Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Logicnotpassion
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: March 30th, 2015, 2:33 pm

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Logicnotpassion »

Hello everyone,

This Universal Declaration has been occupying my mind for years now. Working in the field of Human Rights in several countries, I'm torn by the fact that I do not doubt the truth of these values, to me they are indeed universal i.e they can be applied anywhere, and the world would effectively work better and be fairer if they there applied. But at the same time, only a tiny minority of the world population actually agrees with these values, even in the countries that drafted it.

Article by article, it could be demonstrated that the declaration is in contradiction with the very laws of nations. Examples: Article 1, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". No need to go to Africa or the Middle East either. England has a Queen, who is not born with the same rights as any commoner. Of course, in other continents, the disagreement between the Declaration and local laws & culture grows deepers and deeper. The enlightenment may be dwindling.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Belindi »

Logicnotpassion wrote:Hello everyone,

This Universal Declaration has been occupying my mind for years now. Working in the field of Human Rights in several countries, I'm torn by the fact that I do not doubt the truth of these values, to me they are indeed universal i.e they can be applied anywhere, and the world would effectively work better and be fairer if they there applied. But at the same time, only a tiny minority of the world population actually agrees with these values, even in the countries that drafted it.

Article by article, it could be demonstrated that the declaration is in contradiction with the very laws of nations. Examples: Article 1, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". No need to go to Africa or the Middle East either. England has a Queen, who is not born with the same rights as any commoner. Of course, in other continents, the disagreement between the Declaration and local laws & culture grows deepers and deeper. The enlightenment may be dwindling.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ethical standard not a description of what is going on. As an ethical standard the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is religiously neutral, and takes the place of failing religions. I think that you and I agree that people of goodwill agree with the ethics set forth.

You point about the Queen ( and the old English aristocracy) is a good one . Many people in the UK think that the monarchy is no use any more. (I happen to like the monarchy and the Queen especially as she is professional and sincere.) The Queen was not born a queen but rules only with the consent of her subjects. The ruling elite is not represented by the Queen, and governments need to be carefully monitored. Why are the governments of the UK and of the USA in the hands of very rich people? There are too many too rich persons. It is up to free people to ensure that enlightenment values and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights don't fail, and this is our cross, if you like.
User avatar
Logicnotpassion
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: March 30th, 2015, 2:33 pm

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Logicnotpassion »

I like Lizzie too, it's not the point. My daughter is not born with the right to become Queen of England, therefore some are "more equal than others", not just in wealth but in the established law of the land.

You say "The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ethical standard not a description of what is going on." This could be said of all principles. It's not the point either. The point is that this is only a RELATIVE ethical standard, or even: it's no standard at all, because everybody doesn't agree even with all of it. It's supposed to be just a compass showing the direction in which humanity ought to go. But not everybody agrees with this direction. Not by a huge margin.

I used to think that those who disagreed with what you call "ethical standards" were just that: a margin. Now I know that it's just the opposite: it's a majority of humankind who disagrees with it, and only a small minority who actually believes in and agrees with it.

In entire regions of the globe, people profoundly disagree that all men are created equal in dignity and in rights regardless of gender, skin or religion. Many profoundly disagree with article 16 (see above if you don't know what it says). It hurts their deepest beliefs. In Egypt, if you're arrested for DUI, you don't get the same fine whether you're a Christian or a Muslim. Not because the police officer is racist (probably), but because of the textbook of the law. A law that, as a society, Egyptians chose for themselves.

There are several issues with your endline "It is up to free people to ensure that enlightenment values and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights don't fail, and this is our cross, if you like". Defining "free people": who are they? The happy few, the educated Westerners who happen to share the belief of the UDHR? You can be free and completely disagree with it, and that is freedom of opinion. What you call "Enlightenment" is considered dangerously subversive and destructive in some parts of the world. Who will tell them they're wrong?

I hear your Kiplingesque ending: this is our cross. But if it is so, you must agree that "we" are a tiny minority, going against majority will, cultures, sensibilities, reason and rhyme. In today's words, Kipling would have phrased his sentence differently, he would have said "Educated man's burden", which would have been a synonym in 1890. The thing is, I'm not even sure any more that it's about who's educated and who's not. There are very educated men whose sensibility goes in the absolute opposite direction of the so-called "Universal" declaration of Human Rights.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Belindi »

Logicnotpassion, I don't deny that there is a major class of cultures. I know which side I am on, and hope I have the courage of my convictions.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Spectrum »

Belindi wrote:Does the question refer to natural human rights, or to man-made human rights, or to God-given human rights?

There are no natural rights, and the God-authority does not exist. Man-made human rights have to be guarded very carefully against depredation by sociopaths.
There are no god-given human rights but there are inherent 'natural rights' which can be abstracted from human existence and existence of all living things. These basic human rights are grounded on the following;
  • Generally,
    1. No 'species' [abstracted] emerged to die immediately
    2. Thus the 'purpose' of the human species is its preservation.
    3. Therefore the purpose of each human individual is to survive till the inevitable and reproduce the next generation of individuals.
    4. All individuals are accorded the inherent basic human rights to ensure the objective of 3 is met.
    5. Others.
The inherent basic human rights are;
  • 1. No human should be killed by another human being.
    2. No human should be made to suffer pains [net negative well-being] deliberately.
    3. No human shall be owned by another.
    4. Each human shall be given the freedom to act subject to the above.
    5. Others - to be deliberated.
From the above inherent basic human rights grounded on inherent human existence, man-mad human rights are conceived morally and applied with justified exceptions.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum, your "generally 1, 2, and 3. are teleological.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Spectrum »

Belindi wrote:Spectrum, your "generally 1, 2, and 3. are teleological.
Nope.
These are theories abstracted from observed evidences and experiences of nature. They are conditioned upon human observations and inferences.
They are not teleological in the sense such are ultimate ends dictated by a God.

It is the same with the Theories of Gravity which is abstracted from the empirical world. That what goes up must come down on Earth, is not teleological.

I have often asked, can you name me one species [as defined biologically] that emerged with a 'purpose' to be extinct immediately? Answer is definitely a No!
OTOH, the evidence is all living individuals, therefrom the species emerged and strive to survive at all costs till the inevitable.

Point here we have at least some form of justifiable grounds based on empirical evidence to start with rather than based on arbitrary subjective opinions.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
Nope.
These are theories abstracted from observed evidences and experiences of nature. They are conditioned upon human observations and inferences.
They are not teleological in the sense such are ultimate ends dictated by a God.
In that case you should sharpen up your language so that you cannot be accused of being teleological. In their present form these items are teleological.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Ecurb »

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is (at times) self-contradictory, and seems to misunderstand the notion of "rights".

Human rights are (and can be) nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other humans. A "right to life" doesn't protect anyone from grizzly bears, heart attacks, or cancer. It merely states that other humans have an obligation not to kill people.

With that in mind, let's look at the human rights in the UN Declaration, and determine what obligations they imply:

Article 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property
These are clearly contradictory. The "right" to own property cannot be reconciled with the right to freedom of movement, as anyone familiar with the history of Native Americans can attest. Owning land clearly LIMITS the freedom of movement of other people -- the "right" to own land means nothing other than an obligation on the part of other to limit their freedom of movement.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
How can we reconcile "compulsory" education with "freedom of movement"? We can't.
Article 27.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Huh? "Freedom of expression" is clearly limited by the patents and copyrights offered in Article 27. If you can't copy someone else's work, your freedom of expression is limited.

I could go on and on.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Spectrum »

Belindi wrote:Spectrum wrote:
Nope.
These are theories abstracted from observed evidences and experiences of nature. They are conditioned upon human observations and inferences.
They are not teleological in the sense such are ultimate ends dictated by a God.
In that case you should sharpen up your language so that you cannot be accused of being teleological. In their present form these items are teleological.
You missed the point in my earlier post. I stated,
There are no god-given human rights but there are inherent 'natural rights' which can be abstracted from human existence and existence of all living things.
The above 'abstraction' has to be based on observations and experiences of human nature.
This is like discovery of the law of gravity from observed consistently falling objects. There is no teleological purpose for an physical object to fall when thrown upward.
It is the same principles [nothing teleological] for human rights abstracted from human nature and general nature.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
There are no god-given human rights but there are inherent 'natural rights' which can be abstracted from human existence and existence of all living things.
I agree that human rights legislation must take into account human needs as noted by common sense, common human sympathy, and science.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Posts: 36
Joined: November 29th, 2016, 3:51 am

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Scruffy Nerf Herder »

A Poster He or I wrote: December 4th, 2016, 3:48 pm
People require rights, or some other commensurate form of mutual consideration, because they have novel experiences. Their potential to perceive and feel is worthy of our acknowledgement and respect totally regardless of evolution and society.
Does this imply I must honor Hitler's "right" to exterminate Jews out of mutual consideration for everyone's rights? Hitler certainly had novel experiences, after all.
The mere fact of a being with this kind of capacity to think and feel experiencing infringements upon his/her rights is objectionable, because the experiences of said being are an end unto itself.
So the experience of a pedophile's bliss upon raping a child is laudable, being an end unto itself?
...no matter the rationalizations we entertain when usurping someone's rights, we are utterly beholden to delusions if we mentally alienate people to the point that we can't recognize them as thinking, feeling beings.
ISIS commandos feel mentally alienated from the West's secular values which consider them unthinking, unfeeling fanatics. So I shouldn't try to usurp their right to establish Sharia law by force where secular law now rules, am I correct?
Other people matter because it is in our nature to know that we matter, and they are of a kind with us.
So a refugee from Syria who didn't want to live under Sharia law is supposed to uphold the rights of the ISIS invaders who burned down his home?
-No, this implies nothing of the kind and it appears you are building straw men, red herrings, or something of the sort in your post here. The argument is general, i.e. it is in relation to people as a category, not to individuals like Hitler.

-I never said anything of the kind. This is an incoherent criticism because of course it flies in the face of any perceptive or charitable understanding of the argument to give as an example the novelty of one person's experience at the expense of another.

-Again you're building a straw man here with this ISIS example. You even say yourself that in your example you're talking about people who are trying to force Sharia law on others. This hardly applies to the OP which is forwarding an existential argument very much in favor of concepts like voluntarism.

-Nowhere did I imply that it was someone's right to usurp another's rights. Perhaps we could try for some examples that aren't as polarizing, and aren't poorly veiled examples of rampant emotionalism in the place of charitable, conscientious, and rigorous philosophical arguments?
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Posts: 36
Joined: November 29th, 2016, 3:51 am

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Scruffy Nerf Herder »

Alias wrote: December 4th, 2016, 6:09 pm Nah! The idea of rights is just something societies come up with to keep order. The particular rights and privileges vary greatly from one ear to another, one culture to another, one nation to another. Nothing universal about is, and nothing peculiarly human, either, since other social species have come up with the same idea independently.
This is more of an opinion sharing post than something that actually interacts with the OP. I understand that that is your opinion but what are your thoughts on the argument forwarded in the OP?
Gertie wrote: December 4th, 2016, 6:58 pm
People require rights, or some other commensurate form of mutual consideration, because they have novel experiences. Their potential to perceive and feel is worthy of our acknowledgement and respect totally regardless of evolution and society. The mere fact of a being with this kind of capacity to think and feel experiencing infringements upon his/her rights is objectionable, because the experiences of said being are an end unto itself.
I pretty much agree with the gist of this, tho I'd put it a little differently. Something like -

People should be shown moral consideration because of the qualiative nature of consciousness, which means we can enjoy a quality of life (be happy, suffer, etc, and if we lose our life we lose something of inherent value).

Human Rights is one framework for showing each other moral consideration. Something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a useful way of outlining and mandating/encouraging a basic benchmark of shared moral considerations. Then there are equality based rights, which are rooted in our sense of fairness, and afford people the dignity of demanding what's fair, rather than relying on the goodwill of those in a position to grant or deny equal treatment (the tyranny of the majority for example). Human Rights play a valuable role in societies in these ways.
Just for future reference here, I'll be using "the Argument From Novelty" as shorthand for the argument in the OP.

I'm not sure what you're doing is merely "putting it a little differently" as there are important differences in the argument that you're forwarding and the argument that I forwarded in the OP. The Argument From Novelty is an argument specifically designed to work within the confines of existentialism, it doesn't pretend to make claims about any metaphysical realities such as the prospect of a consciousness and as is the case with existential arguments it doesn't assume the same kind of epistemological worries as other arguments about such subjects in philosophy that need to prove this or that metaphysical concept in order to work. It is an experiential argument that is trying to appeal to what we can know simply by thinking about reality so far as we experience it and not with complicated grounds beyond that.

It might sound strange to say but it's not strictly necessary to believe there is such a thing as a consciousness to believe that there is experiential reality. I don't have to assume that I have a consciousness in order to work in this existential universe of discourse where I'm only assuming that I exist, that I have experiences, and that I can derive ideas from the nature of those experiences.

Really the only metaphysical leap being made here that I think is potentially pretty tenuous for an existential argument is the leap made when assuming that there are other persons than myself and that they also have these kinds of experiences. But if we can agree to that much I also think we can probably agree that there is something novel about these experiences that we have, that there are so many of them and they are so diverse, thought provoking, and meaningful. So the argument starts from those premises and works towards the conclusion that if others are also beings with novel experiences this has to be brought into consideration when dealing with those others, that it's not logically consistent for us to value those experiences as an end of their own, that we can think of them as good and not even just strictly because we personally are having the novel experiences but because we perceive them to be novel, then to turn around and disregard the novelty of another person as if it isn't worth conscientiousness because the novel experiences aren't our own novel experiences. If we value the novelty then we must value the novelty itself as something above and beyond ourselves individually, it is reasonable for us to think of them as an end of their own and something profound regardless of who it is that has the experiences.

However where we get to more hazy ground (as if forwarding an existential argument in the first place isn't already hazy enough ground, lol) is in wondering how that works out so far as specific rights that people should have. You've brought up the Universal Declaration but I'm not sure everything within the Declaration can straightforwardly be argued for along these lines alone.
Bryntyrch2016 wrote: December 5th, 2016, 3:13 pm I don't see how you can have a right if it doesn't create a duty. If so the question is what can compel me to have a duty to a 'rights holder'?
The only answer, I think, is the Golden Rule - do as you would be done to - I accept a duty to allow you to do things that p+++ me off because I want you to allow me the same.
It follows that YOU must want the right, and can let me know it: I cant have a duty to guess what rights you want (so foetuses babies and animals have no rights). For societies to advert to commonly wanted rights (eg no one wants to be tortured ) in the form of rules or proclamations makes it more likely I will correctly identify my duty.
The concept of duty, of people having responsibilities with respect to human rights, is a whole other can of worms and maybe not the most fitting discussion for this thread as it is difficult enough to establish the concept of human rights in the first place and to speculate about what exactly those rights might be if there are indeed human rights.
Belindi wrote: October 22nd, 2017, 2:46 pm Does the question refer to natural human rights, or to man-made human rights, or to God-given human rights?

There are no natural rights, and the God-authority does not exist. Man-made human rights have to be guarded very carefully against depredation by sociopaths.
The OP is asking if there can be natural human rights. It is not concerned with artificial concepts, or with anthropology as it is discussed when it is a subject within theology. I see you saying there are no natural rights but you haven't interacted with the Argument From Novelty, or presented an argument of your own for there not being natural rights, instead of simply asserting as you have that there are no natural rights.

While your opinion/position is of course interesting what I'd really like to know is how you understand and justify that position.
Alias wrote: October 22nd, 2017, 4:55 pm Man-made human rights - the only kind that can possibly be applied to humans - are made by different men for different men in different times and places. Through much of human history, they didn't apply to women, children, other nationalities, or any people captured or conquered in wars. It didn't apply to slaves - captured, hereditary, sentenced for a criminal offense or indebted - and only partially to serf, servant and underclasses of any kind. There were different rights for each stratum of wealth, aristocracy, profession and whatever status the society had.
It's a malleable concept; it's a legal concept: rights can be conferred and denied, won and lost, expanded and contracted, legislated and repealed.
As whole lot of Americans are learning, there is nothing absolute, inalienable or universal about it.
Why are artificially conceived human rights the only kind that can possibly be applied to humans? Why is it only valid to think about as a concept within law and politics? These are claims that need to be justified. If there is such a thing as natural rights history has nothing to do with its status because to assume that people not observing them means they don't exist would be to make a categorical error in thinking. Natural rights, if they exist, aren't such a thing that exists because a person does or does not observe them, just the same as the moon being made of rocks and not cheese irrespective of whatever we might think about the moon.
Belindi wrote: October 25th, 2017, 1:44 pm The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

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.

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.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

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.

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.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

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.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
This is great and I couldn't be more appreciative that you've shared the text of the Universal Declaration with us, but can you relate the specific rights being declared here with natural rights? E.g. in what sense is it a natural right for a person to have a nationality or to move from one State to another?
User avatar
Logicnotpassion
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: March 30th, 2015, 2:33 pm

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Logicnotpassion »

Talking about natural law, Immanuel Kant wrote "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
The problem with this statement is that the person who wills (wishes) is still the same individual. The statement does not account for what others may wish, which may be (and is) completely different.

It is agreed that the UN declaration doesn't describe what is going on, but it fails even as a universal "ethical standard" . Take Art. 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as one example:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

All over the world, people are against this principle. Many Muslims take their God's law as natural law, and it states that Muslim women should only marry muslim men.

This is one example out of m any, to prove that there are no universal Human Rights, man-made or "natural" (or "God-given" if you are so inclined).
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?

Post by Alias »

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote: May 28th, 2019, 2:22 am This is more of an opinion sharing post than something that actually interacts with the OP. I understand that that is your opinion but what are your thoughts on the argument forwarded in the OP?
That was my thought on the OP. If you mean this:
The philosophers of the Enlightenment specifically used verbiage like "inalienable" because no matter the rationalizations we entertain when usurping someone's rights, we are utterly beholden to delusions if we mentally alienate people to the point that we can't recognize them as thinking, feeling beings. We are naturally bound by the engrossing novelty of our perceptions to value our own existence beyond merely living and propagating the species, and we can know that other people are also inherently the same in this respect.
Where my reference to all human social organization as recorded so far is considered a mere opinion, your reference to the opinion of a handful of 18th century Europeans is considered -- what? notarized fact?
You didn't specify exactly who used that word "inalienable". The only use of it in an official document that I know of is the US constitution, and it was written and signed by men who agreed that all white landowning men (not natives, black men, indentured servants, women or children) had rights including the right to own, transport and sell other persons.
Not only does the practice not match the ideal, the words in the body of the document don't match the words of the preamble.
I don't think you've made your case.

[Man-made human rights - the only kind that can possibly be applied to humans - are made by different men for different men in different times and places. Through much of human history, they didn't apply to women, children, other nationalities, or any people captured or conquered in wars. It didn't apply to slaves - captured, hereditary, sentenced for a criminal offense or indebted - and only partially to serf, servant and underclasses of any kind. There were different rights for each stratum of wealth, aristocracy, profession and whatever status the society had.]
Why are artificially conceived human rights the only kind that can possibly be applied to humans?
Because "rights" is a human concept and humans alone can apply their own concepts to their social groups. If a god were running the world, the situation might be different. But nature doesn't do executive or administrative work.
Why is it only valid to think about as a concept within law and politics?
Because those are the institutions of human social organization that do the applying.
You can think about them in philosophy, but philosophy don't open no cell doors.
These are claims that need to be justified.
If all of human history is insufficient, than reality is unjustifiable.
In that case, wishful thinking prevails.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021