Human Rights

[Keef]

That's why we're talking about humans. Lesser animals are a different story when it comes to rights.

Without even thinking about it, there already seems to be a general consensus that killing another innocent human is wrong. This stems from our self-awareness, which is something that apes can exhibit (Washoe would recognize herself in the mirror and we know this because she would sign her name), but animals such as dogs and cats don't (they don't recognize their own reflection). I know I am me, and I can feel it and ponder it. Suddenly I become aware of things like emotions. Because of those emotions I gain a sense of right and wrong - song things you just know are good, and some things you just know are bad. You might fear death. You fear for your life if you get attacked, and you might say something like "But I didn't even do anything." You begin to understand that taking an innocent person's life is wrong. It simply doesn't make sense, because they're also self-aware and they're probably thinking the same thing as you. By virtue of our self-awareness as humans we understand that taking an innocent life is wrong, and as we all know this it follows that the opportunity to live is inalienable amongst us. It's a fundamental right upon which all the others are based on.

Bear with me because my logic may have gone awry in there somewhere. Danoff in particular loves to lay out the details and follow the logic brick road so he could probably explain it better than I. But I think I just covered the first one.

So, life. That's one fundamental right. Any others? Might any other "unwritten rules" stem from our right to life?

 

[drivehard]

What about mothers who throw their babies in the dumpster because they don't want to bare the burden?

I think dogs and cats ignore their reflections because their olifactory sense is more dominate. If I can't smell or feel it, it must not be real.

I think that is very good description of how many people think. But by no means is it universal or the way that all people think. Infact, this way of thinking is relatively new. For the majority of human history that predates documentation, life was altogether tribal and barbaric. So "human rights" as you would say, are mostly influenced by environment. Even today where civilations are not as advanced - such as some places in Papau New Guinea or Amazonian areas of Brazil - much of the tribalism and barbarism persists.

 

[Danoff]

All living have the same exact rights. Complete and utter freedom to do whatever they want to do. Including murder, torture, hate, etc. I'm not saying that these things are right but considering they happen everyday they must be considered to be human rights?

Nope.

The ability to do something does not confer the right to do it. If you can provide a justification for the use of force against another innocent conscious individual, please do so. Otherwise, there is no justification for the action, and it is not a right.

What you are confusing is right with ability.

 

[drivehard]

So the distinguishing feature is justification?

An innocent man might be a guilty man some two hundred miles across the pond. There are differing views about what is right or wrong all over the planet; or what is justifiable. One could presume all over the universe. So rights are dictated by ones environment. But the thing that persists all over the universe is the will or ability; Hence ones abilities are ones rights.

 

[Famine]

Are you seriously suggesting that anything that can be done is right? That Saddam Hussein's ability to kill hundreds of thousands of Kurds meant that, when he did it, it was right? That Josef Fritzl's ability to imprison his daughter for 24 years and father seven children - all of whom were also imprisoned - by her was right because he did it?

Seriously?

 

[Touring Mars]

So the distinguishing feature is justification?

An innocent man might be a guilty man some two hundred miles across the pond. There are differing views about what is right or wrong all over the planet; or what is justifiable. One could presume all over the universe. So rights are dictated by ones environment. But the thing that persists all over the universe is the will or ability; Hence ones abilities are ones rights.

Human rights are not dictated by one's environment - different countries may recognise and respect rights differently, but that doesn't change what those rights are. As Danoff has already said, the ability to do something doesn't confer the right to do it. While you may be able to do whatever you want, whether you are justified in doing so depends on a consideration of the rights of those who may be affected by your actions. If by exercising your ability to do whatever you want you violate the rights of someone else, then your actions could be judged to be wrong on that basis alone.

 

[TT3AZ]

You bridged about 4 different issues there.

- Do US citizens have a right to have their own nation
- Do US citizens have a right to all of the jobs created by all of the companies in that nation
- Can the US deport illegal immigrants
- Do illegal immigrants have a right to force the citizens of the country they are in illegally to work on their behalf.

These questions have answers. Different people will answer them differently, but they also have correct answers.

Again, these questions have answers.

What I meant was that, it is impossible to get an objective answer on these questions, a answer that is universaly valid for all people. I stated these issues to show that different people will answer them differently. And accoring to you, what are the "correct" answers to these questions? Depending on which filosophic views you have, you can either state that there are universal truths or not.

 

[Wolf-M]

This has been such a complex discussion over the last two pages. Schwoo. There's obviously a fundamental disagreement between the libertarian crew here and others, notably Wolf-M. Wolf, I'm getting the idea that your view on human rights is skewed to say the least, but since this argument has made no progress I want to start at the bottom.

What are human rights? List the ones you know. We'll start with that.

I know I've said I've made my last point. Keef has asked me to give a reply to the question here, and I thought I should share it with you all.


As a reply to your question, I think I don't dispute with Danoff's definition of what constitutes human rights. They are self-evident. They are not susceptible to any rational explanation.


The fundamental disagreement that may arise is whether human rights are absolute. I say they are not. Why? Because when one actively pursues one right, he/she is almost going to be infringing on another's fundamental right.

Just like

Abortion. The foetus's right to life vs the mother's right to personal autonomy.

Defamation and privacy laws. Protecting one's privacy and reputation necessarily means curtailing another person's right to free speech/expression.


Sometimes they are not necessarily about the clash between two human rights.

Eg immigration laws. Refusing the entry of refugees into one's country (eg Mexico refugees into US borders) can properly be regarded as infringing on the refugee's right to free movement.

Or the criminal law relating to suspects being detained by police for interrogation purposes for a certain period of time - isn't that against the fundamental right that every citizen is free from state interference? One must not forget that a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise by a court of law!


[As a side note, I don't understand Danoff's protest that he doesn't see where the rights I've mentioned, other than the right to free speech, comes from... Aren't they all protected in major constitutional documents, including the US constitution?

Further, the freedom of speech is not protected because of the pure assertion that one cannot be forcibly silenced, but because of the "marketplace of ideas" as advocated by the great American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes]


So the real issue is really when and under what circumstances a person's fundamental right may be curtailed. In other words, whether there is sufficient justification for derogating a human right. In the language which I've used in my posts, "whether the infringement is proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued".


Now what counts as legitimate objective? Is the overall happiness of the greater society one such justification? The utilitarian theories say yes. That's why it is possible that in the trolley example the sacrificing of one man to save, say, the whole universe may be regarded as justifiable, even though killing another human being of itself is wrong in nature, given the so overwhelming collective interest preserved by the commission of a relatively lesser evil.

This idea of utilitariansim is premised partly upon the idea of the "social contract". The social contract says (roughly - as I recall from the top of my head) that men agree to give up some of his/her personal rights and autonomy in order to enjoy the benefits of an established social and legal order. From the wiki extract,

From this common starting point proponents of social contract theory attempt to prove, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up his or her natural freedom in order to obtain the benefits of political and economic order.

Utilitarianism thus embraces the idea that we are all living as a collective whole. We do not mind losing some of our personal liberty and legitimate interest, so long as the society as a whole is benefiting from the stability and security the established order provides. The benefit is enjoyed not only by ourselves, but also by our descendants.


Then comes Danoff's argument - but you can't objectively justify the use of force against an individual even though the collective interest may be preserved.

I would say, however, that such proposition is already making an assumption - that mankind exists as individuals but not as a collective. Danoff's point is that

-> All human rights must be fiercely defended and are not susceptible to any derogation

The utilitarian view is that

-> The collective interest of the society is paramount. Subject to this framework, human rights will be protected as fully as practicable.


So isn't the choice of the starting points nothing but a pesonal opinion? That's my whole stance after all, that there cannot be a conclusion to this question because both views are equally legitimate.


As a real life example, look at Singapore. It is renowned for its efficient goverance and corruption-free environment, and it also boasts one of the most advanced economy in South East Asia. However the ruling party is also notorious for actively silencing political dissidents. They also have strict criminal laws [which I think are entirely sensible] that, in Danoff's eyes, are serious infringements on personal liberty. For instance, they still retain the caning penalty - I don't know whether you were aware of this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

From a purely human rights perspective Singapore has a really undesirable track record. However, the crime rate in this city-state is also astonishingly low. No one ever needs to worry about campus massacres, drug taking is the rare exception in schools, one can walk in downtown without the fear of being robbed after midnight (cf some major cities in the US). Citizens in general are happy with the political state of the country, they enjoy the economic prosperity the country has experienced and have largely been treated well by the government. The unwritten law - you enjoy all the freedoms and rights and whatever under the heaven and above the earth except overthrowing the ruling party.

[Personal choice - I'd choose living in Singapore than, say, New York]


So what does this show? The sole emphasis on individualism might not always be the best choice! As I have stated repeatedly, there cannot be a single right answer to the trolley example. One is of course well entitled to his/her own opinion, but there is no overriding "common" morality applicable to the each and every nations, let alone individuals.

We have said so much, but what I attempted to demonstrate is just so simple.

 

[Famine]

I want you to imagine, for a second, that we are in an imaginary state where there are no laws at all - not locally, not nationally, not internationally.

Do you have a right to life?


I realise I've phrased that as a question, but it's not a very big one and only needs a "yes" or a "no" answer. You can, of course, explain the reasoning behind your answer but it needs, as a minimum, a "yes" or a "no".

You are in a state with no laws. Do you have a right - a right - to life?

 

[Wolf-M]

I want you to imagine, for a second, that we are in an imaginary state where there are no laws at all - not locally, not nationally, not internationally.

Do you have a right to life?


I realise I've phrased that as a question, but it's not a very big one and only needs a "yes" or a "no" answer. You can, of course, explain the reasoning behind your answer but it needs, as a minimum, a "yes" or a "no".

You are in a state with no laws. Do you have a right - a right - to life?

Yes. But no right in this world is absolute as I understand it.

And why? It goes back to the previous post.

 

[lbsf1]

I want you to imagine, for a second, that we are in an imaginary state where there are no laws at all - not locally, not nationally, not internationally.

Do you have a right to life?


I realise I've phrased that as a question, but it's not a very big one and only needs a "yes" or a "no" answer. You can, of course, explain the reasoning behind your answer but it needs, as a minimum, a "yes" or a "no".

You are in a state with no laws. Do you have a right - a right - to life?

Slightly off topic however bringing up the topic of law reminded me of something I thought of last night. What right do courts have to send you to prison and take rights away from you?

Isn't it oppresion by one group of people to another.

Also the same about capital punishment can one sin be punished by another sin exactly the same? (but thats for another thread).

Just to reiterate I don't actually believe courts are bad and wrong I just wanted to bring it up.

 

[drivehard]

Are you seriously suggesting that anything that can be done is right?

Seriously?

Not at all and I put in some effort to show that this is not what I'm suggesting.

 

[drivehard]

Human rights are not dictated by one's environment - different countries may recognise and respect rights differently, but that doesn't change what those rights are. As Danoff has already said, the ability to do something doesn't confer the right to do it. While you may be able to do whatever you want, whether you are justified in doing so depends on a consideration of the rights of those who may be affected by your actions. If by exercising your ability to do whatever you want you violate the rights of someone else, then your actions could be judged to be wrong on that basis alone.

I agree different countries respect rights differently and that dosen't change what those rights are.

And let me break from my usual words because my brain isn't processing this as easily as it should.

Man has been carving out these ideas since Confucious, Zoraster, Plato, etc. Yet here we are at GTP making no great progress; throwing another log onto the fire if you will. And through the centuries one thing has remained universal or absolute: A man or womans abilities are ones rights. As great of an influence these philosophers have had or as much of a force civilization has over man: The truth is that if ones rights were different from ones abilities nature would make the distinction not man.

 

[Famine]

Yes.

So you agree that, even in a state where no law applies, you have a right to life. From where does the right originate? Why do you know that you have it?

Not at all and I put in some effort to show that this is not what I'm suggesting.

Really? I ask since your post states that your abilities are your rights:

But the thing that persists all over the universe is the will or ability; Hence ones abilities are ones rights.

I would have been able to kill a baby while I was wandering around the supermarket tonight. Since that's an ability, that is also my right, by your argument. Is it my right to kill a baby?

 

[drivehard]

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. It's your right to kill, love, torture, etc. The major reason you have trouble processing this is because the consequences for these actions have been so ingrained in you that not only are you unaware of your rights but you will go through your whole life, as will I, without knowing what you are truly able to do.

 

[Famine]

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. It's your right to kill, love, torture, etc.

Wow.

Just...

Wow.

The major reason you have trouble processing this is because the consequences for these actions have been so ingrained in you that not only are you unaware of your rights but you will go through your whole life, as will I, without knowing what you are truly able to do.

No, the reason that this is patently false is that I have a fundamental right to life, free from molestation, subjugation and enslavement. And so do you. It is not my right to kill you, nor is it anyone else's - at least not without your permission.

 

[lbsf1]

It is not my right to kill you, nor is it anyone else's - at least not without your permission.[/color][/b]

And even in british law you don't have the right to do that.

It may be your right to kill someone however it is kind of overruled by the other persons right too life.

 

[Famine]

And even in british law you don't have the right to do that.

As we've pointed out several times, what is right and what is legal are so rarely alike as to not be worth mentioning law in a discussion of rights.

You have the right to end your life as you see fit.

It may be your right to kill someone however it is kind of overruled by the other persons right too life.

It is not your right to kill anyone because you have a right to life.

 

[lbsf1]

As we've pointed out several times, what is right and what is legal are so rarely alike as to not be worth mentioning law in a discussion of rights.

You have the right to end your life as you see fit.
It is not your right to kill anyone because you have a right to life.

In britain you arn't allowed (instead of the word rights) to kill someone if they want it with out consequences. In britain they see it as not "right".


How does your right to life come into effecting killing someone else?
It is there right to life you are stoping, and as I was pointing out to the other guy even if (I don't believe in it) there was a right to kill others their right to live would come first. (in my mind anyway)

 

[Duke]

Your own right to life prohibits you from taking the life of another (assuming they are innocent) because every individual who has not forfeit that right has an equal right to life.

 

[Famine]

In britain you arn't allowed (instead of the word rights) to kill someone if they want it with out consequences. In britain they see it as not "right".

And, as pointed out, it doesn't matter. You have a right to life. You have a right to end that life. What is law has no bearing on this.

How does your right to life come into effecting killing someone else?

I have a right to life - I can prove it, since I exist. That means no-one may take my life from me. Yes? If they have the ability to take my life from me, they also exist. Thus emerges their right to life also.

My right to life means I have no right to kill another. The right to kill someone else does not exist - let alone come into conflict with anything.

 

[lbsf1]

And, as pointed out, it doesn't matter. You have a right to life. You have a right to end that life. What is law has no bearing on this.



I have a right to life - I can prove it, since I exist. That means no-one may take my life from me. Yes? If they have the ability to take my life from me, they also exist. Thus emerges their right to life also.

My right to life means I have no right to kill another. The right to kill someone else does not exist - let alone come into conflict with anything.

So basicly I have the same basic rights as anyone else so if I have the right to life so do they so I don't have the right too kill them.

Or you could just say more simply, everyone has the right to life so killing anyone would be against that.

Law has no bearing on you right however it does bear on whether you will be punished for using your right to kill someone if they ask for it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Law has no bearing on you right however it does bear on whether you will be punished for using your right to kill someone if they ask for it.

True, but because law and rights often do not coincide then law has no place in a discussion of rights other than to be a distraction.

 

[Famine]

So basicly I have the same basic rights as anyone else so if I have the right to life so do they so I don't have the right too kill them.

There's a reason they're called "fundamental, inalienable rights".

Law has no bearing on you right however it does bear on whether you will be punished for using your right to kill someone if they ask for it.

True, but because law and rights often do not coincide then law has no place in a discussion of rights other than to be a distraction.

That and there's still no "right to kill".

 

[lbsf1]

That and there's still no "right to kill".

I never said there was, I made my view quite clear and that it is the opposite. I just pointed out some potential holes in the argument.

 

[Famine]

it does bear on whether you will be punished for using your right to kill someone if they ask for it

Which doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what holes you've pointed out in the fact that you have a right to life and, as a result of this, so does everyone else.

 

[lbsf1]

Which doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what holes you've pointed out in the fact that you have a right to life and, as a result of this, so does everyone else.

I'm going allong the euthanasia line, where a terminally ill person cannot (legally) ask someone to kill them. This defies the right defies the to do what you want with your body.

The law here defies them their human right.

 

[Famine]

I'm going allong the euthanasia line, where a terminally ill person cannot (legally) ask someone to kill them. This defies the right defies the to do what you want with your body.

The law here defies them their human right.

And, as we keep telling you, what is considered legal is completely irrelevant to a discussion of rights.

You have the right to live. You have the right to die if you choose. The legalities are irrelevant.

 

[lbsf1]

And, as we keep telling you, what is considered legal is completely irrelevant to a discussion of rights.

You have the right to live. You have the right to die if you choose. The legalities are irrelevant.

As I said it is your right however a right you will be punished for using.

 

[Wolf-M]

So you agree that, even in a state where no law applies, you have a right to life. From where does the right originate? Why do you know that you have it?

The discussion seems to have digressed……

Re Famine,

Because that is what justice and fairness dictate.

Human rights are manifestations of social justice to emphasise human capabilities. These core human entitlements are a minimum as to what respect for human dignity requires. That’s why we can all say we have a right to life. It is not because your existence in this world that proves that you have such right. Applying your logic, just because a cockroach exists in this world should it also enjoy a right to life?

Contrary to what some here have said, there is no (positive) right to kill. In principle, I agree with the analysis someone gave that “might does not make right”.

What I was saying with regard to the utilitarian principle is that whilst you have a right, that right can be legitimately taken away by a government where justification is found, and that justification arises when the collective level of welfare in the community is improved despite some members becoming worse off.

You might say “what about the counter-majoritarian nature of fundamental rights?” That is to be answered by the concept of “proportionality”, which is central to the position that I have stated. If there is overwhelming public interest in taking away or causing your fundamental right to diminish, then it may become morally just for a government to commit the infringement (which is deemed the lesser evil). This can either be explained in a utilitarian sense or an ideal sense – a policy of affirmative action might, for example, be pursued to reduce social tensions or to make the community more equal and therefore more just.

Example – taxation as a tool to redistribute wealth.

Yes I admit that this is based upon an assumption that collective interests trump individual rights. Just as how you have assumed that individual rights are king and are not subject to compromise. On a purely philosophical level, it is a matter of value judgment. In relation to law, courts generally accept that rights are not absolute out of pragmatism.


----

Law and morality in the context of human rights

Re Famine (and many others),

While in general law does not always follow morality, in the special case of human rights (and also public international law) I beg to differ. The legal test of proportionality (at least for the EU which the UK is part of) precisely encapsulates the utilitarian principle in striking the sensible balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring that the progression of the society as a whole would not be unduly hindered by the overzealous emphasis of one particular individual’s rights.

So that’s why the starting point is always to determine whether a fundamental right has been violated, and it is after this step would the court ask whether the complained infringement was justified (under the test of proportionality).

It is this reason that actual case examples were cited in my previous posts.

The unspoken reason:- It is useless to talk about something abstract when you can contribute to what the law should be and how reforms should take place.


----

Origin of courts’ power and jurisdiction

Re lbsf1

Courts are part of the social and political establishment, and their existence could be explained by the social contract theory – that individuals have voluntarily given up part of their natural rights in exchange for the stability and security offered by a strong legal order.