Human Rights

[Danoff]

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.

It's not a right at all. Punishment is an option that is available because the criminal infringed the rights of others, and therefore forfeits his own rights. A tree doesn't have rights either. You can chop it down if you want to, or you can leave it alone. The choice is yours, as is the choice to punish a criminal.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

It's not a right at all. Punishment is an option

Very good digging deeper in what constitutes a right. I see your point, however:

Right (Oxford advanced learners dictionary):

a moral or legal claim to have or get sth or to behave in a particular way:

why is punishment an option and not a moral claim?

My try:

• Otherwise everything can be a right, moral claim.
• right is defined too widely. You can only have rights, outside of basic human rights, if you have contributed to a society
• people expect the outcome they want with a right, where this is generally not the case it is the "Justice system" that decides what is fair as compensation to your right.

conclusion, punishment seem to me to be a right (moral claim, not human right), however you do not decide on the way you get compensated for your right.

I do believe "right" is a term that can be misused having the general definition it has. It surely does not make the conversation more easy.

 

[Danoff]

It's not necessarily about compensation (in some cases it is). But compensation is usually about demonstrating damages rather than arbitrary considerations. Mostly the penal system is designed to discourage criminals and protect law abiding citizens. Compensation is more of a civil consideration. But regardless, whether you're violating this person's freedom by locking him up, or violating his property rights by taking his property and giving it to someone else - these rights need to be forfeit before you can take these actions. They are forfeit by the criminal himself due to his own actions.

 

[TankAss95]

Rights should be earned. It's sad to see criminals having more rights than the victims themselves.

 

[Keef]

Rights should be earned. It's sad to see criminals having more rights than the victims themselves.

How would one earn them?

 

[CMvan46]

Rights should be earned.

I agree with above. How exactly?

By making each individual earn rights your now treating people in the population differently which is against the right to equality.

 

[Sam48]

By making each individual earn rights your now treating people in the population differently which is against the right to equality.

Actually, you're treating them the same because you are giving each of them the same choice/ability to earn rights. Those who do not earn rights should not be considered unfairly treated, rather, just lazy or careless.

 

[Danoff]

Requiring some action from people in order to obtain rights places them at risk of rights violations in a scenario where a person does nothing. I don't see how rights can be earned without making the list of rights inconsistent with the process of obtaining them.

Criminals, however, do not have more rights than their victims. One forfeits one's rights when they violate the rights of others.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Rights should be earned.

Those would be social rights, your contribution to society, even if it just being born on the right bit of land, can give you rights.

However human rights are above that and should be applicable to all humans!

It's sad to see criminals having more rights than the victims themselves.

This is a bit a cheap statement and should be supported with examples.
Although you should loose rights when you do not respect the rights of others, it is a concept that is very dangerous.
Criminals should be considered innocent till proven differently, so already keeping them in prison seems a very hard measure before that stage.
At the moment that a crime happens the emotion of the victims can lead to measures that are not reasonable, that is why judges are independent.

But I quite understand, I just had a second attempt for "braking and entry" on my property (destroyed locks). The reaction of the "law enforcement" is, nothing was stolen, no need to make it official.

 

[Dapper]

Criminals should be considered innocent till proven differently...

Right, Bin Laden had a right to a trial.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

Right, Bin Laden had a right to a trial.

The military blew that guy up.... but we don't have any evidence the man that was killed was the leader of Al Qaeda.

 

[arora]

Right, Bin Laden had a right to a trial.

Does that make Obama guilty of a war crime, or murder, or conspiracy?

Surely something by that logic.

 

[Dapper]

Does that make Obama guilty of a war crime, or murder, or conspiracy?

Surely something by that logic.

There is a chance one of the seals was defending himself.
Even if Osama was unarmed I wouldn't say anyone was guilty of anything, it just wasn't right, but he should have been taken to court and then his veins filled with potassium. That is his right.

 

[arora]

Is there doubt our commander in cheif ordered a kill? How about the drone stikes on suspected al qeida?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Right, Bin Laden had a right to a trial.

I believe the whole story about a burial, etc.. indeed showed there was a recognition of rights from the US side. Not clear if this was sincere or show.

Now there is no reason why correct justice would not be valid for Bin Laden, the innocence in this case was less clear I agree. Muammar Gaddafi issued the first international arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden in 1998 and many followed ... So this man was asked to justify himself, the US action seemed to execute this kind of "international arrest warrant".

Now if the death was accidental, self defense or wanted action is a research on the persons that killed Bin Laden and is indeed a Human Right of Bin Laden that is executed.

Imagine that the link between Bin Laden and 9/11 shows to be as solid as the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein? But I have little doubt myself on the wrong of some actions of Bin Laden, as I see quite some weaknesses in the direct actions that lead to the death of Bin Laden.

 

[Dapper]

The thread for that is here - and I simply cannot believe anyone would state that outright. Is it just fine that someone can walk up and kill you? Of course it isn't.

Of course not, that is why we have artificial, self imposed laws which are not open to subjectivity. We follow the rules that we made, or we get punished in the way we say.

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me... Just like it's ok for a lion to kill another lion's cubs... Or like how humans treated each other for the majority of the time we've been on earth.

 

[Danoff]

Of course not, that is why we have artificial, self imposed laws which are not open to subjectivity. We follow the rules that we made, or we get punished in the way we say.

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me... Just like it's ok for a lion to kill another lion's cubs... Or like how humans treated each other for the majority of the time we've been on earth.

As is established in this thread and the Truth Justice and American Way thread that I linked you to, most animals live in a state of anarchy constantly violating rights that they would possess if they could understand and observe them. There is nothing that says mankind cannot live this way. Lawlessness and abundant human rights violations do not invalidate the existence of human rights. They merely point out that criminal acts are possible.... this is something I think all of us understand.

 

[Dapper]

As is established in this thread and the Truth Justice and American Way thread that I linked you to, most animals live in a state of anarchy constantly violating rights that they would possess if they could understand and observe them.

Established how? Because you say so? Your opinion does not establish anything. Besides, that is an enormous 'IF' you are postulating.

There is nothing that says mankind cannot live this way.

I know, we lived that way a lot longer than we live now, which is being civilized. Which means "natural human rights" just appeared out of nowhere when human civilization got a certain size, which in turn is frivolous.

Lawlessness and abundant human rights violations do not invalidate the existence of human rights. They merely point out that criminal acts are possible.... this is something I think all of us understand.

Or what is actually accentuated is the behavior you describe as human rights violations is natural, meaning that behavior is the same as every other animal, including humans before we started living together. And the fact our civilization, or society, decides to punish someone for these kinds of acts just shows how artificial our "rights" are, especially since there is no axiomatic proof of what you claim.

 

[Famine]

Of course not, that is why we have artificial, self imposed laws which are not open to subjectivity. We follow the rules that we made, or we get punished in the way we say.

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me... Just like it's ok for a lion to kill another lion's cubs... Or like how humans treated each other for the majority of the time we've been on earth.

You're arguing here that everything that is permitted by law is "OK" and everything not permitted by law is not. The innate contradiction by different states permitting different things should, alone be enough to invalidate this point of view for even a little expenditure of thought, but the fact that law can be changed at whim, rendering things that are OK today not OK tomorrow (and vice versa) should ring alarm bells.

It is an argument that rejects any notion that anyone should seek to change any unjust law because there cannot possibly be any unjust laws. It is an argument that, at its heart, says that there was nothing wrong with slavery and racism when they were legal because they were legal...

 

[Dapper]

You're arguing here that everything that is permitted by law is "OK" and everything not permitted by law is not. The innate contradiction by different states permitting different things should, alone be enough to invalidate this point of view for even a little expenditure of thought, but the fact that law can be changed at whim, rendering things that are OK today not OK tomorrow (and vice versa) should ring alarm bells.

You are simply putting words in my mouth. What I did say is we live under self imposed laws. Never did I give a subjective opinion (i.e. say they are OK) on those laws. We(society) vote for people to make laws, we(society) don't go by some fictitious rights, that is the way things are. The alarm bells you hear ringing is your idea of rights flying away.

It is an argument that rejects any notion that anyone should seek to change any unjust law because there cannot possibly be any unjust laws.

That is your misinterpretation, which you are entitled to. 'Unjust' is something subjective, and coming from one person that means nothing besides the way one conducts themselves. Now, if society as a whole deems something unjust, then laws are changed. Because that is how things are.

It is an argument that, at its heart, says that there was nothing wrong with slavery and racism when they were legal because they were legal...

💡 So society deems something worth changing and then it changes... just like my argument says it would.
It is almost insulting that you can't comprehend that in any other way than slavery was right.

 

[Keef]

Rights don't exist? So what happens if somebody kills you?

 

[Dapper]

Rights don't exist?

You can't prove a negative. It's your job to prove that they're there.

Thanks, niky.

 

[Famine]

The problem is that it has been established with logic and rationality. It doesn't fit with your world view so you choose to ignore it and the thinking behind it. That doesn't change the reality of it - though you can stick your fingers in your ears, shout loudly and believe whatever you want to believe.

You are simply putting words in my mouth.

That is your misinterpretation

Neither of these things are true. Let us remind ourselves of what you said:

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me...

This is an argument that is based on what is "OK" being what is legal. This argument precludes any notion that what is legal can ever be "not OK" or that anything that is not legal can ever be "OK". This stance ignores any notion that different countries (and even different States within the same country) have different laws, generating different positions on what is "OK" and what is not. This stance ignores any notion that laws can be - and are - made anew each day to change what is "OK" and what is not. This stance rejects any notion that anyone should seek to change laws because that would change the notion of what is OK".

This is what you are saying when you say it is "OK" for someone to commit an immoral act if it is legal to do so.

'Unjust' is something subjective

"Legal" is something subjective. "Unjust" is not - it is something that is not just. "Immoral" is not - it is something that is not moral. Morality is based in logic - morality is objective.

Now, if society as a whole deems something unjust, then laws are changed. Because that is how things are.

Society can deem things to be good or bad for society - subjective - and it can through government seek to have them made legal or illegal - subjective. It cannot deem something just or moral - they are objective and independent of society. Society exists to preserve and observe rights, not the other way about.

So society deems something worth changing and then it changes... just like my argument says it would.

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me...

Your argument is that what is legal is always right - thus what is illegal is never right and changing it to be legal would be offensive.

It is almost insulting that you can't comprehend that in any other way than slavery was right.

Subjugating another person of any kind and using their efforts for your own reward without their consent is never right, whether it is legal or not.

It would be fun to see subjective society's reaction to you telling them that slavery was absolutely fine because it was legal at the time. That reaction alone should pretty much tell you why rights are not subject to the whims of legality.

I literally cannot fathom the world view of someone who'd see it's now legal to kill all 8 year old children and think it's "OK".

 

[Danoff]

Established how? Because you say so? Your opinion does not establish anything.

It's established via reason in this thread, and decently well in the US constitution.

I know, we lived that way a lot longer than we live now, which is being civilized. Which means "natural human rights" just appeared out of nowhere when human civilization got a certain size, which in turn is frivolous.

They don't come "out of nowhere", they come out of reason. Without reason, rights are not observed - that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Or what is actually accentuated is the behavior you describe as human rights violations is natural, meaning that behavior is the same as every other animal, including humans before we started living together. And the fact our civilization, or society, decides to punish someone for these kinds of acts just shows how artificial our "rights" are...

Yes, human rights violations are natural. Criminal activity is natural and to be expected. Immorality is natural and to be expected. None of this has any bearing on the existence of rights. Rights do not exist because they are always observed, or because they are observed without government, or without thought, and if they did, they'd have no point.

Edit:

Just to drive this one home a little more, the argument is set up to suggest to me that there is no such thing as objective morality, and reason has no basis in any discussion of justice. The reason given... because if given a chance a wolf will eat a deer. Why we must subject ourselves to the intellectual products of a lion attacking a gazelle makes no sense to me at all. Why should the behavior of a lion have any bearing at all on a discussion of what constitutes rational behavior?

That is your misinterpretation, which you are entitled to. 'Unjust' is something subjective, and coming from one person that means nothing besides the way one conducts themselves. Now, if society as a whole deems something unjust, then laws are changed. Because that is how things are.

That's actually not how things are, especially here in America where we do not live in the democracy you describe. We live in a constitutionally-limited representative republic (see signature). Our nation was founded on human rights. It's sad that so many Americans do not understand this.

 

[Dapper]

The problem is that it has been established with logic and rationality. It doesn't fit with your world view so you choose to ignore it and the thinking behind it. That doesn't change the reality of it - though you can stick your fingers in your ears, shout loudly and believe whatever you want to believe.

The logic is not logical. Because most humans think differently than other beings doesn't not make you, or me, special with "rights". For example:

I think that the reason human beings have rights is because we're self-aware... That, effectively, "earns" you your rights.

A lot of thinking going on... and some earning? Earning a birth given "natural right" is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is not logical or rational.

This is an argument that is based on what is "OK" being what is legal.

No it's not. In context, prior to civilization, there were no laws, thus nothing was illegal. Yet we were the same species.

"Legal" is something subjective. "Unjust" is not - it is something that is not just. "Immoral" is not - it is something that is not moral. Morality is based in logic - morality is objective.

'Just' and 'moral' are subjective. Unjust and immoral are therefore inherently subjective. Please, use a true axiom, not subjective logic, to make your point.

Society can deem things to be good or bad for society - subjective - and it can through government seek to have them made legal or illegal - subjective. It cannot deem something just or moral - they are objective and independent of society. Society exists to preserve and observe rights, not the other way about.

Since you don't think morals are subjective, this isn't worth addressing. Your inability to understand people's morals are different, meaning subjective, is the underlying issue.

They don't come "out of nowhere", they come out of reason. Without reason, rights are not observed - that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Atoms exist without being observed. Air exist without being observed. Gravity exist without being observed. Your "reason" why rights are there (where is there?) without being observed has no substantial proof other than your opinion, and your opinion, or what you think (btw, this is the definition of subjective), has no bearing on reality.

 

[Keef]

Thanks, niky.

I asked two questions.

 

[Danoff]

A lot of thinking going on... and some earning? Earning a birth given "natural right" is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is not logical or rational.

Note the quotes.

(around the word "earns")

Atoms exist without being observed. Air exist without being observed. Gravity exist without being observed. Your "reason" why rights are there (where is there?) without being observed has no substantial proof other than your opinion, and your opinion, or what you think (btw, this is the definition of subjective), has no bearing on reality.

It's not opinion, and it'd documented well on this site. "Might makes right" is an opinion. But it's one you seem to think is "natural" and so it is somehow superior. Nothing makes right, force is not right. To claim anything else requires some sort of subjective value judgement that requires the forcer to be judged superior to the forcee. I know of no objective consideration and so I must rationally conclude that all men are equal, and that the initiation of force cannot be just, and is not permitted by a just system.

There, I have once again spelled it out. There's more here if you're interested. I've written a fair amount about it on this forum.

 

[Dapper]

I know of no objective consideration and so I must rationally conclude that all men are equal, and that the initiation of force cannot be just, and is not permitted by a just system.

Dude, concluding is subjective. If you look at objective history, you'll see I am right.

 

[Danoff]

Dude, concluding is subjective. If you look at objective history, you'll see I am right.

That's a bit disrespectful don't you think? To try to bail out on a serious discussion by hiding behind semantics...

I don't blame you. Yours is by far the most prevalent philosophical position I have encountered, and one that I have personally held. Modern philosophy preaches that all things are unknowable, all truth is unattainable, all understanding of morality, and any appeal to anything external is a lie. Right now there are dozens of classrooms filled with teenage college freshman lapping that nonsense up as though it were absolute genius.

Those people will walk out of the classroom, text someone using their iphone, and never have a second thought for how massively ironic that is.

 

[Dapper]

That's a bit disrespectful don't you think? To try to bail out on a serious discussion by hiding behind semantics.

The burden of proof is on you, the semantics just further solidifies my point.

I don't blame you. Yours is by far the most prevalent philosophical position I have encountered.

My point is anti-philosophy.

Modern philosophy preaches that all things are unknowable, all truth is unattainable, all understanding of morality, and any appeal to anything external is a lie. Right now there are dozens of classrooms filled with teenage college freshman lapping that nonsense up as though it were absolute genius.

Those people will walk out the the classroom, text someone using their iphone, and never have a second thought for how massively ironic that is.

Who is bailing out? Because your opinion is all you have, you then digress.