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
Eduk
Posts: 2084
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Eduk » May 11th, 2018, 5:32 am

Thank you for the confirmation.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by ThomasHobbes » May 11th, 2018, 6:12 am

Eduk wrote:
May 10th, 2018, 5:53 pm
So just to be clear. All criticism of any Labour party member is laughable and massively exaggerated, for presumably nefarious means. But all criticism of the conservative party is 100% accurate and buried, also presumably for nefarious reasons.
Do you have any idea how your points make you sound?
I have no problem with that and fully expect people who read and absorb new uncritically to swallow all they are fed.
I offered you facts.
As I live in E Sussex and work in W Sussex most of the people around me are traditional Tories, but most of them are totally fed up even exasperated by the obsessiveness with which the Media especially the BBC have been banging on about "antisemitism" in the Labour party.
The establishment support Israel.
Labour wants to ask questions about human rights abuses against Palestinians, about IDF random killings, putting children in cages, destruction of hospitals and then embargoing building materials and so on.
Allow me to invite you to put figure this out.
But you do not need to trust my view point. A host of academic have condemned the media, even the oh-so balanced BBC for anti Corbyn bias.

Do you think THIS is balanced?
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5a ... _noupscale

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1538
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Belindi » May 11th, 2018, 6:25 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 10th, 2018, 5:13 pm
Eduk wrote:
May 10th, 2018, 4:58 pm
Bit of a shame about all that anti-Semitism stuff though.
LOL.
In an organisation with 500,000 there have been 75 complaints. Two have been upheld by the party HQ. TWO.
That is not an "antisemitism problem", it is a media frenzy to denigrate Jeremy Corbyn.

Jacob Rees Mogg has called Vanessa Felz a "fat Jewish slag", and called Baroness Lawrence a N**G*R, but has received no sanction from is party, the Conservatives.

Our own foreign secretary, the RT Hon Boris Johnson has used racist language on numerous occasions.
e.g
"What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote. It also mentioned "watermelon smiles".

Currently the Tories are reeling from the racist immigration policy concerning the "Windrush generation' scandal. This has involved people who having lived here all their lives being "repatriated' to places like Jamaica, and having their driving licence being seized, jobs lost, and families broken up.
I endorse !

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by ThomasHobbes » May 11th, 2018, 6:27 am

Belindi wrote:
May 11th, 2018, 6:25 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 10th, 2018, 5:13 pm


LOL.
In an organisation with 500,000 there have been 75 complaints. Two have been upheld by the party HQ. TWO.
That is not an "antisemitism problem", it is a media frenzy to denigrate Jeremy Corbyn.

Jacob Rees Mogg has called Vanessa Felz a "fat Jewish slag", and called Baroness Lawrence a N**G*R, but has received no sanction from is party, the Conservatives.

Our own foreign secretary, the RT Hon Boris Johnson has used racist language on numerous occasions.
e.g
"What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote. It also mentioned "watermelon smiles".

Currently the Tories are reeling from the racist immigration policy concerning the "Windrush generation' scandal. This has involved people who having lived here all their lives being "repatriated' to places like Jamaica, and having their driving licence being seized, jobs lost, and families broken up.
I endorse !
Have you joined Labour?

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1538
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Belindi » May 11th, 2018, 11:17 am

Thomas, you prod my conscience but I have limited energy.

Eduk
Posts: 2084
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Eduk » May 11th, 2018, 12:43 pm

Thomas, you seem to lack any sense of proportion.
It is not the case that I am either with you or against you. I suggest re-reading what I actually wrote.
Unknown means unknown.

Gertie
Posts: 594
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Gertie » May 11th, 2018, 5:05 pm

Belindi wrote:
May 11th, 2018, 11:17 am
Thomas, you prod my conscience but I have limited energy.
Belindi you don't have to actually do anything ;)

It's up to you if you want to attend meetings, canvass, stand or vote for positions, or anything else. You can be as involved as you choose. Personally I think someone like you could offer a lot, but it's totally up to you of course. Tho it would be a hoot if Dachshund's thread ended up recruiting for Corbyn!

All you're committing to are the monthly subs, depending on your circs https://join.labour.org.uk/ from about 2 quid to 4 quid which you cancel any time.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1538
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Belindi » May 11th, 2018, 5:35 pm

Thanks Gertie. I will think about it tomorrow.

Maybe Dachsund 's OTT posts are an effective devil's advocate.

Steve3007
Posts: 5535
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Steve3007 » August 20th, 2018, 5:50 am

Dachshund wrote:My understanding of the notion of human dignity as it is used in the contemporary Human Rights discourse is that it refers to the fundamental moral status of human beings, that is, to their basic "worth" or "value". If so, the stipulation in documents like the current UNUDHR (United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that all men and women are unconditionally entitled to be accorded equal, basic Human Rights is directly founded on the claim that all human beings inherently possess an equal moral status, that is, that they all possess the same, inherent, equal dignity; - that they are, in short, to be understood as having an inalienable, non-fungible equal fundamental (moral) worth or value.

In my opinion, this is utter nonsense. I absolutely do not subscribe to the view that such a thing as human dignity exists in the sense that it is a real, inviolable, non-fungible, absolute normative property possessed in the same measure by all human beings.
From the UNUDHR:
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.
From the US Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God.
Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.
I see nothing there which states that man and woman possess an inalienable dignity, but some have more dignity than others. So it seems to me that on this particular subject of human dignity, at least in the abstract (if not when it comes down to interpreting the application of these general principles to individual cases), the Catholic Church and the enlightenment values of the UNUDHR and the US Declaration of Independence appear to agree.

As I understand it, the Catholic Church goes further by asserting that everything from a newly fertilized embryo, through infants to fully grown adults ought to be regarded as equally possessing this nebulous concept of dignity as a real, inviolable, non-fungible, absolute normative property. Hence the assertions by some people that the destruction of single-celled embryos ought to be regarded as a crime of equal seriousness to the murder of a fully formed human being.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 335
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by SimpleGuy » August 23rd, 2018, 12:49 pm

Human dignity is something so elementary, that it is part of your own life at school. Just think in which natural ways pupils do interact with each other, this is the true essence of human rights. This has nothing to do with your religious conviction.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1168
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Newme » August 23rd, 2018, 3:18 pm

Rights are imagined by people - they’re subjective - though we come to agreement on some basic rules for treating one another. It could be arguedbthat each person, is as valuable as the next - but to who? Who is making the value assessment? Ultimately, human rights watchdogs have their own biases as to whose rights are more “right.”

Some rules like “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” and freedom of speech and religion help us all thrive, not in spite but, because of our differences. Political-correct manipulations are trying to limit free speech and other agreed upon rules, under the guise of “human rights violation” because someone FELT offended. Calling people who point out facts that make another feel bad has caused people to resort to ad hominem attacks like “homophobe,” and “anti-semite.” It’s based on logical fallacies like emotional reasoning, ad hominem attack and strawmen, and gets in the way of the actual facts - facts which are needed to make informed decisions.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 23rd, 2018, 3:56 pm

Newme wrote:
August 23rd, 2018, 3:18 pm
Rights are imagined by people - they’re subjective -
Yet of course that declaration of human rights is an assertion of objective rights.
And in a sense perhaps that is all objectivity is; an assertion of a view that disregards individual bias?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 23rd, 2018, 3:59 pm

...
So in the sense that a ruler offers an external and universally agreeable scale, and even though the first "inch" or "centimetre" is a pure invention to which humans have literally "subjected" to reality, it is only the agreement of the mob which allows a claim of objectivity to occur.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3383
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Fooloso4 » August 23rd, 2018, 5:42 pm

Sameyouyouhavealwaysbeen:
It’s based on logical fallacies like emotional reasoning, ad hominem attack and strawmen, and gets in the way of the actual facts - facts which are needed to make informed decisions.and gets in the way of the actual facts - facts which are needed to make informed decisions.
Emotional reasoning is not a logical fallacy. Must you be reminded in a thread on human rights that humans are emotional beings?

Is it an ad hominem attack to point to the fact that you display a wanton disregard for the actual facts? There is a serious problem when decisions are informed by disinformation.
Political-correct manipulations …
It has become a definitive sign of an unwillingness or inability to think when one relies on generic attacks on political correctness in place of substantive argument. It does not take much thought to see that this is nothing more than the right’s own version of political correctness that uses free speech to defend incivility, rudeness, and a disregard for others who do not follow precipitously changing party lines.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1168
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Newme » August 25th, 2018, 2:56 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 23rd, 2018, 3:56 pm
Newme wrote:
August 23rd, 2018, 3:18 pm
Rights are imagined by people - they’re subjective -
Yet of course that declaration of human rights is an assertion of objective rights.
And in a sense perhaps that is all objectivity is; an assertion of a view that disregards individual bias?
Yes. A study found people who believed they were more objective and less prejudice actually displayed more subjective prejudice than those who acknowledged they had some subjectivity & prejudice.

A case could be made for leaders needing to obtain many various perspectives (from government officials to peasants) before assigning “rights.” And it seems that it’s quite a challenge to figure out which rights override other rights... when on right conflicts with another etc. In this sense - there’s ongoing negotiation.

Live and learn. Back in the day, people got killed for saying or believing the wrong thing - and that created more problems, thus freedom of speech & religion. Etc.

Post Reply