The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

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: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 26th, 2018, 5:55 am

Newme wrote:
August 25th, 2018, 2:56 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 23rd, 2018, 3:56 pm


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.
Bias is complicated.
I find it puzzling that people ever think it straightforward that they can so easily pretend to know where the mythical unbiased position lies from which to determine other's subjectivity.

I've come to learn that those that make such claims are the ones I'm least able to trust, they having suspect motives for such a position. Religious people excel at this fallaciousness.

Derrida was right when he said that no such place exists and having a bias is necessary to have any kind of opinion. Your bias is your arguing point.

In science it is easier. But even an unbiased view in science has to be defined by parameters; of the demonstration; of the experiment; of the empirical conditions.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1248
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Newme » August 26th, 2018, 10:55 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 26th, 2018, 5:55 am
Newme wrote:
August 25th, 2018, 2:56 pm

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.
Bias is complicated.
I find it puzzling that people ever think it straightforward that they can so easily pretend to know where the mythical unbiased position lies from which to determine other's subjectivity.

I've come to learn that those that make such claims are the ones I'm least able to trust, they having suspect motives for such a position. Religious people excel at this fallaciousness.

Derrida was right when he said that no such place exists and having a bias is necessary to have any kind of opinion. Your bias is your arguing point.

In science it is easier. But even an unbiased view in science has to be defined by parameters; of the demonstration; of the experiment; of the empirical conditions.
You mentioned religious people as not acknowledging their bias, and I agree but I also have found anti-religious people to be similarly blind. In fact, Fowler’s faith stages explains a typical series of steps people go through, though he points out that some remain at one stage or another... http://www.flyinginthespirit.cuttys.net ... -faith.png.

Notice that skeptical (anti-religious) comes after literal religious & before those who can appreciate religious symbolism withoit getting stuck in dogma. Stage 5 is who would tend to be more aware of their biases and thus more able (willing is another matter) of being fair. I realize that this is a generalization and exceptions exist.

“All have faith (or bias) but not all are conscious of having faith (or bias).”
“Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.” - Epicurus

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Eduk » August 27th, 2018, 3:24 am

Clearly a theologian would have no bias against someone who said prove it.
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 » 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.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3788
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by LuckyR » August 28th, 2018, 11:08 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 26th, 2018, 5:55 am
Newme wrote:
August 25th, 2018, 2:56 pm

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.
Bias is complicated.
I find it puzzling that people ever think it straightforward that they can so easily pretend to know where the mythical unbiased position lies from which to determine other's subjectivity.

I've come to learn that those that make such claims are the ones I'm least able to trust, they having suspect motives for such a position. Religious people excel at this fallaciousness.

Derrida was right when he said that no such place exists and having a bias is necessary to have any kind of opinion. Your bias is your arguing point.

In science it is easier. But even an unbiased view in science has to be defined by parameters; of the demonstration; of the experiment; of the empirical conditions.
I overall agree with you, but I would parse the topic more finely. To my way of thinking there is individual bias and meta-bias. Specifically, If I feel uncomfortable when a youth wearing and acting like a stereotypical gang-banger gets on an elevator I am riding on, I am "biased" individually, against that individual. I am also completely aware in the moment that I am biased and even if the elevator ride is uneventful, I will be equally biased the next time the scenario plays out. The nature of this bias is to appear calm exteriorly and maintain watchfulness, or perhaps to get off the elevator. Ultimately this does not materially hurt anyone if my bias is unwarranted and could help me considerably if my bias is correct.

OTOH, if I adopt a meta-attitude and support profiling by the police gang unit, or use unfair housing practices in renting out apartments based solely on appearances, then I have materially hurt someone, which of course is the reason such rules/laws/policies were created in the first place.
"As usual... it depends."

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Fooloso4 » August 28th, 2018, 12:11 pm

LuckyR:
To my way of thinking there is individual bias and meta-bias.
A fine distinction … in both senses of the term.

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

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 28th, 2018, 12:19 pm

LuckyR wrote:
August 28th, 2018, 11:08 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 26th, 2018, 5:55 am


Bias is complicated.
I find it puzzling that people ever think it straightforward that they can so easily pretend to know where the mythical unbiased position lies from which to determine other's subjectivity.

I've come to learn that those that make such claims are the ones I'm least able to trust, they having suspect motives for such a position. Religious people excel at this fallaciousness.

Derrida was right when he said that no such place exists and having a bias is necessary to have any kind of opinion. Your bias is your arguing point.

In science it is easier. But even an unbiased view in science has to be defined by parameters; of the demonstration; of the experiment; of the empirical conditions.
I overall agree with you, but I would parse the topic more finely. To my way of thinking there is individual bias and meta-bias. Specifically, If I feel uncomfortable when a youth wearing and acting like a stereotypical gang-banger gets on an elevator I am riding on, I am "biased" individually, against that individual. I am also completely aware in the moment that I am biased and even if the elevator ride is uneventful, I will be equally biased the next time the scenario plays out. The nature of this bias is to appear calm exteriorly and maintain watchfulness, or perhaps to get off the elevator. Ultimately this does not materially hurt anyone if my bias is unwarranted and could help me considerably if my bias is correct.

OTOH, if I adopt a meta-attitude and support profiling by the police gang unit, or use unfair housing practices in renting out apartments based solely on appearances, then I have materially hurt someone, which of course is the reason such rules/laws/policies were created in the first place.
I'll never forget when I taught an ex-cop computer skills. There was much in the News about "stop and search" powers that the police were given by Thatcher which led to the oppression of black people, and tensions eventually led to the Brixton riots of the early 1980s.

He had a story about a string of burglaries that went on for years, the perpetrator went completely unnoticed as his MoD was to wear a suit and tie to all his crimes. It was only through him being seen again and again, and cheekily always offering the police help in catching the criminal that led to the police being suspicious.
His house was full to the ceiling with stolen goods.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3788
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by LuckyR » August 28th, 2018, 6:13 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 28th, 2018, 12:19 pm
LuckyR wrote:
August 28th, 2018, 11:08 am


I overall agree with you, but I would parse the topic more finely. To my way of thinking there is individual bias and meta-bias. Specifically, If I feel uncomfortable when a youth wearing and acting like a stereotypical gang-banger gets on an elevator I am riding on, I am "biased" individually, against that individual. I am also completely aware in the moment that I am biased and even if the elevator ride is uneventful, I will be equally biased the next time the scenario plays out. The nature of this bias is to appear calm exteriorly and maintain watchfulness, or perhaps to get off the elevator. Ultimately this does not materially hurt anyone if my bias is unwarranted and could help me considerably if my bias is correct.

OTOH, if I adopt a meta-attitude and support profiling by the police gang unit, or use unfair housing practices in renting out apartments based solely on appearances, then I have materially hurt someone, which of course is the reason such rules/laws/policies were created in the first place.
I'll never forget when I taught an ex-cop computer skills. There was much in the News about "stop and search" powers that the police were given by Thatcher which led to the oppression of black people, and tensions eventually led to the Brixton riots of the early 1980s.

He had a story about a string of burglaries that went on for years, the perpetrator went completely unnoticed as his MoD was to wear a suit and tie to all his crimes. It was only through him being seen again and again, and cheekily always offering the police help in catching the criminal that led to the police being suspicious.
His house was full to the ceiling with stolen goods.
Everyone hearing your story understands the power of bias.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2387
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Hereandnow » August 30th, 2018, 12:46 am

Dachshund:
I would be particularly interested to hear from Mr HAN....etc., etc.
Found quite by accident this post. The issue is human rights and you think equal and inalienable rights is nonsense. I wish you would first of all read your own post, that long and tedious, paragraph after paragraph, possesses nothing whatever of an account of the argument that denies such human rights. It's is just reams of the history, what was said here and there, then another dissertation on how you absolutely, categorically, emphatically deny this absolute nonsense.....Now it would do you well to see that you do nothing to give analysis to the matter, and this is typical of you: too much to say, yet not nearly saying enough.

The matter can be easily put: Rights are ethical in nature. If have a right to something because you deserve it, and you deserve it because there is some justification that imparts desert. We are so used to talking about rights without thinking about justification that the term has become loose and distanced from it truer, more substantive nature.

No ethical justification, no right, not in the authentic sense, and the reason for this is that without justification the word becomes divested of its meaning, it becomes ethically arbitrary. Take having the right to citizenship in a country: we use the term to designate this kind of thing all the time. But it is more like a game rule than a true right, like the "right" to take the queen when she is moved in the path of a rook. It is this extension of the ethical term, or, the broad use to include non ethical contexts for its use that muddies the water when we talk about true ethical rights. But let's be clear here, rights to things without ethical justification have no meaning beyond the mere pragmatics of a rule.

When we talk about human rights in the "natural rights" sense, we are not referring to a pragmatic rule that grants a right; it's about justification, or rather, the lack of justification, and it goes like this: no one is equal to anyone else when it comes to talents, gifts, beauty, charm, social standing and so on. Obviously. So an cursory look at rights sees only the inequality, but these are given in their origin. You may be a genius, but where is the basis for deserving this? All that you produce is qualified by your genius, and you reap great rewards, there is no ethical part to this as you did nothing to deserve, or, have the right to, all that you took in. And if you were born into wealth, this would be equally ethically arbitrary, for being born into something has nothing of deserving the advantages you receive.

You should be able to see where this is going. We are thrown into a world where the advantages and outrageous fortune are given to us without any basis in a justified right to what we get. Einstein did nothing to deserve his genius, the Hiltons did nothing to deserve being born into wealth, and so on. If there is no desert, there is no right, either. Thus, without the obvious advantages figured in to the inequality of rights, there is no longer a basis for judging one better endowed with rights that another. The assessment of rights as humans becomes altogether equal: we are equal in that there is no ethical basis for inequality, for the observed inequalities are distributed in an ethically arbitrary way. If you try to divest the concept of a right from its ethical mooring, all that remains is a rule that CALLS what you have a right, but this carries no weight, has no moral aspect, and as such, anything can be devised as a right, for right emerges out of pure say so, caprice, fiat.

In a nutshell.

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

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 30th, 2018, 5:41 am

It is clear enough that the idea of natural rights is bogus.
And the idea that human rights "exist" is dubious.

Nonetheless "Human Rights" are a clear assertion of what each person deserves; what each polity should preserve; and an indication of what conditions OUGHT to exist between all people and the polities which have control over their lives.

Anyone who thinks otherwise cannot then expect any rights for themselves.

The IDHR is only the first step, it now remains for governments to get serious about them and obey the suggestions in relation to their own people and urge other governments to do likewise. When this does not work we need to put our money where our mouths are and initiate a system of sanctions to enforce those that transgress HR to comply.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2387
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Hereandnow » August 30th, 2018, 9:23 am

Thomas Hobbes:
It is clear enough that the idea of natural rights is bogus.
And the idea that human rights "exist" is dubious.
And yet, no thoughtful rebuttal. If I said Thomas Hobbes knew nothing of political societies and walked away with no defense, how meaningful would that be?

Steve3007
Posts: 6058
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Steve3007 » September 1st, 2018, 7:32 am

A summary, for the record:

From the OP:
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 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.

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

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 1st, 2018, 8:09 am

Hereandnow wrote:
August 30th, 2018, 9:23 am
Thomas Hobbes:
It is clear enough that the idea of natural rights is bogus.
And the idea that human rights "exist" is dubious.
And yet, no thoughtful rebuttal. If I said Thomas Hobbes knew nothing of political societies and walked away with no defense, how meaningful would that be?
Rebuttal of what exactly?
Natural Rights is only meaningful if there is a deity to establish a right. I do not see one enforcing that right.
In the same way Human Rights only exist whilst there are enough humans to establish them. I see precious little concerted effort for the world community to enforce those rights.

I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to do.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Burning ghost » September 1st, 2018, 8:33 am

Here:

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarat ... an-rights/

Yeah, complete fantasy. Next they’ll be saying everyone has the right to demand a house, car, personal flag and own personal laws which everyone else is to abide by.

The UN exactly the most useful group. Maybe in the future it prove to have at least been a messy stepping-stone toward a better global future. Atm it looks rather silly and often hypocritical.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Burning ghost » 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.
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply