Human Rights

[Famine]

The discussion seems to have digressed...

Not at all. The point of the questions - and hopefully your answers - is to explain why it is not an assumption that the right to life of one cannot be "trumped" by the right to life of many.

Re Famine,

Because that is what justice and fairness dictate.

What are "justice" and "fairness" and how do they play any role in the origin of your right to life?

Human rights are manifestations of social justice to emphasise human capabilities.

"Social justice" is irrelevant (and an oxymoron).

These core human entitlements are a minimum as to what respect for human dignity requires.

Dignity is irrelevant.

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?

Logic - not mine, since it is not subjective - says no such thing. You've merely assumed a position on my behalf (one at which you've arrived without logic) and used logic to denigrate that position.

The key word in "I have a right to life because I exist" is not "exist". It is "I".

So I ask again, from where does the right to life - the right that you know you have even in a state of utter lawlessness - originate? Why do you know that you have it?

 

[Wolf-M]

Not at all. The point of the questions - and hopefully your answers - is to explain why it is not an assumption that the right to life of one cannot be "trumped" by the right to life of many.



What are "justice" and "fairness" and how do they play any role in the origin of your right to life?



"Social justice" is irrelevant (and an oxymoron).



Dignity is irrelevant.



Logic - not mine, since it is not subjective - says no such thing. You've merely assumed a position on my behalf (one at which you've arrived without logic) and used logic to denigrate that position.

The key word in "I have a right to life because I exist" is not "exist". It is "I".

So I ask again, from where does the right to life - the right that you know you have even in a state of utter lawlessness - originate? Why do you know that you have it?

Can I simply say I don't quite understand what you are saying?


Putting aside the fact that human dignity and social justice form the basis officially adopted by UN and many more other int'l institutions in recognising and protecting fundamental rights, I see no reason why we continue to argue where human right originates from.

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.

And

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.

Pretty much concludes what I have to say.


Just one last point - The fact that a substantial group of people does not agree with your position in and of itself shows that there is no single common morality that applies across the board among all nations in all cultures.

Unless, of course, one is arrogant enough to deem that his personal notion of morality is superior to each and every person who disagrees with him.

 

[Keef]

Too long, didn't read.

I didn't yet read any posts between yours and mine either.

I asked you to list the human rights that you know. Start from the bottom, then maybe we can all cover each one step at a time. I'm confident that if you read a logical explanation of their existence that you'll see them like we do. They simply make sense - like 2+2, there can be no argument against them.

 

[drivehard]

Let me put in one last word in favor of the truth because besides being a wrench in your gears I think that it is important it be heard, no matter how ugly it may be.

"Wow...Just...Wow."

I think if you were hungry enough, or your environment wasn't as providing, you wouldn't be so shocked.

"Even in British law..."

Thank you. And later another poster makes the distinction between laws and rights, or what is man made and what is universal.

"Your own right to life prohibits you from taking another life..."

To the contrary. Your own right to life enables you to take another life. I'm not saying this, the history of all life on this planet, including human history, is constantly bombarding you with this truth. And if this sense was greater than the influence of your environment we might have the right to honestly have this discussion. But some millenia in we haven't any ultimate idea.

 

[Famine]

It doesn't magically become "the truth" if you state it. You need to establish, with objective logic and rationality, that it is the truth. You have yet to demonstrate this.

I can prove that I have a right to life. I can prove that you do too. This disproves any notion that either of us has the right to take life from the other without consent or forfeit, because that imagined "right" is directly at odds with the fundamental right to life and nothing that is a right can ever conflict with another.

Can I simply say I don't quite understand what you are saying?

You can, but you're not really required to.

Putting aside the fact that human dignity and social justice form the basis officially adopted by UN and many more other int'l institutions in recognising and protecting fundamental rights, I see no reason why we continue to argue where human right originates from.

I'll remind you of the original question:

"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?"

What legal institutions adopt as a basis for laws is irrelevant to the question. Since you agree that even in utter lawlessness you know you have a right to life, what is legal is irrelevant. So, why do you know that, even in the complete absence of any legal structure, you have a right to life?

I know that I have a right to life because I exist - the key word being "I".

 

[Wolf-M]

I didn't yet read any posts between yours and mine either.

I asked you to list the human rights that you know. Start from the bottom, then maybe we can all cover each one step at a time. I'm confident that if you read a logical explanation of their existence that you'll see them like we do. They simply make sense - like 2+2, there can be no argument against them.

There is no substantial disagreement, as far as I am aware of, on the definition of human rights and their origin between Famine and myself.

We both agree that humans intrinsically have a right to life, and that no one else has a positive right to take that life away.

What seems to be controversial, however, is whether human rights are absolute or are subject to derogation upon good justification.

[Just in case one might wonder – while there is no positive right to take away another person’s life, that does not mean the taking away of another person’s life can never be justified. See eg self defence. Also, while there is no positive right for a government to interfere with citizens’ liberty, the arrest of suspects by the police (note: innocence presumed until proven guilty) is deemed a necessary (and thus justified) interference with the citizens' fundamental right to liberty for social order to be maintained.]

It doesn't magically become "the truth" if you state it. You need to establish, with objective logic and rationality, that it is the truth. You have yet to demonstrate this.

I can prove that I have a right to life. I can prove that you do too. This disproves any notion that either of us has the right to take life from the other without consent or forfeit, because that imagined "right" is directly at odds with the fundamental right to life and nothing that is a right can ever conflict with another.



You can, but you're not really required to.



I'll remind you of the original question:

"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?"

What legal institutions adopt as a basis for laws is irrelevant to the question. Since you agree that even in utter lawlessness you know you have a right to life, what is legal is irrelevant. So, why do you know that, even in the complete absence of any legal structure, you have a right to life?

I know that I have a right to life because I exist - the key word being "I".

Re Famine,

When I say I do not understand your words, it is not that I do not see where you are coming from. In fact, as early as in post #193, I have already stated that the answer to the trolley question depends on one’s view on individual rights vs collective rights.

What I simply fail to discern is the logic and reason behind your emphasis on the word “I” while ruling out the word “we”.

“I” is indicative of a self-centred position; “we” is indicative of a position of collective interest. You can of course start with the assumption that “I” comes before “we”, but you cannot explain why that should be the logical/rational/moral choice as opposed to a greater emphasis on “we”.

Why cannot the starting point be

- “our” collective interest takes precedence over all members’ individual interests?

Though in reality, most political entities modify the position as

- “our collective interest takes precedence over all members’ individual interests, though subject to this framework, we have the constitution/charter/convention/human rights act that aim to protect individual interests as fully as practicable

While I do not dispute that you can prove that you have a right to life, I do not think you can prove that the “I” position must be correct starting point whereas the “we” position must be discarded.

In any event, looking at the objective indicators such as the global happiness index, most European social welfare states (which by definition their citizens enjoy less “freedom” than purely capitalist economies) score much higher than, say, the US.

One can therefore raise the legitimate question – must pure emphasis on individualism be the only morally correct option for every country?

 

[Famine]

When I say I do not understand your words, it is not that I do not see where you are coming from. In fact, as early as in post #193, I have already stated that the answer to the trolley question depends on one’s view on individual rights vs collective rights.

It only does so if you believe rights are subjective. They are not.

What I simply fail to discern is the logic and reason behind your emphasis on the word “I” while ruling out the word “we”.

“I” is indicative of a self-centred position; “we” is indicative of a position of collective interest. You can of course start with the assumption that “I” comes before “we”, but you cannot explain why that should be the logical/rational/moral choice as opposed to a greater emphasis on “we”.

Prove to me that you exist.


You are jumping ahead on the path. We have successfully concluded step 1 - even without law, you have the right to live. We're stuck at step 2 - from where does the right for you to live come? Follow me down the path - you'll enjoy it.

 

[Wolf-M]

It only does so if you believe rights are subjective. They are not.



Prove to me that you exist.

You are jumping ahead on the path. We have successfully concluded step 1 - even without law, you have the right to live. We're stuck at step 2 - from where does the right for you to live come? Follow me down the path - you'll enjoy it.

Please enlighten me.

My personal view: From God.

From a philosophical point of view: Out of necessity. I can do no more than quote from this eloquent piece from Thomas Hobbes

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

 

[Famine]

Please enlighten me.

My personal view: From God.

From a philosophical point of view: Out of necessity. I can do no more than quote from this eloquent piece from Thomas Hobbes

Remarkably, "from God" is nearer to the truth than from necessity.

Even standing all alone in the centre of a desolate wasteland, the last man alive and subject to no law, you have a right to life - even though it's unnecessary for you to even be alive and there's no-one about to observe or attempt to deny this right.

 

[Wolf-M]

Remarkably, "from God" is nearer to the truth than from necessity.

Even standing all alone in the centre of a desolate wasteland, the last man alive and subject to no law, you have a right to life - even though it's unnecessary for you to even be alive and there's no-one about to observe or attempt to deny this right.

In principle I agree with you. Personally speaking I would be very reluctant to execute the positive act of killing one to save many - all because I fear the notion of "playing God".

Without the religious mandate I find it more difficult to come up with an explanation. The more convincing idea is the social contract theory which I have cited from Hobbes.

1) In the natural state of this world there are no rights, only freedoms. This includes the freedom to kill others at will.

2) Because of this undesirable state of nature, men have agreed to forgo some of their natural freedoms and form a community, and agree to be subjected to the rule of the government.

3) By doing so, the people and the monarch (or any governments) have entered into a social contract. This contract creates the rights and obligations of each members of the community.

4) Obligations include eg paying taxes.

5) Rights include, among others, human rights.

Those holding utilitarian views argue, I suppose, that one of the obligations under the social contract is to ensure that the overall welfare or happiness of the society is maximised. After all, the creation of the social contract is premised upon the idea that living as a collective whole is better than living as lone individuals.

It is because of this reason the sacrifice of one to save the entire community may possibly be justified.

 

[Dotini]

In order to begin to understand the current discussion, I must check the dictionary for the definition of "objective". My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate's first definition for objective says, "relating to or existing as an object of thought, without consideration of independent existence."

Similarly, objectivism is defined as "any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience".

Next I need to examine my own bias. I think that even the most beautiful castle, whether of stone or of logic, will crumble if built upon an unsound foundation, or premise. Therefore I don't want to be wrong. I want the best possible evidence. The best possible evidence seems to me to be first person experience, i.e., empirical evidence, evidence "based on experience or observation without regard to theory"

Tastes and instincts among men vary. Myself, I can't help but prefer experience to theory.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

In principle I agree with you. Personally speaking I would be very reluctant to execute the positive act of killing one to save many - all because I fear the notion of "playing God".

Without the religious mandate I find it more difficult to come up with an explanation. The more convincing is the social contract theory which I have cited from Hobbes.

You're all alone and there's no law, so both parts of "social contract" are irrelevant - you still have the right to life, regardless.

Remember, I have the right to life because I exist. That's where it comes from. Once we've got that, we can go to step 3.

 

[Wolf-M]

Re Dotini,

That's why, I suppose, academics (esp in the field of arts and social sciences) are generally looked down upon by their counterparts in the industry. Because they love looking at things in the abstract, they frequently play with hypotheticals that practitioners find absurd or unrealistic.

You're all alone and there's no law, so both parts of "social contract" are irrelevant - you still have the right to life, regardless.

Remember, I have the right to life because I exist. That's where it comes from. Once we've got that, we can go to step 3.

I would say no.

In a state of nature, there can be no rights nor obligations. A "right" is a legal concept, it connotes an entitlement which may be enforced against some other human being. Similarly, the obverse of a right, namely an obligation, connotes a duty which others may enforce upon you.

Without law and order, there can be no rights (nor obligations), unless of course you believe that they are conferred upon you by God.

What you do have, however, are freedoms. The freedom to do anything you like, including the freedom to murder anyone else.

It is because of this undesirable state ("a war of all against all") that, out of pragmatism and necessity, we all enter into a social contract from which certain rights and obligations stem, including human rights.


---

In any event, I would love to see your analysis and your question to be posed in step 3.

 

[Famine]

A "right" is a legal concept

Just when I thought we were making progress too.

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?

Yes.

We've already established that rights and laws are not the same thing. You established this with a "Yes" answer to that question.

Rights exist regardless of whether laws exist to enforce them or deny them. Laws cannot validate nor diminish rights.

In any event, I would love to see your analysis and your question to be posed in step 3.

We cannot get there without first passing steps 1 and 2. I thought we were going to make a breakthrough on step 2 for a moment and then you went and contradicted your own answer to step 1 again.

So long as you cling to the notion that you need laws to establish rights, despite your answer that your right to life persists even in an imaginary state where no laws apply, we cannot make any progress and you can never understand why you cannot kill an innocent third party for any reason.

 

[Wolf-M]

Just when I thought we were making progress too.


We've already established that rights and laws are not the same thing. You established this with a "Yes" answer to that question.

Rights exist regardless of whether laws exist to enforce them or deny them. Laws cannot validate nor diminish rights.



We cannot get there without first passing steps 1 and 2. I thought we were going to make a breakthrough on step 2 for a moment and then you went and contradicted your own answer to step 1 again.

So long as you cling to the notion that you need laws to establish rights, despite your answer that your right to life persists even in an imaginary state where no laws apply, we cannot make any progress and you can never understand why you cannot kill an innocent third party for any reason.

After applying some thought to what you have said probably you are right, I did appear to contradict myself

I would say my latter post more accurately reflects my stance.

In a state of nature where there is no legal or social establishment (no matter how primitive that is) one can hardly claim that he has a right against any other person without relying on religion - even if that so-called right exists, how can he enforce it? If there is no way to enforce it, then how is that "right" properly classified as a right?

 

[Famine]

So... now you believe that, in an imaginary state where there are no laws at all, you do not have a right to live?

Would you also not have the right to live in a society where laws existed that stated you don't have a right to live?

 

[Wolf-M]

So... now you believe that, in an imaginary state where there are no laws at all, you do not have a right to live?

Would you also not have the right to live in a society where laws existed that stated you don't have a right to live?

It is an assumption under the social contract theory that human rights form part of the rights guaranteed by the ruler and enjoyed by the subjects.

Any government that fails to carry out its contractual obligation (the obverse of the citizens' right) therefore breaches the trust which the people have displayed by conferring power upon it. Consequence? The people will be entitled to withdraw their acceptance of the government's legitimacy.

 

[JediRage]

Play on words like in this thread is what criminals and a lot of low lifes use to hide behind "Human Rights". Sometimes debating endlessly over such things lead to bad people getting away with ****.

In my International Affairs class in University I was aghast at how INTA topics were being treated as logic, philosophy, science, law etc. The lack of common sense astounds me. Really questions like, "Is this form of killing more cruel than that one?" are so infuriating.

And heavens, the essays, the essays on INTA subjects by Kant etc. going around in circles and round and round!!

Anyone who's taken INTA before can recognize with this. You just go round and round asking questions. You will never get a straight answer because all viewpoints must be respected and hence you will get an opposing viewpoint if you attempt an answer.

 

[Famine]

It is an assumption under the social contract theory that human rights form part of the rights guaranteed by the ruler and enjoyed by the subjects.

Any government that fails to carry out its contractual obligation (the obverse of the citizens' right) therefore breaches the trust which the people have displayed by conferring power upon it. Consequence? The people will be entitled to withdraw their acceptance of the government's legitimacy.

But you've just stated that the rights don't exist unless they are recognised by law - which contradicts this position. By this argument, the citizens cannot have rights without laws to recognise them, thus no ruler can ever break this "contract".

 

[Wolf-M]

But you've just stated that the rights don't exist unless they are recognised by law - which contradicts this position. By this argument, the citizens cannot have rights without laws to recognise them, thus no ruler can ever break this "contract".

Rights are not created by virtue of law, they are created by virtue of the social contract. Laws (or any rules) are only how the rulers implement their promise and discharge their obligations under the social contract.

When I have said that rights are a legal concept, the word "legal" is used in a loose manner, not referring to the actual laws that are promulgated by the state, but the mutually binding relationship that arises under the social contract.

 

[blaaah]

No rights apart from those granted by the laws of physics.

Thank you physics for letting me exist.

 

[drivehard]

Physics are ultimate and absolute.

Social Contract is illusory charmin ultra. Ultimately.

 

[Lain]

Physics are ultimate and absolute.

Social Contract is illusory charmin ultra. Ultimately.

👍

 

[blaaah]

I just copied and pasted "illusory charmin" into google search to find out what it meant. And it links this very post HAHA.
Paradox.

 

[Keef]

I just copied and pasted "illusory charmin" into google search to find out what it meant. And it links this very post HAHA.
Paradox.

Congratulations to Drivehard, the first person in the history of the internet to say the phrase "illusary charmin ultra".

 

[Danoff]

No rights apart from those granted by the laws of physics.

Thank you physics for letting me exist.

Define "rights" here. If you mean to say that some sort of supernatural God figure is not going to step in and actively prevent you from doing whatever it is that you want to, no matter how awful, to innocent people - then you're right - there are no "rights" but the laws of physics. No universal judge is going to stop you from committing atrocities. Likewise, no universal judge will step in and save you from having atrocities committed against you.

But this type of discussion is not worth having - and if this is your point, it wasn't worth making. Nobody here thinks that the invisible morality police stop you from doing whatever you want.

So you must be using "rights" in some other context. What is that context? Are you saying that there is no way for anyone to objectively judge an action? That's a massive statement, and it's wrong.

When one man initiates force against another, he is making a value judgement. "My ability to produce force justifies its use." or perhaps "The use of my ability to produce force requires no justification". The use of force to subvert one conscious being's will in favor of another's is inherently a value judgement that presupposes that the ability to produce force is objectively the best possible ability. This claim, that might makes right, is impossible to demonstrate and has been invalidated a million times over.

You farm apples. Your neighbor farms oranges. You like apples better than oranges. Your neighbor likes oranges better than apples. You force your neighbor to farm apples. You may say "my ability to force my neighbor to farm apples justifies my actions" or "I do not have to justify my actions". But you've made a subjective value judgement that your preference for apples combined with your ability to force your neighbor should result in a subversion of your neighbor's will. This subjective value judgement does not hold up to any sort of objective standard.

That's not the end of the subject, of course. You could try to claim that the lack of action requires its own justification or is a subjective value judgement, or you could try to claim that self defense falls into the same category, etc. etc. I'll address those later.

For now, this much stands on its own. The initiation of the use of force is inherently a subjective value judgement that cannot stand up to any objective measure. It is not justifiable in any circumstance.

 

[drivehard]

I disagree. If not for the simple sake of truth which is the greatest liberator. "And the truth shall set you free."

The point itself does not get us anywhere but neither does any other definition of human rights.

There is no way for everyone to objectively judge an action. So human rights are arbitrary. Ones conclusions are a reflection of ones character not objectivity.

I really don't know the best way to say this but I am absolutely certain that the point is anything but worthless.

 

[Danoff]

Feel free to actually address my post in any meaningful way. Especially, try to find something that isn't objective in what I wrote.

 

[drivehard]

I don't know how what I said isn't meaningful. By using your formulas to refute your formulas would be counter productive; not to mention the leeching nature of that type of thought process. The whole of history, which I could reference for the rest of my life, is all the proof that I think is needed.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know how what I said isn't meaningful.

Well, first of all, that's not what I said (although I think it's a true statement). What I said is that you didn't address my post in any meaningful way, and I was right.

You basically said "I disagree" and then stated your position. The same position that I just gave you a rational basis not to take.

The whole of history, which I could reference for the rest of my life, is all the proof that I think is needed.

The whole of history has no bearing on anything I wrote (so it's good that you didn't waste your time repeating it). What types of behaviors human beings have engaged in has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinning of rights. Nobody would deny that human beings have engaged in a wide variety of behaviors.

Like I said, feel free to actually address anything I wrote.