Human Rights

[Danoff]

Some people present logic on a tray. You shoot it from a gun.

That's my particular... idiom.


(If I were the type to change my signature, I'd put your quote here in it for sure.)

 

[drivehard]

...And it serves you well here at GTP!

 

[Touring Mars]

the force with which the argument is presented is often the arguments or the thinkers major flaw.

See the link in my signature titled "Science is interesting..." for a similar point made against Richard Dawkins, and his response...

How forcefully one present facts doesn't alter the validity of what is being said - although it may not always have the desired impact. Simply stating "you are wrong" is often less likely to convince a skeptic or contrarian that they are wrong, and a more persuasive approach might be more successful. This is doubly important when discussing obscure or complex subjects IMO.

The problem in this case for me (and presumably several others) is that it remains unclear whether what we call basic human rights really do exist objectively, and that they can be/have been derived from pure logic and may be demonstrated as if mathematical proofs... but, evidently, some of us still need to be persuaded that this is the case, and hence the sledgehammer approach may not work so well. I agree that there are different schools of thought as to how and where the rights we recognise and enjoy today were derived and what they are, and thus there is good reason to believe that our rights are not fundamental aspects of nature, like the laws of physics or arithmetic, but are infact ideas/concepts that we have created for ourselves (albeit via logic and reasoning) and that have survived in society because they are, in the main, of benefit to us. I also think, however, that one's rights are only as useful as the society in which we live says they are - which is why I feel that, whether or not rights themselves exist objectively, we will always have to contend with the subjective application of them.

 

[FoolKiller]

They are all right in their own sense. They are the various justifications given for recognising human rights. One can view a justification as superior to the other, but one can never say that one justification is objectively proven to be the right answer whereas the others are objectively wrong.

That's my point.

And when I say there is no right answer, I'm referring to the various theories of human rights. I'm not referring to our objective - subjective argument. To that extent yes I am dismissing those who claim that there must be an objectively discernible correct answer. There cannot be.

Again, see my post #489

"Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Who are we to decide these things? All this talk of logic and reasoning. Whose logic? Whose reasoning? There is no right or wrong answer, only feelings. We must do what we feel is best for society. That's all that matters." - James Taggart, Atlas Shrugged


And I feel a bit dirty after typing that.

 

[Wolf-M]

But they are incompatible. What you mean to say is that they are all based on similarly poor subjective reasoning that you refuse to accept. They are all wrong.

Of course you can't agree with that statement because if you did you would admit that you have dismissed the reasoning of these people - which you don't want to do because you've go so far out of your way to criticize me for doing the same thing.

Here's what I want from you. I want you to admit that you have dismissed their claims, and retract your statements about it being arrogant or ridiculous for me to also dismiss their claims (based on pretty much the same reasoning I might add).

Even your little comeback quip doesn't make any sense. Logic exists independently of interpretation. Its application is as "tyrannical" as the laws of physics. Either 1+1=3 or it doesn't. There is no "I feel like it does" about it. That was the WHOLE POINT with modus tollem/modus ponens/de morgan's theorem etc. etc.

You made the statement "all is subjective". I replied by showing you things that are not subjective - like logic - something "tyrannical" that you can find in a textbook. I suppose you thought your grade school arithmetic teacher was an evil dictator.

Touring Mars and Drivehard have their point - discussions on philosophy are necessarily not scientifically verifiable/provable.

Who is to say which of the schools of thought is correct and which is wrong? You may prefer a particular theory over another, but science and logic have no place in judging the correctness of philosophical arguments.

[Not that logic is irrelvant, but that it is used only to establish the validity of an argument. An invalid argument, such as one which its conclusion does not flow from its premises, is a bad argument, yet this still shows not whether the argument is "right" or "wrong"]

As I say, because you cling to the notion that laws make rights and refuse to acknowledge the existence of any objective rights (which are immediately apparent from logic), this is satisfactory to you and renders any discussion with you meaningless and without hope. As Foolkiller quite rightly pointed out:


You dismissed this by citing law - failing to recognise that both acts have been (and continue to be) carried out with the support of law.

I understand why you use the law as a crutch - it's a major part of your life and you're required to know it and embrace it. The problem is that law can be unjust (rights cannot), law can be changed at whim (rights cannot) and law can be used to obfuscate (where rights are clear).


I doubt you would concede that being killed due to your belief system, being forced to work for another without reward or being forced into sexual intercourse against your will are always a breach of rights but not always a breach of law - because that would require recognition that objective rights exist beyond subjective laws.

1) Under the theory outlined in post #489, human rights flow from the social contract entered into between the government and its citizens.

2) As in every legally enforceable contract, both parties to the agreement must have voluntarily agreed to undertake the obligations that arise under the contract.

3) It is assumed that every reasonable member of the about-to-be-formed society agrees that certain rights are fundamental and could only be taken away should a compelling justification exist.

4) It is assumed that most reasonable members of the society would agree that fundamental rights include the right to life and the right not to have sexual intercourse against one's will (right to bodily integrity/security).

5) Some rights are not that clear-cut (as we will see below in point 9). Disagreement however arises as to what constitutes a compelling justification that may excuse the government from violating a fundamental right.

6) An example being whether the government (or the law) can sacrifice individual rights for the greater benefit of the society. (Think of the trolley example)

7) Different theories have been put forward that elaborates on (or refute) the reason behind such derogation being permissible (or otherwise). This involves the study of the philosophy of human rights which I said are necessarily subjective in nature.

8) The fact that one cannot disprove (as in science or logic) the utilitarian theory shows that there cannot be a single objectively right answer.

9) Apart from legitimate justifications, sometimes the line between a human right and a purely "legal right" is not as obvious as one may think. (this relates to point 5 above)

Maybe Famine you can tell me whether you think the right to bear arms which is a "human right" so jealously defended in the US should also be considered a fundamental right in your country?

If your answer is negative, then this would show that human rights are not objective in nature. (The fact that it is assumed that most reasonable persons would regard the right to life as a human right doesn't of itself confer objectivity on the right to life - it is based on a mere assumption)

If your answer is affirmative, then how would you treat the majority opinion in other parts of the world that favour governmental/legislative restrictions on the possession of firearms? Are they all displaying ignorance then?

 

[Famine]

Maybe Famine you can tell me whether you think the right to bear arms which is a "human right" so jealously defended in the US should also be considered a fundamental right in your country?

Taking my cues from you, I'm going to avoid answering this question presently, on the basis that your conclusions are false.

If your answer is negative, then this would show that human rights are not objective in nature.

There is one fundamental right and all the others emerge from it through logical progression. They are objective.

If you can extrapolate the right to bear arms from earlier, objective rights through logic, then the right to bear arms is itself an objective right. If you cannot, it is not.

Whatever personal feelings I have about firearms is irrelevant to either answer.

If your answer is affirmative, then how would you treat the majority opinion in other parts of the world that favour governmental/legislative restrictions on the possession of firearms? Are they all displaying ignorance then?

Regardless of my personal feelings of firearms possession, if it can be established through logic from earlier, objective rights, that the right to bear arms is an objective right, legislated restrictions or prohibitions would be a breach of that right. If it cannot, they would not be.

The majority is also irrelevant - "a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities".


To not-answer your question, I would not support any legislation restricting access to firearms for the ordinary citizen.

 

[Danoff]

Touring Mars and Drivehard have their point - discussions on philosophy are necessarily not scientifically verifiable/provable.

Contrary to what some philosophers have proposed, philosophy is not a scientific endeavor. Science is not about proof, but about evidence. Science is pragmatism. Science is formulated on inductive reasoning, which is (rightly) not permissible in the realm of philosophy. So if TM and Drivehard's point was that philosophy is not scientifically verifiable or provable, I agree wholeheartedly and will go further to say that it is an entirely different school of thought with different rules and goals.

Who is to say which of the schools of thought is correct and which is wrong? You may prefer a particular theory over another, but science and logic have no place in judging the correctness of philosophical arguments.

[Not that logic is irrelvant, but that it is used only to establish the validity of an argument. An invalid argument, such as one which its conclusion does not flow from its premises, is a bad argument, yet this still shows not whether the argument is "right" or "wrong"]

If logic has no place in judging the correctness of a philosophical argument, what does? Logic is the only meaningful tool in philosophical formulation. I'll remind you that you yourself reject each of the proposed theories for your own personal favorite - that there is no answer. Starting from that point, you've then picked your favorite subjective value metric, (and not by coincidence, the least well defined) utilitarianism, and and decided that it is the most pragmatic. Although in your defense, I think you realize that this is a choice rooted in subjective personal views.

1) Under the theory outlined in post #489, human rights flow from the social contract entered into between the government and its citizens.

Human rights establish government, not the other way around. If you believe this point, what do you think establishes government? And which government at that?

2) As in every legally enforceable contract, both parties to the agreement must have voluntarily agreed to undertake the obligations that arise under the contract.

Human rights are not voluntary - if they were, you're using the term entirely differently than I am and we're not having the discussion we think we are. Furthermore, no government on earth gets universal consent of the governed. So this voluntary step is non-existent.

3) It is assumed that every reasonable member of the about-to-be-formed society agrees that certain rights are fundamental and could only be taken away should a compelling justification exist.

See above, but magnified based on the notion that rights can be taken away. Again, Human Rights as I use the term are inalienable. If you think otherwise, we're not even talking about the same concept.

4) It is assumed that most reasonable members of the society would agree that fundamental rights include the right to life and the right not to have sexual intercourse against one's will (right to bodily integrity/security).

Totally arbitrary, and entirely based on how "reasonable" "most" members of society are. I'll remind you that in the not so distant past, most members of society considered human beings property that could be killed or raped at will. In otherwords, you can't make that assumption.

5) Some rights are not that clear-cut (as we will see below in point 9). Disagreement however arises as to what constitutes a compelling justification that may excuse the government from violating a fundamental right.

Then it's not a right. If it's alienable (is that a word?), then it's not a right. It's not even a law. It's a whim, and it's not worth talking about.

6) An example being whether the government (or the law) can sacrifice individual rights for the greater benefit of the society. (Think of the trolley example)

...in otherwords, your right to life is based on whatever subjective valuation the government decides to use. This has no integrity behind it whatsoever.

7) Different theories have been put forward that elaborates on (or refute) the reason behind such derogation being permissible (or otherwise). This involves the study of the philosophy of human rights which I said are necessarily subjective in nature.

Human rights are not necessarily subjective in nature. I have asked multiple times for anyone on this board to explain to me what is subjective about what I've written, and no one has done so.

8) The fact that one cannot disprove (as in science or logic) the utilitarian theory shows that there cannot be a single objectively right answer.

Utilitarian theory is inherently subjective, and so it cannot be objectively the right answer. That doesn't mean there is no objective right answer, only that subjective answers may exist. This is not a proof of any kind.

9) Apart from legitimate justifications, sometimes the line between a human right and a purely "legal right" is not as obvious as one may think. (this relates to point 5 above)

In my view, you're misusing the term "human right".

 

[Vince_Fiero]

9) Apart from legitimate justifications, sometimes the line between a human right and a purely "legal right" is not as obvious as one may think. (this relates to point 5 above)

Maybe Famine you can tell me whether you think the right to bear arms which is a "human right" so jealously defended in the US should also be considered a fundamental right in your country?

If your answer is negative, then this would show that human rights are not objective in nature. (The fact that it is assumed that most reasonable persons would regard the right to life as a human right doesn't of itself confer objectivity on the right to life - it is based on a mere assumption)

If your answer is affirmative, then how would you treat the majority opinion in other parts of the world that favour governmental/legislative restrictions on the possession of firearms? Are they all displaying ignorance then?

Being in the UK Riots discussion, made me come back to this thread (I have a lot of work still here, for my own benefit)

The point above is one of them.

There is a difference between "Human Rights" and "Social Rights"; that is my definition.

Human Rights: have nothing to do with who you are, where you are, what you are or have done.
e.g. the right to live (it seems one that most can agree with)

Social Rights: have everything to do with who you are, where you are, what you are or have done.
e.g.: In many countries they will violate your Human rights (imprisonment or death penalty) if you violate the Human rights of others.


Why there is still a discussion around "Human Rights" is because we are not Vulcans and do not have a Vulcan handy. We do not reason pure logical (although some think they do), we think in our social context.

The goal for me here is to find Human Rights so we can judge the systems in place in social rights and where they fail. If you look up violations of Human Rights, you will see they claim those against almost any country, it is just that their social systems give social rights in respect of duty and protecting this social system is sometimes in conflict.

I remain with my theory that when you start to write down several rights you will contradict yourself and it will be impossible to respect them. But that is for me clearly a difference between Human (should be basic) and Social rights (will be complex).

 

[homeforsummer]

e.g.: In many countries they will violate your Human rights (imprisonment or death penalty) if you violate the Human rights of others.

Violate is the wrong word. Well, for imprisonment anyway. The death penalty is a greyer area.

Violating the human right of a person by deliberately taking their life could result in waiving your human right of freedom (imprisonment) or life (death penalty).

Some would argue that if someone takes a life it's no longer a violation to their own to imprison them or end their life. I'd count myself in this group (in certain circumstances, for certain crimes. Also, I'd say that the exception to when it's necessary: innocent people on death row, are the result of a failure in the system, not of the penalty. It's a terrible thing but existence of the death penalty isn't the cause of the problem).

Others would argue that imprisonment is waiving a human right, but the death penalty is a violation of a human right.

Some might even argue that imprisonment is a violation of human rights, but anyone with any sense would agree that it's simply a waiver. If you deliberately take someone's life, or rape someone, or molest children, then life imprisonment is the very least you should expect.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

In my search for "rights" I come to the point where I'm testing what I now call fundamental social rights against 4 views:

Anarchistic society: there should be no rules.
Individualistic society: what you do is your business, you should also respect this for the others
Collective society: the collective decides what is acceptable or not
Discriminating societies: although I'm fundamentally against this, is it not a fundamental social right to organize as your want on private property and why can a private property not be sufficiently large to hold a society.

Human rights are above this; they should apply to any human creature no matter where, what past, etc... So when in doubt apply them on a 3 year old. If they do not apply they might be considered social rights.

Fundamental social rights determine how we interact, what actions are accepted or not. They should stand a test like if it is a right, you should be able to reformulate it in an obligation as well.

Finally "Social rights we like", just seems like wish lists made by dreamers. They actually would require governments to create things for people, just because they exist. You find them in a lot of lists of human rights, but it mostly seem like you do not need to take any action to organize your life yourself.

Finally life is cruel (that is why there are "social rights we like"), social rules will contradict (human rights should not); so I do not like my conclusions most of the time and the further I think about it, I come to the conclusion that will not change.

 

[Moot]

If you deliberately take someone's life, or rape someone, or molest children, then life imprisonment is the very least you should expect.

That's a harsh punishment for such crimes, and against even the standard tariffs what we have today. Rape can start from 4 years custody.
12 months custody for a child over 13 or 2 years for a child under 13 for sexual assault.

 

[Tornado]

That's a harsh punishment for such crimes, and against even the standard tariffs what we have today. Rape can start from 4 years custody.
12 months custody for a child over 13 or 2 years for a child under 13 for sexual assault.

Considering what rape and sexual assault does to the mental state of the victims, I would say that rapists and sex offenders should consider themselves lucky that their crimes aren't treated as capital offenses anymore.

 

[Moot]

The detail and nature of the crimes can make them a lot longer custody sentences.

As for capital punishment it's us the citizens (of Europe) that are lucky we don't live in a regime where capital punishment is even an option.

 

[Danoff]

Why there is still a discussion around "Human Rights" is because we are not Vulcans and do not have a Vulcan handy. We do not reason pure logical (although some think they do), we think in our social context.

Disagreement is not proof of subjectivity. The fact that people still think the moon landing was faked and the earth existed 6000 years ago does not cast any additional doubt on whether the moon landing occurred or how old the earth is. There will be disagreement on even the most obvious issues. It doesn't matter.

 

[Tornado]

The detail and nature of the crimes can make them a lot longer custody sentences.

So explain the context where someone convicted of rape should be eligible to be released in 4 years unless extraordinary evidence suggests otherwise, since anything more as the initial baseline is apparently "harsh."

As for capital punishment it's us the citizens (of Europe) that are lucky we don't live in a regime where capital punishment is even an option.

Good for you.

 

[Moot]

Disagreement is not proof of subjectivity. The fact that people still think the moon landing was faked and the earth existed 6000 years ago does not cast any additional doubt on whether the moon landing occurred or how old the earth is. There will be disagreement on even the most obvious issues. It doesn't matter.

It matters to those that do not believe the same as us, and it matters to us that are concerned about the others that are for some reason not believing in the truth.
That might be regardless of your point. But the element of care/mattering is significant.

 

[Moot]

So explain the context where someone convicted of rape should be eligible to be released in 4 years unless extraordinary evidence suggests otherwise, since anything more as the initial baseline is apparently "harsh."


Good for you.

Homeforsummer said the baseline was life.
You can use your imagination to think of what the most lenient of factors are, or they can be studied in the Law manuals.
I'm saying life as a minimum is harsh compared to existing law which might only apply a 12 month sentence. Massive difference between life and 12 months.

 

[Danoff]

It matters to those that do not believe the same as us, and it matters to us that are concerned about the others that are for some reason not believing in the truth.
That might be regardless of your point. But the element of care/mattering is significant.

What I mean by "doesn't matter" is that is has no bearing on whether it is the truth - not that it's not something that makes any difference in any situation or from any point of view for any reason. Sorry that wasn't clear.

 

[Moot]

I think I got it, just I couldn't help making it more muddy.
The issues of human rights are not based on exact facts though are they?
They are about feelings and imagination and empathy and correctness. The facts of those are constantly variable. And differ for each individual.

 

[Keef]

As for capital punishment it's us the citizens (of Europe) that are lucky we don't live in a regime where capital punishment is even an option.

By taking one's right to life, the killer earns the privilege of being rehabilitated and reintroduced into society on parole so that they may die peacefully with their family who loves them unconditionally.

Um...what? No. You take somebody's right to life, you forfeit your own. We Americans are lucky we don't live in a society with an even more twisted sense of morality than our own.

 

[Moot]

By taking one's right to life, the killer earns the privilege of being rehabilitated and reintroduced into society on parole so that they may die peacefully with their family who loves them unconditionally.

Um...what? No. You take somebody's right to life, you forfeit your own. We Americans are lucky we don't live in a society with an even more twisted sense of morality than our own.

And this argument will happen forever until either your culture or mine gets wiped out. There does not seem to be any room for change does there?
Unless you accept there is evolution in which case your country has a lot of evolving to do in emotional intelligence, as capital punishment is an old way of doing things.
A higher level of thinking has occurred in Europe (and a lot of other countries around the world) where we put a bit more effort in.
As I have said before in the Norwegian tragedy thread, Norway seems to be one of the most progressive countries I have seen.
But maybe there are ones even further ahead?

 

[Tornado]

Unless you accept there is evolution in which case your country has a lot of evolving to do in emotional intelligence, as capital punishment is an old way of doing things.
A higher level of thinking has occurred in Europe (and a lot of other countries around the world) where we put a bit more effort in.

I hope you don't hurt yourself when you fall off of that high horse, because the saddle looks pretty shaky from here.

 

[Moot]

I just know I'm on a higher horse than you, there are many more higher than me.
Luckily my horse has 4 legs, but wait it looks like yours has none.

 

[Tornado]

I like how you just admitted that your entire argument is basically "nuh uh" and acted like that should be acceptable enough.



Any particular, you know, reasons, for your greater-than-thou attitude? Because I'm afraid "I'm European and therefore you are a moron for disagreeing" isn't quite enough for me.

 

[Keef]

emotional intelligence

Are you French by chance?

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

Are you French by chance?

So much flaming going on in here. Pheww, could make a fireplace out of it.

 

[arora]

The Moot is loose

As usual your claims are asinine, there is no evolutionary difference between the peoples that would suggest one has a predisposition to capital punishment while the other does not. I would like to see whatever DNA studies you can come up with to support it though.

Next you will say it is a mental illness and anyone who seeks justice should be fed pills and locked away. When that holds no water(which it won't) you'll claim it is taught and the parents should be jailed for child abuse.

What is true is that there are different cultures around the world who exist and govern in different ways.

 

[Jay.]

How do you get a legless horse anyway?
I can't get mine to even sip a beer, let alone the hard stuff.

 

[Pupik]

Moot has been sent to the glue factory, trot along now...

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Disagreement is not proof of subjectivity.

Completely agree with this. Where did I say otherwise?

Thinking of it, I actually believe that the Vulcan would also say: depends on the social preference of the society, for many of the discussions.

=====

Seems the thread had a lot of discussion on punishment lately.

For me it is clear that:
1) The right on punishment for people that did you wrong; is not a Human right. I would even place it in "Social rights we would like", the duty linked to it would be that you "Need to punish yourself for misdeeds?", although it is used in some cultures, I do not believe it is a realistic duty.

2) However the right to defend you Human rights and your fundamental social rights; is according to me a Human right.

It seemed that the death penalty statements was more a discussion on the "right to live". Also this is a Human Right according to me.

There are discussions that this is not applicable in some cases:
www.hrea.org (study guides)

• Situations of armed conflict
• self-defence
• in defence of any person from unlawful violence
• in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained
• in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection

Seems to me that "self-defence" is the theme and why would a society not see that if you let some serial killer live that constitutes a constant threat to society, so for them capital punishment becomes a logical form of self defense.

As always I support that you need to have violated the Human Rights of others to not have your Human Rights respected; that would be the case for this one. An Eye for an Eye is certainly applicable here, someone that did not kill (without reason) beyond any doubt should not be killed. Even further, it should be clear that the person will not stop killing.