Philosophy Discussion Forums

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.

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.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 6:49 am

Newme wrote: ↑August 26th, 2018, 10:55 pm
“All have faith (or bias) but not all are conscious of having faith (or bias).”

Faith like belief means different things.

I am temporarily able to have some faith in a doctor or a car mechanic as they are likely to have more experience than myself in their fields. That would never stop me holding on to a certain amount of skepticism. And I am fully conscious of that 'trust' I hold contingently in their judgements.

This is utterly different from all other types of religious faith.

It’s not just religious faith that people have, nor is it just faith in someone to perform a service. The faith that is so profound and common is psychological, like cognitive distortion (logical fallacy)... beliefs that are not founded on facts or logic. And since there are deep emotional memories from when we were babies when we were without cognitive abilities - we all have some illogical emotional reactions - or faith that is logically and factually ungrounded.

SimpleGuy wrote: ↑September 7th, 2018, 1:46 pm


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

Suppose we have a hypothetical scenario as follows...

Security forces in "Country A" have captured a terrorist who they know has placed a nuclear bomb somewhere in the heart of one of "Country A major cities. Intelligence reports have confirmed that the bomb has been primed and is due to detonate in 12 hours, but unfortunately its precise location is unknown. Unless the bomb can be found as deactivated hundreds of thousand of innocent people will die. The captured terrorist has been interrogated at length but refuses to reveal where the bomb is hidden. In this situation, I would regard the use of torture as justifiable, because if the captured terrorist is subjected to systematic torture ( water-boarding or whatever), there may just be a chance that he will eventually break down and reveal the location of the hidden bomb so that it can be removed from the city centre and deactivated. Right?

The CIA, BTW, had to use torture on individuals who were known to be former member of Islamic terrorist organisations affiliated with Al Quada in order to find and execute Osama Bin Laden. I don't have a problem with that. As it happens, it - i.e. the use of torture - played a crucial role in locating Bin Laden's hiding place in Pakistan.

Regards

Dachshund

There is a very simple way of looking at this entire thread Sausage Dog.

I can do anything within my capacities. Whatever I do has consequences. Naivety is not an excuse to do as one pleases and doesn’t change the consequence of an action. Our personal freedom is more or less to do with how we deal with unfortunate/bad outcomes.

The moral problem we have is wedding an action with a future result. After the matter is over we’re all too willing to attribute good intention to positive outcomes yet very much inclined to deny any mistakes and attribute them to “bad luck” or the actions of “others.”

If I was to be put in the position you set out would I torture the guy? I cannot say for sure what I would do, because I imagine torturing another human being would be a horrible affair and woudl likely cause me mental damage. It well turn out that I am more of a coward than I think I am and that I’d rather allow thousands of random people to die rather than suffer a possible life of mental torture, which would then lead me to consider the possible torture of NOT torturing this person - then there is the publicity of this question and how much my reply is effected by this, whether people around the world is scenario would know my decision, how prone to guilt I may be, how being regarded as a “hero” for torturing a deeply disturbed (possibly brainwashed innocent) would sicken me and those who may praise me - as well as the inner demons on how I went about this “torture.” Maybe I would even enjoy torturing another human being; it is quite possible the feeling of holding someone’s life in my own hands, having them whimper and beg, may even fill me with a strange delight?

This is part and parcel of the reason I asked about “Culling Humans” in the hypothetical I laid out in another thread. The use of the exercise is to dig below the surface of the public posturing and really understand the darker side of yourself so you know how to manage it (basically the Jungian Shadow.)

Dachshund, if you set out to defend the rule of law you don't use torture. You use legitimate means of getting the information you need because, if you don't, you will have jeopardised the very society that you want to defend.

Dachshund, if you set out to defend the rule of law you don't use torture. You use legitimate means of getting the information you need because, if you don't, you will have jeopardised the very society that you want to defend.

Belindi wrote: ↑October 20th, 2018, 7:11 am Dachshund, if you set out to defend the rule of law you don't use torture. You use legitimate means of getting the information you need because, if you don't, you will have jeopardised the very society that you want to defend.

I think Dachshund thinks that torture IS a legitimate means.
That is until someone wants to use it on him.

It's more important to define human rights even for a bci-driven world. Look at http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
to understand that a minority report in reality can take place. And some incidents might indicate that this could mean a severe
constraint of personal freedom. Just think about that films like totall recall (main actor arnold schwarzenegger ) could be real.
And a recall programm driven by the state or some terrorist organization could be at stake. In pre brain computer interface -times (bci)
this was already done by brain-washing and hypnosis.

Who does not believe in a possiblity for a bci driven hypnosis and brain-washing opportunity should look at:

http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

Sorry this was the same article . I thought of:

https://engineuring.wordpress.com/2009/ ... f-science/

SimpleGuy wrote: ↑October 20th, 2018, 1:31 pm Sorry this was the same article . I thought of:

https://engineuring.wordpress.com/2009/ ... f-science/

How does this relate to Human rights?

Well it should somehow indicate that we're endangered in our human rights via a new technology. Precrime like in minority report could be possible , which is definitively against humans rights.


https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech ... echnology/