Human rights

[Gillipig]

First question, do you support the notion of human rights? Yes or No
If yes, Do you think we are born with unalienable rights, or that we don't have them but should pretend that we do in order to create a just society?

[Lootifer]

I prefer to think of them as guidelines on what we should aim for. Not something unalienable.

[patches70]

I prefer to think of them as guidelines on what we should aim for. Not something unalienable.

I dunno, there may be some things that could be viewed as "rights" that are ingrained into our psyche, things like self preservation. Few would argue that an individual doesn't have a right to defend himself. I mean, if someone was to come up to you and start beating you like a stepchild and looking to stomp you to death, would you feel not only the need to defend yourself, but also argue afterward (assuming you were successful and lived) that you had the right to defend yourself to anyone who may question why you snapped your attacker's neck like a twig? That you had no choice, that you had to defend yourself and that you should be able to defend yourself to whatever degree you must to preserve your life?

Of course, you could choose not to exercise that need, that desire to protect yourself and just let the attacker murder you.


But I suppose, in general, rights are only what people agree they are at any given time. And of course one must have the power to protect those rights that people have agreed on. For if one does not have the power to protect one's rights, then they don't truly have any rights.

[BigBallinStalin]

Depends on the 'human rights'.
If we can point out a human right and have the capability to enforce it, then that's unalienable enough.

[patches70]

If we can point out a human right and have the capability to enforce it, then that's unalienable enough.

That's the true crux of rights, the ability to enforce those rights. Without that there are no rights.

[BigBallinStalin]

If we can point out a human right and have the capability to enforce it, then that's unalienable enough.

That's the true crux of rights, the ability to enforce those rights. Without that there are no rights.

Kind of. We can still think of these rights, so they do exist in that sense.

[patches70]

If we can point out a human right and have the capability to enforce it, then that's unalienable enough.

That's the true crux of rights, the ability to enforce those rights. Without that there are no rights.

Kind of. We can still think of these rights, so they do exist in that sense.

Kind of like how unicorns exist because one can imagine them? Hahahaha.

[BigBallinStalin]

If we can point out a human right and have the capability to enforce it, then that's unalienable enough.

That's the true crux of rights, the ability to enforce those rights. Without that there are no rights.

Kind of. We can still think of these rights, so they do exist in that sense.

Kind of like how unicorns exist because one can imagine them? Hahahaha.

Kind of like being a slave and thinking that you should be able to own yourself. Hahahaha?

[patches70]

If we can point out a human right and have the capability to enforce it, then that's unalienable enough.

That's the true crux of rights, the ability to enforce those rights. Without that there are no rights.

Kind of. We can still think of these rights, so they do exist in that sense.

Kind of like how unicorns exist because one can imagine them? Hahahaha.

Kind of like being a slave and thinking that you should be able to own yourself. Hahahaha?

Yeah, and the second the slave has the power to do such a thing then he'll have the ability to exercise that right to be free. Or if someone else will use said power to grant said freedom.
The slave may wish to own himself, but if he lacks the will and the power to see such a thing, then it will not happen unless someone else acts on his behalf (which is always possible as well).
Besides, it doesn't matter, the slave would free himself from one set of shackles to merely put on another set of shackles (which are at least slightly more comfortable I'd hope). Birds in gilded cages are still in cages.

The only thing one is free in is his own mind, even in chains. That's the only thing any of us really owns, our thoughts. After that, not so much. But there are plenty who willingly sacrifice that freedom of their own mind as you well know.

But in the concept of the OP, the rights that are being spoken of cannot exist unless someone is able to enforce those rights and protect those rights. That's why we institute governments, at least so Jefferson said in his famous Declaration. To protect those inalienable rights.
Inalienable means something that cannot be taken away or given away. If that was the case then the King of England, even though he was a King, could not have taken them away to the point we had to fight to get them.

Rights do not come from a piece of paper, a God, a thought, a government or anything else. Rights are always originally purchased on the battlefield.
Maybe we will come to a point when this is no longer the case. But as it stands now, the battlefield is the where our rights derived from. And battlefields take many shapes and forms, it's not always armies facing off.

See?-





Which brings us right back to trading one set of shackles for another some could argue.....

[Phatscotty]

First question, do you support the notion of human rights? Yes or No
If yes, Do you think we are born with unalienable rights, or that we don't have them but should pretend that we do in order to create a just society?

Yup

Yup

I think the thing to realize here is while a human has inalienable rights, that does not mean it's impossible for another to break the law and infringe on those rights or even take them completely. In that sense, they can be taken away sure, but what makes it a right is one's ability to defend that right, to prevent it from being taken or infringed upon. That's why rights have to constantly be fought for and defended; it's about maintaining and recognition, and having a reason to be recognized.

[john9blue]

First question, do you support the notion of human rights? Yes or No
If yes, Do you think we are born with unalienable rights, or that we don't have them but should pretend that we do in order to create a just society?

if there is such a thing as a "just society" that we have to create, then that automatically assumes that human rights do exist.

if human rights do not exist, then there would be no need to create a just society.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is designing a just society even possible?

[patches70]

Is designing a just society even possible?

I dunno, seems to me society is more spontaneously created rather than designed. Built around core traditions, knowledge, environmental realities and beliefs of individuals within. As those things change, new knowledge gained, revised beliefs, new traditions, society changes as well.

[chang50]

Is designing a just society even possible?

Designing one is possible,the difficult bit is putting it into practice.What is the alternative to trying?

[BigBallinStalin]

Is designing a just society even possible?

Designing one is possible,the difficult bit is putting it into practice.What is the alternative to trying?

It depends on the scale at which you administer change. The French Revolution, fueled by the designs of particular political thinkers, produced some rather interesting results (from monarchy to tyranny with many innocents dead). If one wishes to design the just society, they should steer well-clear from centralized and higher forms of command. That way, the good intentions which produce poor outcomes affects significantly less people. (for example, these two posts explain).

An alternative is spontaneous order, which is often gone unnoticed and mistaken for the outcomes of design. In a sense, I'm saying, "let that group over there figure it out for themselves. Your intervention may be counter-productive, albeit well-intended."

[Lootifer]

Is designing a just society even possible?

And therein lies the rub.

I say yes. But then I would say that...

To expand (and itll be a shithouse expand because I have no formal knowledge of this shit; just arguing based on instinct).

I dont think rights actually exist because they assume that one can act on that right; a crippled man can't do much with his right to defend himself now can he? Or should we interperate that as meaning we should arm only cripples?! (arms race kgo)

What we can do is work out what is fair or just. And it doesnt even have to be detailed. For example: All children deserve a quality education such that they can compete perfectly equally with all the rest of the children should they choose.

Thats not inalienable or whatever; but to me thats a right that we should work towards.

[Army of GOD]

Human rights are a fictional construct that represents the most popular set of ethics. They're arbitrary and don't exist objectively.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is designing a just society even possible?

And therein lies the rub.

I say yes. But then I would say that...

To expand (and itll be a shithouse expand because I have no formal knowledge of this shit; just arguing based on instinct).

I dont think rights actually exist because they assume that one can act on that right; a crippled man can't do much with his right to defend himself now can he? Or should we interperate that as meaning we should arm only cripples?! (arms race kgo)

What we can do is work out what is fair or just. And it doesnt even have to be detailed. For example: All children deserve a quality education such that they can compete perfectly equally with all the rest of the children should they choose.

Thats not inalienable or whatever; but to me thats a right that we should work towards.

To me, that's more of a goal. We cover the word, 'goal', with 'right' in order to create that moral obligation, so that one can point to some vague Benefit in order to gloss over the uncertainties and costs. That's dangerous thinking, in my opinion. For example, similar reasoning occurs with invading other countries to promote democracy or Christianity.

Much of morality is instrumental in attaining the goals of individuals and groups mainly through government spending. Although some may say that they won't cross that line, it seems that many do anyway. It's a symptom of the times where any endeavor must be funneled through the federal government.

So, we get this kind of outcome: "Taxation is coercive, you say? Who cares! This goal of mine is now declared a 'right'; therefore, concerns over costs and uncertainty (e.g. knowledge problem) shall be damned. We must save the children (hey, a crusade!)."

There's something really dysfunctional with that kind of thinking (whenever it involuntarily dips into other people's pockets for resources).

[BigBallinStalin]

Human rights are a fictional construct that represents the most popular set of ethics. They're arbitrary and don't exist objectively.

Right, and they're hardly all agreed upon. I love it when people point to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--as if a document signed by a bunch of heads of state should be an appropriate proxy for truth and of actual expression of the millions whom they supposedly represent.

"The Commission on Human Rights was made up of 18 members from various political, cultural and religious backgrounds." (link)

Wow, 18 people steered by FDR's wife get together and suddenly the Entire Universe is endowed with Human Rights. Nonsense.

[thegreekdog]

First question, do you support the notion of human rights? Yes or No
If yes, Do you think we are born with unalienable rights, or that we don't have them but should pretend that we do in order to create a just society?

(1) Yes (with a qualifier)
(2) We were not born with inalienable rights

[Lootifer]

To me, that's more of a goal. We cover the word, 'goal', with 'right' in order to create that moral obligation, so that one can point to some vague Benefit in order to gloss over the uncertainties and costs. That's dangerous thinking, in my opinion. For example, similar reasoning occurs with invading other countries to promote democracy or Christianity.

Agree; though with my example it's not based on costs or benefits. There may be no benefits of giving each child an equal quality education - in fact it can probably be shown that a caste system probably yields more systemic efficiency/productivity. Thats not really the point thou; the point is as J9B says: Do we want to, and can we, design a just society? Its not very complicated, one of the two words that make it up tell you how to go about it: A just/fair society is [and I would argue this is objective] one in which the innocent (children, disabled, etc - this definition is not objective; it can be expanded to protect the uninformed/irrational) are given equality of opportunity.

Much of morality is instrumental in attaining the goals of individuals and groups mainly through government spending. Although some may say that they won't cross that line, it seems that many do anyway. It's a symptom of the times where any endeavor must be funneled through the federal government.

Much like you assume that natural philanthropy will occur in a free market in order to look after the innocent; I conversly assume that in a fundamentally well designed govenment (of which none exist - much like no truely free market exists) you can use holistic critical thinking to over-ride individual incentives.

So, we get this kind of outcome: "Taxation is coercive, you say? Who cares! This goal of mine is now declared a 'right'; therefore, concerns over costs and uncertainty (e.g. knowledge problem) shall be damned. We must save the children (hey, a crusade!)."

Thats not a problem with the system, thats a problem with the individual and their ability (through lack of checks and balances) to make decisions (that impact the participants in the system) without the use of critical thought.

There's something really dysfunctional with that kind of thinking (whenever it involuntarily dips into other people's pockets for resources).

How very Phattist of you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Eh, it's still dysfunctional. It doesn't lead to the outcomes which you desire ("a fundamentally well designed govenment")

[jonesthecurl]

Is designing a just society even possible?

It's an ongoing task. made harder by the fact that we tend to give it to politicians.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is designing a just society even possible?

It's an ongoing task. made harder by the fact that we tend to give it to politicians.[/quote]

Yeah, that's pretty much my biggest qualm here. I wish more people would refrain from doing that.

[ooge]

First question, do you support the notion of human rights? Yes or No
If yes, Do you think we are born with unalienable rights, or that we don't have them but should pretend that we do in order to create a just society?

Yes.

No. we are not born with them, society either recognizes Human Rights or they do not. ex. the rights of someone in the middle east to not be killed by a drone strike.The rights of a woman to have a dead fetus removed from her body,refused and she died.The rights of a pregnant teenager to receive leukemia treatment,refused because it would terminate her pregnancy,she and the fetus died.