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.
