Human Rights

[Danoff]

Ya if I wanted to discuss the intricacies of modus tollem, which I am not qualified to discuss, I would be in a dry philosophy forum.

The point <-----------------------------------------------> You

You claimed that "all" is subjective. I explained that it is not (using MT and 1+1 as examples). You have not refuted that. I interpret this post as an apology and recant on your part.

My interest in any opinion that posits absolute truth in morality or human rights is nill.

What are you doing here? I like that you're honest enough to admit that you have your fingers in your ears though.

Why do rights have an objective basis?

Maybe Famine will be kind enough to answer you. As for me, last time was the last time.

 

[drivehard]

Danoff you go ahead plug what you want into your formulas. I'm not going to pretend I can wade through this type of argument and convince you how absurd what you say is. You can interpret it anyway you want to. I really don't want to google every philosopher who would dispute you and throw it in your face. I remain unconvinced and without faith! Here is where you could take offense and convince me.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff you go ahead plug what you want into your formulas. I'm not going to pretend I can wade through this type of argument and convince you how absurd what you say is. You can interpret it anyway you want to. I really don't want to google every philosopher who would dispute you and throw it in your face. I remain unconvinced and without faith! Here is where you could take offense and convince me.

I think you have faith.

My interest in any opinion that posits absolute truth in morality or human rights is nill.

 

[drivehard]

You're right.

But not in what you're saying.

 

[Azuremen]

Danoff you go ahead plug what you want into your formulas. I'm not going to pretend I can wade through this type of argument and convince you how absurd what you say is. You can interpret it anyway you want to. I really don't want to google every philosopher who would dispute you and throw it in your face. I remain unconvinced and without faith! Here is where you could take offense and convince me.

Why? You aren't listening and you've shown no interest in what he is presenting really. His argument and approach are incredibly rational and logical. I don't agree with everything he says at times, but he certainly presents it clearly and with reason.

 

[Danisfast]

What rights do human beings have and why?




Guidelines:
1) Try to prevent your list of rights from being inherently conflicting. Example: "I think human beings should have the right to kill people, but also have the right not to be killed"
2) The US bill of rights might help get you started
3) Be sure not to forget the "why" portion of this - which is what makes this question difficult.
4) Be sure to examine the impact of your reasoning on whether animals also have rights.

I don't know if I'm just grossly oversimplifying this, or something, but I always understood the notion of "human rights" to be about keeping civil balance in society. Achieving an equilibrium between members of said society based on the (however "correct" or otherwise) underlying assertion that we are all of equal value, or at some level, fundamentally "the same".

The idea itself must have stemmed from (or aligned with) the realisation that there is simply no other way to go about co-existing. War is increasingly destructive and unstable (WWII, in my opinion, must've been a pivotal moment for the emergence of human rights). Having stepped back from the notion of superiority by force (or, the "animalia" approach), we probably gradually approached the idea that people could and should, in good conscience, be given the basic tools of existence and opportunity (which served to help level the playing field, and further human kind at an arguably more efficient rate). But of course, how well this has been followed over the years has been the subject of intense debate and criticism.

Therein, it's simply(!) a matter of dealing in absolutions, until context teaches us the greyscales of reality (and will continue to do so). For example, we would say that one human being has the right to life, unless that life threatens another. Or, a man's property is his own, UNLESS... So on and so forth.

So, what qualifies as a human right will complicate and evolve as society does. Hopefully, it'll be based on the same guiding principles, until reality irons them out in favour of greater awareness (if and when that occurs). This process, though, is subject to the whims of the political climate and its progess could well be bumpy.

Anyway, as an example, I point you to internet access, which I believe was ordained as a human right recently. So answers to the question of "what rights do human (and possibly animals) have?" will, in my understanding, complicate and multiply with time and context and would be very tough to answer in one post with any real conviction.

I'm afraid that's the best I can manage this close to bed; I hope I was able to contribute.

 

[drivehard]

"the notion of "human rights" to be about keeping civil balance in society."

I must agree with this.

"So, what qualifies as a human right will complicate and evolve as society does."

Good post. Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Joel]

"the notion of "human rights" to be about keeping civil balance in society."

I must agree with this.

"So, what qualifies as a human right will complicate and evolve as society does."

Good post. Couldn't have said it better.

So if society "evolves" to the point where killing all red haired people is OK, do you have a right to kill them? Do they have a right to live?

 

[drivehard]

...I can't put this into a formula but:

The world could evolve or devolve to such a state that biological needs - food, water, etc. -would overide our entire conciousness. We would no longer be able to determine from right and wrong. If our present conciousness folds so does our ideas about human rights. Morality dosen't speak thus, physiology does. To barrow a phrase from Nietzsche.

 

[Danoff]

The world could evolve or devolve to such a state that biological needs - food, water, etc. -would overide our entire conciousness.

This doesn't change anything. It makes no difference what our priorities are, or how we behave.

 

[FoolKiller]

"the notion of "human rights" to be about keeping civil balance in society."

I must agree with this.

"So, what qualifies as a human right will complicate and evolve as society does."

Good post. Couldn't have said it better.

So then you would agree that slavery didn't violate any rights of African Americans as society had not evolved to give them human rights? The holocaust did not violate the rights of Jewish people because German society had evolved and what qualified as human rights altered to the point that Jews did not have them? Rodney King deserved to be beaten to the point of needing extended hospitalization because LA and California law evolved to the point where cops can use whatever force they want. In fact, by this definition any time a society or government decides to turn to acts of brutality, up to and including genocide, against an individual or group no rights are violated as that society has evolved to define rights in a way that does not include those they are acting against.

That is what it means to say that human rights are subjective, that societal influence can change whether human rights exist for an individual or group or not. It means that no form of slavery, brutality, or even genocide is wrong so long as the majority is a society deems it OK.


This is why human rights must be objective. If human rights are not objective then they may as well not exist. Subjective human rights are subject to be removed from you without your consent. Saying that human rights are subjective is a de facto way of saying that human rights do not exist. There is no such thing as atrocity. Genocide is nothing more than ethnic cleansing and slavery is nothing more than economic policy.

I want to go on about how I don't know how any human being can actually believe the existence of their rights are subject to others, but I have to remind myself that you claim to be apathetic and your interest is nill. A person who honestly does not care if their rights actually exist is the only kind of person I can imagine who would accept their subjectivity as proof without any reason.

 

[Dotini]

To me, maybe alone, it's a bit frustrating to listen to badly structured "debate" about whether rights are subjective, objective or some other effete and unimportant intellectual "point". The important thing to remember is that rights have always been won by people fighting for them, and continuing to fight for them to hold onto them. You can run your mouth all day long, but that does nothing to win or maintain rights. You must be willing to fight for them, and that means using force if need be.

 

[Famine]

To me, maybe alone, it's a bit frustrating to listen to badly structured "debate" about whether rights are subjective, objective or some other effete and unimportant intellectual "point". The important thing to remember is that rights have always been won by people fighting for them, and continuing to fight for them to hold onto them. You can run your mouth all day long, but that does nothing to win or maintain rights. You must be willing to fight for them, and that means using force if need be.

I shall edit that for reality:

The important thing to remember is that the legal recognition of rights have always been won by people fighting for them, and continuing to fight for them to hold onto them.

And now we're on the same page.

 

[FoolKiller]

To me, maybe alone, it's a bit frustrating to listen to badly structured "debate" about whether rights are subjective, objective or some other effete and unimportant intellectual "point".

So wait, whether your rights exist despite what the powers that be say or not is unimportant? I always believed it to be the heart of the matter.

The important thing to remember is that rights have always been won by people fighting for them, and continuing to fight for them to hold onto them. You can run your mouth all day long, but that does nothing to win or maintain rights. You must be willing to fight for them, and that means using force if need be.

So, you believe your rights are subjective?

Or is Famine's edit accurate? If Famine's edit is accurate for what you actually meant then it has long been established in this thread, multiple times, and even recently, that law does not equal moral and law does not define human rights.

However you meant it, the simple fact that people fight for their human rights, to say that just because society says they do not have them does not mean jack squat to them, is a sign that human rights are objective. Those fighting for the recognition of their human rights have not

 

[Dotini]

It may be important to some whether rights are objective, subjective or some other arm-chair consideration. It does not matter to me anymore. I was once a follower of Ayn Rand and her cult of objectivism, but I outgrew it. It's a debate for schoolboys and undergrads. I'm sure there is much to say about both for those that continue to concern themselves with intellectual minutia. To me, the overriding significance is the having, holding and using of the fullest possible range of human rights. I have fought for them. Hard. From there, I'll go make history.

 

[FoolKiller]

To me, the overriding significance is the having, holding and using of the fullest possible range of human rights.

But if they are subjective they might not really exist if the majority says so.

 

[Dotini]

But if they are subjective they might not really exist if the majority says so.

Whatever. Like the majority here, I'm currently using them freely and having the time of my life.
They are well defended with guns, money and lawyers.

 

[Famine]

Indeed - and how does one have, hold and use something that doesn't exist?

You fundamentally misunderstand what people have fought and died for. They haven't fought and died to grant you or anyone else rights, but to have those rights legally recognised universally. We haven't succeeded yet - but to say they have fought and died for something that varies depending on your point of view is disrepectful to the point of obscenity.

 

[Dotini]

Indeed - and how does one have, hold and use something that doesn't exist?

You fundamentally misunderstand what people have fought and died for. They haven't fought and died to grant you or anyone else rights, but to have those rights legally recognised universally. We haven't succeeded yet - but to say they have fought and died for something that varies depending on your point of view is disrepectful to the point of obscenity.

I would appreciate it if you would not lecture or condescend to me.

It seems to me people don't struggle and die for universal rights but for personal ones that would apply to themselves after the struggle was won. Precisely what these rights have been has varied at different times and places in history.

As far as working the rights of others, I've done that too. As early as 1962 I was picketing the Seattle Federal Courthouse for the civil rights of black Americans.

 

[Famine]

I would appreciate it if you would not lecture or condescend to me.

It's a debate for schoolboys and undergrads. I'm sure there is much to say about both for those that continue to concern themselves with intellectual minutia.

I trust it's not too draughty in that glass house right now.

It seems to me people don't struggle and die for universal rights but for personal ones that would apply to themselves after the struggle was won.

So not only are they dying for something that doesn't exist, they're only doing so to serve their own interests? 👎

As far as working the rights of others, I've done that too. As early as 1962 I was picketing the Seattle Federal Courthouse for the civil rights of black Americans.

Did you do so because the rights of black Americans didn't exist and you wanted to make it so that they did, or because they did exist and weren't being recognised? Were you motivated by the same self-interest you level at others?

 

[Dotini]

I trust it's not too draughty in that glass house right now.



So not only are they dying for something that doesn't exist, they're only doing so to serve their own interests? 👎

Please see my edit. "As far as working for the rights of others, I've done that too. As early as 1962 I was picketing the Seattle Federal Courthouse for the civil rights of black Americans."

 

[Dotini]

Did you do so because the rights of black Americans didn't exist and you wanted to make it so that they did, or because they did exist and weren't being recognised? Were you motivated by the same self-interest you level at others?

Well now, this gets back to the heart of the matter, so that much is good. But I don't understand your question, as I'm unaware that I'm "leveling" anything against others. What does that mean?

Anyway, the reason I demonstrated for the rights of blacks was because they didn't have the rights they should have. Not bad for a 14 year old, eh?

Could I ask you respectfully to remove that thumbs down emoticon, please?

 

[Famine]

Well now, this gets back to the heart of the matter, so that much is good. But I don't understand your question, as I'm unaware that I'm "leveling" anything against others. What does that mean?

It seems to me people don't struggle and die for universal rights but for personal ones that would apply to themselves after the struggle was won.

That would be a statement of your belief that people who fight for rights are motivated to do so by self-interest and only fight for rights that benefit them. I find this to be highly distasteful and disrespectful.

Anyway, the reason I demonstrated for the rights of blacks was because they didn't have the rights they should have.

That doesn't answer the question. The question was whether it was because the rights didn't exist and you sought to create them, or whether they existed and were not being observed.

But then that's a question of subjectivity vs. objectivity and I wouldn't expect you to bother yourself with such intellectual minutiae.

 

[Dotini]

That would be a statement of your belief that people who fight for rights are motivated to do so by self-interest and only fight for rights that benefit them. I find this to be highly distasteful and disrespectful.



That doesn't answer the question. The question was whether it was because the rights didn't exist and you sought to create them, or whether they existed and were not being observed.

But then that's a question of subjectivity vs. objectivity and I wouldn't expect you to bother yourself with such intellectual minutiae.

I would point out that personal interest is not the exclusive reason people fight for rights, as my own experience picketing for black's civil rights demonstrates. So you may consider that point amended.

I answered the question of what motivated me as a 14 year old. Later, during my objectivist phase in my teen years, it did indeed become more a question of objective rights. So the rights of blacks existed in an abstract sense but were not being observed. As I got involved in the labor movement in 1967, my focus shifted to the specific rights of my union. We were in the business of creating or defending newly won rights which didn't exist until recently. Readily recognizable examples of these are child labor laws and the 40 hour work week.

Basically, I'm kart racer, and not an intellectual, and never will be as skilled in debate as Danoff or yourself. But I'm still an honest human trying hard to do the best I can within all my limitations, which are manifold. I strongly believe in the primacy of first person experience, empirical evidence and realism over objectivism and other such lofty notions. That's an opinion. I do not present it as a fact or dogma.

Now, would do please me the courtesy of removing that emoticon?

Thank you,
Dotini

 

[Danisfast]

So if society "evolves" to the point where killing all red haired people is OK, do you have a right to kill them? Do they have a right to live?

We can only see as far as we can see. The underlying point which I am making (if your question is addressed to me) is that change happens, and that anything and everything is possibly/probably subject to it. It could well be that killing red-haired people will "forever" be against our notion of human rights (or more broadly, good?). I can't see how that will change; but not seeing something, and it not being there, are two different things.

Uncovering human rights (and our deeper understanding of them) implies that there was a time when the idea itself was unknown or ridiculous. There is no reason (that I can see!) to suppose we won't keep on uncovering deeper levels and (much, much further on down the line) maybe even new concepts.

 

[Danoff]

I answered the question of what motivated me as a 14 year old. Later, during my objectivist phase in my teen years, it did indeed become more a question of objective rights. So the rights of blacks existed in an abstract sense but were not being observed. As I got involved in the labor movement in 1967, my focus shifted to the specific rights of my union. We were in the business of creating or defending newly won rights which didn't exist until recently. Readily recognizable examples of these are child labor laws and the 40 hour work week.

This is the crux of the disagreement. You maintained intellectual integrity until confronted with something distasteful (like a more than 40 hour work week, which is a reality for almost everyone I work with and everyone my wife works with) at which point you shoehorned something that is not a human right into the list of human rights.

Again, what is legal is not the same as what is a right. Even if it is illegal to make you work over 40 hours per week, or make you pay for your healthcare (directly), or pay you less than some minimum wage - that does not make it a fundamental human right.

The distinction is there because it matters, not because it's some sort of "intellectual minutia". One is the function of government, the other is what government is doing. Those are very different things, and the consequence of the difference is so massive, that it establishes the legitimacy of government. Succinctly:

Self-defense is a human right
The 40 hr work week is a violation of human rights

That's about as big a difference (and far from minutia) as you can get.

 

[FoolKiller]

Self-defense is a human right
The legally enforced 40 hr work week is a violation of human rights

Minor clarification. A voluntary agreement between myself and an employer for a 40hr work week violates no rights. A union or the law limiting my ability to work more than 40 hours under my own terms does.

 

[Dotini]

As a worker at Boeing, I was required to work overtime at the company's pleasure, but I won the right to overtime pay. Time-and-a-half for the first two hours, then double-time after that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
The eight-hour day movement or 40-hour week movement, also known as the short-time movement, had its origins in the Industrial Revolution in Britain, where industrial production in large factories transformed working life and imposed long hours and poor working conditions. With working conditions unregulated, the health, welfare and morale of working people suffered. The use of child labour was common. The working day could range from 10 to 16 hours for six days a week.[1][2]

Robert Owen had raised the demand for a ten-hour day in 1810, and instituted it in his socialist enterprise at New Lanark. By 1817 he had formulated the goal of the eight-hour day and coined the slogan Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest. Women and children in England were granted the ten-hour day in 1847. French workers won the 12-hour day after the February revolution of 1848. A shorter working day and improved working conditions were part of the general protests and agitation for Chartist reforms and the early organization of trade unions.

The International Workingmen's Association took up the demand for an eight-hour day at its convention in Geneva in August 1866, declaring The legal limitation of the working day is a preliminary condition without which all further attempts at improvements and emancipation of the working class must prove abortive, and The Congress proposes eight hours as the legal limit of the working day.

Although there were initial successes in achieving an eight-hour day in New Zealand and by the Australian labour movement for skilled workers in the 1840s and 1850s, most employed people had to wait to the early and mid twentieth century for the condition to be widely achieved through the industrialized world through legislative action.

The eight-hour day movement forms part of the early history for the celebration of Labour Day, and May Day in many nations and cultures.

 

[FoolKiller]

As a worker at Boeing, I was required to work overtime at the company's pleasure, but I won the right to overtime pay. Time-and-a-half for the first two hours, then double-time after that.

Legal right, not a human right.

Or is my company violating human rights by not paying overtime the way Boeing did to you? Heck, I am salary, I get no overtime pay but am expected to be here as long as it takes to get the job done and am on-call 24/7. Are my rights being violated?

 

[Dotini]

Legal right, not a human right.
Are my rights being violated?

You tell me if you think they are, but I doubt it. You are a professional, working on a contract basis, if I understand your situation correctly.

Now if you were a 14 year old boy working 85 hrs/wk in a mine to support his bereaved mother, I'd say your rights were being violated.