought that people might be more inclined to honesty if they were not always trying to make money off of one another.

EDIT: He despised money so much that in his recommendations On the Government of Poland, he suggested that public business should be transacted, to the greatest degree possible, through payments in kind.

Not exactly. The noble savage referred to an individual outside or prior to society who was noble because he did not vainly compare himself to others.

To be honest with you, I keep becoming more leftist as I go along and don't like to admit it.

It took me a long time to word this sentence and it ended up coming out half-assed. The first thing that popped into my mind is that the savage is noble because he is not subject to the corruptive forces of competition, but would not bring myself to typing a derogatory comment about competition into NS.

Of course, you called my bluff.

Yes, and here Rousseau would agree. However, he thinks it is noble in society precisely because it allows one to regard other human beings as ends in themselves deserving of respect and compassion.

I agree that people should be respected as ends in themselves, but I don't see how compassion comes from the same reasoning.

Rousseau was highly pessimistic that scientific advance could restore human dignity, because he saw that the more human beings rely on technology, the less they cultivate personal virtues of body and mind. The more idle they become, the more inclined they are to adopt vain posturings and affect inauthentic manners.

He valued simplicity, honesty, forthrightness. He valued personal economic independence because he thought that people might be more inclined to honesty if they were not always trying to make money off of one another.

I would say that technology would free us and even help us in our cultivation of "personal virtues of body and mind." (Whatever that means)

Our moral philosophies and our arts have grown with technology, not in spite of it.

Sorry, just coming from a people who have been painted as once being 'noble savages'...the term has much more perjorative connotations than either of you have mentioned and is based largely on the mythification of cultures that were not understood, and actually considered inferior.

*sneaks out*

Liberty is not just vague, it's analytic. It doesn't add anything to "right". To say I have a "right" to "liberty" says nothing more than that I have "rights." It tells me nothing about what those rights are.

I feel that liberty can be descriptive of rights. The article that I was reading that actually prompted this thread stated:

"Liberty rights...consist of those actions one is not prohibited from performing"

So when I say that human rights are based in liberty, I mean that they are based in a freedom from unwanted interference. There are certainly rights that are not based on that idea.

I guess I may just be defining the limits of human rights, rather than providing a basis for them. To tell you the truth, considering I said that self-sufficiency is the most dignifiable property a person can have and that rights are based in autonomy, your basis for human rights might fit my ideology very well.

Well, that is why you would benefit from a serious study of political theory. The point is not so much to study philosophers so that you can quote them, but so that you can learn how thoughts "fall together" in political thinking.

;)

My lack of study is not entirely my choosing. I try to study, but often my mind goes off on tangents when reading something I find interesting (ADHD), or my mind completely spaces out if I am reading something I don't particularly agree with (ego).

Sorry, just coming from a people who have been painted as once being 'noble savages'...the term has much more perjorative connotations than either of you have mentioned and is based largely on the mythification of cultures that were not understood, and actually considered inferior.

*sneaks out*

I apologize for any offense I might have caused with my use of the term, but I assure you that it did not pertain to anyone in particular.

In is only a conceptual interpretation of all of mankind before the advent of society.

It makes absolutely no judgement on culture, whatsoever.

To be honest with you, I keep becoming more leftist as I go along and don't like to admit it.

Well, my bias suggests that this will tend to happen to anyone who studies politics for long enough. ;)

The first thing that popped into my mind is that the savage is noble because he is not subject to the corruptive forces of competition, but would not bring myself to typing a derogatory comment about competition into NS.

There is nothing wrong with healthy competition, and Rousseau would be the first to say so. You should read his (relatively short) work On the Government of Poland to see just how integral competition is to his political thought.

What Rousseau worries about (and what I worry about to) is "vain" competition over "things"--superficial materialism that does not encourage the development of personal virtue. Indeed, it is degrading to virtue.

I agree that people should be respected as ends in themselves, but I don't see how compassion comes from the same reasoning.

If people are ends in themselves, it means that their happiness is an intrinsic good. This does not mean that I prefer their happiness to my own, that I "sacrifice" my ends to theirs... rather, it means that all else being equal I would like them to be happy (too).

In a broader sense, Rousseau (and Kant after him) thought that when people are in a position of personal independence, equal to those around them, they are inclined to recognize other people as "like them," an intellectual equivalence that encourages the natural sense of empathy and compassion.

I would say that technology would free us and even help us in our cultivation of "personal virtues of body and mind."

How? It may give us more time to read, but Rousseau was not convinced that intellectual knowledge had much to do with morality. Indeed, "intellectuals" have a bad habit of using reason to counteract natural commiseration: when we see someone being victimized, it is very easy for us to convince ourselves why it is "not our problem."

Our moral philosophies and our arts have grown with technology, not in spite of it.

Read Rousseau's First Discourse, in which he argues that for all the advancement in our moral philosophy, we have not become more virtuous people. Indeed, "our souls have been corrupted in proportion to the advancement of our arts and sciences toward perfection." We talk a good game, but we're all sitting on the bench.

(Incidentally, the usually quintessential Enlightenment figure Thomas Jefferson partially agrees with Rousseau on this point, expressing in 1815 his "fear, from the experience of the last twenty-two years, that morals do not of necessity advance hand-in-hand with the sciences.")

Sorry, just coming from a people who have been painted as once being 'noble savages'...the term has much more perjorative connotations than either of you have mentioned and is based largely on the mythification of cultures that were not understood, and actually considered inferior.

Agreed.

:)

"Liberty rights...consist of those actions one is not prohibited from performing"

Yes, but this is an analytic definition. The predicate and the subject are the same. The phrase "not prohibited from performing" does not tell me anything about "liberty" that I could not have gotten from the word itself.

Technically speaking, this defines liberty as "freedom from interference." Thus, in your second definition (though you do not state it as such), you actually do give a synthetic definition by claiming that you defend rights against "unwanted interference."

Of course, "unwanted" is a problematic term... but at least it adds something descriptive to the concept. Since many people do not expressly "want" many of the prohibitions that are a normal part of civil society, however (and usually considered to be no violation of right), you are probably going to be driven into a philosophical definition of "want" similar to Rousseau's general "will." That is, people want/will "what is good for the whole" and general in application (applies to everyone the same)... but then you've just got another philosophical can of worms to contend with.

I guess I may just be defining the limits of human rights, rather than providing a basis for them. To tell you the truth, considering I said that self-sufficiency is the most dignifiable property a person can have and that rights are based in autonomy, your basis for human rights might fit my ideology very well.

That makes sense. I use it because it is a) limited; and b) "appropriate". It is limited in the sense that most liberal political associations are likely to prefer many more political and civil rights than are encompassed by a notion of "human dignity"--but that is to be expected. If our notion of "human" rights magically conformed to what we believe are the rights of people in the best society (or our own), we should be very suspicious that we are claiming too much for them. It is "appropriate" in the sense that I think it does what human rights are supposed to do: define a "minimum" standard of rights that should be afforded to human beings "just for being human." Calling up notions of "human dignity" asks us to condemn those forms of oppression and negligence that are prima facie "inhuman" or that call up a sense of shame--the emotional response to our own degraded dignity--when we think on them.

Again, I admit these are vague concepts. But I think we all understand the meanings of them well enough to have an understandable discussion about specific rights according to whether they are essential to "human dignity" or not. We may not always agree, but we should at least be talking about the same thing.

My lack of study is not entirely my choosing. I try to study, but often my mind goes off on tangents when reading something I find interesting (ADHD),

I know, you've mentioned this before. I wish you luck in finding ways to cope with it, because yours is clearly a mind that will reach impressive heights with formal training.

or my mind completely spaces out if I am reading something I don't particularly agree with (ego).

Hmm, I'm afraid I can't relate! When I read something I don't agree with, I'm inclined to start scrawling marginal notes all over the place expressing my disagreement and picking the argument apart! So, my attention is especially high!

There is nothing wrong with healthy competition, and Rousseau would be the first to say so. You should read his (relatively short) work On the Government of Poland to see just how integral competition is to his political thought.

What Rousseau worries about (and what I worry about to) is "vain" competition over "things"--superficial materialism that does not encourage the development of personal virtue. Indeed, it is degrading to virtue.

What differentiates between healthy competition and vain competition, or more importantly how can you stem vain competition while promoting healthy competition?

If people are ends in themselves, it means that their happiness is an intrinsic good. This does not mean that I prefer their happiness to my own, that I "sacrifice" my ends to theirs... rather, it means that all else being equal I would like them to be happy (too).

That still doesn't mesh. If everyone is an ends to themselves, then the happiness of another would not be a moral imperative. If one person "deserves" compassion, another is obligated to provide it. This means that the person obligated to making someone happy is cast into the role as a means to another's end.

The intrinsic good of liberty would be self-fulfillment, not happiness. Compassion is only a biproduct of our subjective moralities combined with objective provision of liberty.

In a broader sense, Rousseau (and Kant after him) thought that when people are in a position of personal independence, equal to those around them, they are inclined to recognize other people as "like them," an intellectual equivalence that encourages the natural sense of empathy and compassion.

While I certainly agree that compassioned is strengthened when there is a "connection" between people, I would argue that people of equal independence would be less likely to want or offer compassion from each other. People on equal standing do not need charity.

Yes, but this is an analytic definition. The predicate and the subject are the same. The phrase "not prohibited from performing" does not tell me anything about "liberty" that I could not have gotten from the word itself.

When pressed by JB and Half Hidden to qualify liberty rights, I stated:

"All rights are based on the maxim that all we can truly value is our experience, our existence. We should be allowed the basic human rights that allow us to freely exist."

It is half-assed, I guess, as I have not really gotten a chance to refine the thought with discussion, but it is better than saying we have liberty rights because we deserve liberty.

Calling up notions of "human dignity" asks us to condemn those forms of oppression and negligence that are prima facie "inhuman" or that call up a sense of shame--the emotional response to our own degraded dignity--when we think on them.

This raises some pretty loud alarm bells. I do not like the idea of human rights being contingent on emotional responses. I am thinking of gay marriage, abortion, and the death penalty.

Rights are not solely claimant in nature. Many rights are LIBERTY rights, in which your freedom of action and thought are unimpugned.

Unimpugned by what? What is your point of comparison other than the state of nature?

Unimpugned by what? What is your point of comparison other than the state of nature?

Unimpugned meaning not impugned by anyone or anything, and the state of nature is the only comparison, you have the state of nature, and you have society.

bump

No, authority does not require force. I may have authority because I am highly educated, or because I am very experienced, or simply because I am very articulate. People may choose to follow me or listen to me (employing their own autonomous will), while I exert no "force" over their actions.To use a specific example of this, I would compare the relationship between a patient and a doctor. The doctor has authority over the medical health of the patient, and the patient would probably wish to benefit from the doctor's medical authority, however the doctor doesn't have power to make the patient listen to him.

To use a specific example of this, I would compare the relationship between a patient and a doctor. The doctor has authority over the medical health of the patient, and the patient would probably wish to benefit from the doctor's medical authority, however the doctor doesn't have power to make the patient listen to him.

My definition of authority was slightly different than his. I didn't pursue this because I didn't want to argue the word authority.

I wouldn't say that the doctor has authority over the patient, as he can't actually make him do anything.

Authority was originally brought up when someone said liberty was the ability to refuse authority, or something like that. From there I took authority to mean control.

My definition of authority was slightly different than his. I didn't pursue this because I didn't want to argue the word authority.

I wouldn't say that the doctor has authority over the patient, as he can't actually make him do anything.

Authority was originally brought up when someone said liberty was the ability to refuse authority, or something like that. From there I took authority to mean control.Oh, I see. Well, to avoid arguing the word authority, I will drop this subject.

Vitto, in another thread you stated that humans had the right to use natural resources because doing so was necessary to secure survival. Do you still feel this way, and if so, wouldn't this be a natural right?

Vitto, in another thread you stated that humans had the right to use natural resources because doing so was necessary to secure survival. Do you still feel this way, and if so, wouldn't this be a natural right?

I would say that there would be a natural right to use those resources that one could obtain. For instance, there is no natural right to have a fish, but there is a natural right to go fishing.

So any right to have a resource would be a positive right, any right to try and obtain a resource would be a natural right.

So any right to have a resource would be a positive right, any right to try and obtain a resource would be a natural right.So then land ownership interferes with the natural right for an individual to prolong his or her own life, and can only exist with the positive right of society. Interesting, that.

First and foremost: Freedom of Speech.
Definetely not to be included: Freedom of Religion.
Whenever Religion interferes with the working of a Free and Democratic Society ( example, if a religious group tries to get its members of the hook of simply complying with majority decisions ), Religion should be curtailed as necessary.
Fully agree. Freedom of speech is clearly more important than religion. Whenever religion interfers with freedom of speech, it should be cut back to size.

Other important rights:
- Right to privacy. No unwarranted wiretappings or crap like that.
- Everyone should have access to free (or at least easily affordable) health care, not just the super rich.
- Free education up to high school level, and easily affordable uni education.
- Right to personal security
- No torture, no cruel or unusual punishments

So then land ownership interferes with the natural right for an individual to prolong his or her own life, and can only exist with the positive right of society. Interesting, that.

No, no, no.

Land is one of those natural resources that a person has a natural right to work to obtain. However, scarcity creates a situation where quite often, two people will seek to obtain the same land. By natural law, you are free to kill the rival claimant in order to obtain the resource, and vice versa, the original claimant can kill you to secure his claim. The natural right of ownership lays with whoever can secure the claim, and the natural right to seek resources still stands.

There are positive rights within society that deal with this problem and give the individuals involved peaceful ways of deciding who has the real claim.

No, no, no.

Land is one of those natural resources that a person has a natural right to work to obtain. However, scarcity creates a situation where quite often, two people will seek to obtain the same land. By natural law, you are free to kill the rival claimant in order to obtain the resource, and vice versa, the original claimant can kill you to secure his claim. The natural right of ownership lays with whoever can secure the claim, and the natural right to seek resources still stands.

There are positive rights within society that deal with this problem and give the individuals involved peaceful ways of deciding who has the real claim.I don't see this; I'd say that land is a natural resource that a person has a natural right to use. I don't see how natural rights give exclusive right to use a piece of land.