Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1069
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 1st, 2018, 8:55 am

Burning ghost wrote:
September 1st, 2018, 8:47 am
A closer look reveals several untruths:
Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Nope! No one is born equal in freedom or rights.
Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
And who enforces this across all the nations of the world? Certainly not the UN they are even incapable of doing so among their own founding members.
Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No. Everyone has the right to pursue liberty and security. It is not given freely by anyone nor should it be expected. Naivety to the extreme.
Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Again gibberish. How do they define “servitude”? And again, how is it slavery can be made legal if rebranded within UN member states? No attempt to define the terms used shows a flimsy mindset.
Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Rubbish! How can anyone doing wrong be “punished”? The entire idea of justice and law would crumble without a threat of punishment.
Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
And protest against any form of “punishment” too (see above.)
Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
If all are equal before the law how is it lawyers are paid for their services?
Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
But it says nothing anout granting these rights? How is “competence” judged?
Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Pull the other one!
Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
But not equality in representation. So what’s the point?

There are god knows how many many of these. If they’d been put together by a group of naive teenagers then I’d have little reservations anout the intent. Given the UN came up with this imprecise drivel I find it quite concerning.
You are reading them incorrectly.
These are assertions, aspirations. A set of rules, not statements of empirical fact.
These are oughts, not ises.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 314
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by SimpleGuy » September 7th, 2018, 1:46 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
September 1st, 2018, 7:32 am

In the OP you attempt to discover what the UNDHR means by the vague term "dignity".

You assert above that "dignity" = "moral status" and "moral status" = "worth/value". Elsewhere you have asserted that "moral status/value/worth" is proportional to the ability to make moral decisions and further asserted that the ability to make moral decisions is proportional to intellectual ability. The above quoted passage from the OP therefore claims that the term "human dignity" is synonymous with "human intellectual ability". You therefore claim that the UNUDHR asserts that all people have equal intellectual ability. You dispute this alleged assertion. If this assertion had in fact been made then you would be right to dispute it because it is demonstrably and obviously wrong. But it hasn't been made. Presumably because it is demonstrably and obviously wrong.

Since the UNUDHR, and other expressions of human rights like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, do not assert that all people have equal intellectual ability, the argument that you use to attempt to define "dignity" is invalid because it leads to a conclusion that does not fit the observed facts. Reductio ad absurdum. You are shown to have misunderstood the intended meaning of the word "dignity".

Therefore your challenge is answered and you are proved wrong.
Well the difference is that of dignity and right , that you want to discuss. The fundamental priciple that connect is not only present in the UNUDHR but also in the ECHR (European Convention of Human rights).

In the european convention is standing.

ARTICLE 3
Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment


All people don't deserve degrading treatment!!!

The truth hopefully not only for me but for you.

Post Reply