Human Rights

[Danoff]

When you assume that human beings are equal, that, too, is a subjective value judgment.

This is a mischaracterization of the argument, which I'm willing to admit that i may be at fault for, but which I've spent pages trying to correct. Where do you see "human beings are equal" in this:

- Subjective values have no bearing on interaction since they are by definition based on individual perception
- As a result, the only system that can weigh on interaction is an objective one
- An objective system cannot permit subjective values to result in coercive force between individuals.

I just thought you claimed that there is no right or wrong in this discussion...

I didn't contradict myself.

 

[Wolf-M]

- Subjective values have no bearing on interaction since they are by definition based on individual perception
- As a result, the only system that can weigh on interaction is an objective one
- An objective system cannot permit subjective values to result in coercive force between individuals.

Why do subjective values have no bearing on human interaction? Would you say that you've chosen your wife based on objective or subjective reasons?

And secondly, why would you say that an objective system cannot permit subjective values to result in coercive force between individuals? Your statement is itself one based on the subjective value that "there should not be coercive force between individuals".

 

[Danoff]

Why do subjective values have no bearing on human interaction? Would you say that you've chosen your wife based on objective or subjective reasons?

Subjective values, being based on perception, cannot be evaluated against each other and cannot be assumed to be agreed upon. Me choosing my wife based on subjective reasoning is me applying my own subjective evaluation of my wife to my own actions (proposing marriage). I'm talking about forcing your subjective values to others who may not hold them and who's own subjective values cannot be considered more or less correct.

And secondly, why would you say that an objective system cannot permit subjective values to result in coercive force between individuals? Your statement is itself one based on the subjective value that "there should not be coercive force between individuals".

It follows from the fact that human interaction on an objectively justifiable basis does not contain subjective values. Without force, your subjective values only apply to yourself. Force is the mechanism by which you apply your will on those around you.


Edit:

For example, if I make a subjective value judgement like "the ability to produce force is superior to the inability to produce force", and then go beat up my neighbor and make him work for me - my neighbor's actions are now being dictated by the notion that the ability to produce force is superior to the inability to produce force. This would be fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that the notion that "might makes right" is no more correct than "might makes wrong". An objective system, by definition, excludes these kinds of value judgements.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Thanks for the valuable discussion, I'll need some time to go through it, I will have to remove destiny (too subjective) and come to choices in options, but it is difficult to make that into a clear statement.

Had to write this off my chest:

From this you can conclude that in an objective system individuals have the following:
....
- Right to property
- Etc.

There is an interesting negotiation ongoing today.

Web sites that temporarily closed at midnight Wednesday to publicize their belief that provisions in two Congressional bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act, referred to as SOPA as well as the PIPA, or the Protect IP Act, which may require search engines to block access to sites that employ copyrighted material via links or hosting, is tantamount to censorship, among other concerns. (ref: )

I would call it "Freedom of Speach" against "Property rights".
Since it is a negotiation, there can not be Human Rights involved.

The "Freedom of speach" can use some arguments of the Objective Right to have knowingly correct information. Although that does not give you the right to say anything, anywhere at anytime.

I believe that the discussion proves that "Freedom of speach" and "Property rights" need interaction and negotiation and thus are subjective.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Why do subjective values have no bearing on human interaction? Would you say that you've chosen your wife based on objective or subjective reasons?

And secondly, why would you say that an objective system cannot permit subjective values to result in coercive force between individuals? Your statement is itself one based on the subjective value that "there should not be coercive force between individuals".

The objective right is to associate with others. If you do not let people associate like they want they can not defend their rights.

That I have chosen my wife and that I have a contract (subjective, negotiation) with her does not make me or her more then other people concerning human rights.

You bring up a good point: People are free to associate, that means that if my wife would want to divorce me she should be able to do so, it is her human right, what I think of that will never change that right, it is not subjective!
People are free to associate, that means that people that have the might and force an 11 year old to marry someone they do not like are wrong. They have violated the right of the 11 year old to freely associate, no matter what might they have.

An other good point: Coercive force between individuals exists due to interaction and the that that interaction will give conflict. That is why you do need a way to handle that conflict. My conclusion is that using right for this is illogical from the definition of rights, they are subjective agreements, laws, merits etc...following out of a social negotiation. They in no way change rights, if you can change rights you can not defend them anymore, which is against the definition of rights, it is illogical.

Why can't we return to the natural state where survival of the fittest is king?

Survival of the fittest is a superb test case! I recommend all to use it to test their objectivity.

The fact that you can impose your value system with force, does not remove objective rights of the person (otherwise they would not be able to defend their rights), it only gives you the advantage in the subjective agreements, in the negotiation, the subjective part.
Stating otherwise would mean, if I can kill you (exercising might), you loose your rights. But then nobody could defend your rights anymore, so the processes against genocide would be nonsense, it was just "might is right". You can not loose your rights, it would be illogical.

It is a fact that people call rights things that are written in law, but that is illogical, since if you would change country, suddenly you could not defend your rights anymore, you would have to make new subjective agreements. We need to differentiate Objective Rights and Subjective agreements more clearly, so that people are not confused about it. Again only language.

Edit: The law of the Jungle (survival of the fittest) is subjective, it does not change the rights.

Why do human beings have rights and not, say, a baby cow? The attempt to apply subjective values to someone else is not objectively supported, but a baby cow cannot possibly understand that or live within the confines of it. The baby cow simply lives by the law of nature. This establishes a certain cognitive threshold for rights (let's ignore for a moment that that threshold is not well defined), and fetuses don't meet that threshold.

We are back to are rights innate or not. Logically they are innate (Please use logic on the contrary, it contradicts). You use value systems (if you understand rights you are of more value) above to state they are not innate.

In your definition the person killed does not meet the threshold, thus has no rights. But then nobody could defend your rights anymore, so the processes against genocide would be nonsense, the dead do not understand their rights so have none. You can not loose your rights, it would be illogical.

 

[Wolf-M]

We are back to are rights innate or not. Logically they are innate (Please use logic on the contrary, it contradicts). You use value systems (if you understand rights you are of more value) above to state they are not innate.

In your definition the person killed does not meet the threshold, thus has no rights. But then nobody could defend your rights anymore, so the processes against genocide would be nonsense, the dead do not understand their rights so have none. You can not loose your rights, it would be illogical.

I think that was my point - rights are creations of the society and in a natural state, without laws, there are no rights.

What there is is only a desire to survive, and out of reciprocal respect most people eventually come to realise that if I respect your rights, it is more likely that you will respect mine.

Still it does not make human rights any more objective (or any less subjective) than a simple collective human desire.

Subjective values, being based on perception, cannot be evaluated against each other and cannot be assumed to be agreed upon. Me choosing my wife based on subjective reasoning is me applying my own subjective evaluation of my wife to my own actions (proposing marriage). I'm talking about forcing your subjective values to others who may not hold them and who's own subjective values cannot be considered more or less correct.

What's the point of your perspective of "morality" when you can't even say what is right and what is wrong? Just take this example - can you objectively say whether adultery is morally right or wrong if you insist on a purely objective answer?

You must understand that your case is very narrow. Under your perception of morality, you can only do what is objectively right. But is lying to your neighbour objectively right or wrong? Is helping a terminally ill patient commit suicide an objectively right or wrong answer? Is abortion objectively right or wrong? There is no "objective" answer in the sense that it is the eternal truth. We are only choosing values based on our experience and extrapolate conclusions that stem from those assumptions.

We mentioned the case of abortion. Do you not think it is a fiction to say that a newborn baby knows and understands the respect of rights of others anymore than a baby cow (as you put it)?

It follows from the fact that human interaction on an objectively justifiable basis does not contain subjective values. Without force, your subjective values only apply to yourself. Force is the mechanism by which you apply your will on those around you.


Edit:

For example, if I make a subjective value judgement like "the ability to produce force is superior to the inability to produce force", and then go beat up my neighbor and make him work for me - my neighbor's actions are now being dictated by the notion that the ability to produce force is superior to the inability to produce force. This would be fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that the notion that "might makes right" is no more correct than "might makes wrong". An objective system, by definition, excludes these kinds of value judgements.

The fact that you prefer everything to be based on an objective platform is itself a subjective value judgment.

 

[Danoff]

In your definition the person killed does not meet the threshold, thus has no rights.

Yes, a dead person has no rights. However, a living person does. When you kill someone, you violate the rights of a person who is alive - which is a rights violation. Shooting a dead person is not a rights violation. The first gunshot, that killed the person, violated his rights. The second gunshot (that put a hole in a corpse) was not - at least not not of quite the same category (could be property rights infringement).

Property rights work this way too, a living person has property rights. A dead person had property rights that are executed (after death) according to living instructions. This is all established while the person has rights, death does not retroactively take rights away that one once had.

I think that was my point - rights are creations of the society and in a natural state, without laws, there are no rights.

Without laws, rights are not observed. There are still rights.

What's the point of your perspective of "morality" when you can't even say what is right and what is wrong?

Only objective, subjective.

Just take this example - can you objectively say whether adultery is morally right or wrong if you insist on a purely objective answer?

Adultery is an objectively justified activity (subjective values applied to the individual, no force used).

You must understand that your case is very narrow. Under your perception of morality, you can only do what is objectively right. But is lying to your neighbour objectively right or wrong?

Lying is an objectively justified activity (except in breech of contract). This is the individual's own subjective values applied to the individual, no force used.

Is helping a terminally ill patient commit suicide an objectively right or wrong answer?

Euthanasia is an objectively justified activity. This is two individuals own subjective values applied to themselves, no force* used.

*Remember that I use force to refer to involuntary activities only.

Is abortion objectively right or wrong?

Objectively justified activity. One individual using their own subjective values applied to themselves. No force used against anyone meeting the criteria of having rights.

There is no "objective" answer in the sense that it is the eternal truth. We are only choosing values based on our experience and extrapolate conclusions that stem from those assumptions.

I have no experience with adultery, euthanasia, or abortion (I have lied though). There is clear objective and subjective behavior in each of these cases. Any situation that contains entirely voluntary transactions will be objectively justifiable.

Do you not think it is a fiction to say that a newborn baby knows and understands the respect of rights of others anymore than a baby cow (as you put it)?

Yes, that would be fiction. I have always stated that we extend newborns protection from law because of the fuzzy nature of cognitive abilities and because of the convenience of birth as a threshold - not as a matter of principle.

The fact that you prefer everything to be based on an objective platform is itself a subjective value judgment.

It's simply a description. Objectivity, by definition, applies to everyone. Subjectivity applies, by definition, to the individual (possibly like-minded individuals). There is no "preference" so much as a recognition of the nature of the action and it's validity to others.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I think that was my point - rights are creations of the society and in a natural state, without laws, there are no rights.

Wrong. Objective Rights come out of the definitions of Objective and Rights it needs no society. They are also existing in a natural state, with some abuses but then maybe less then what humans do.

What there is is only a desire to survive, and out of reciprocal respect most people eventually come to realise that if I respect your rights, it is more likely that you will respect mine.

Reciprocal respect is not the cause, logic is. If you do not understand the rights of others, you will never accept them. That we think late about rights does not make that they did not exist before, it just shows what animal we are.

Still it does not make human rights any more objective (or any less subjective) than a simple collective human desire.

The whole point is that people start to see there are 2 ways:
1) Objectively, out of the definition of right as something you can defend you can deduct rights.
2) The human desire is just a social negotiation leading to laws, agreements.

Try to split them up, you will see that 2 if correctly made will always include 1, not to split them just confuses you and makes it take more time before 1 comes out.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Yes, a dead person has no rights. However, a living person does. When you kill someone, you violate the rights of a person who is alive - which is a rights violation.

Subjective again, you are valuing life.

Without laws, rights are not observed. There are still rights.

+1, although observed has to be seen limited as an official record.

Lying is an objectively justified activity (except in breech of contract). This is your own subjective values applied to the individual, no force used.

For me there is an objective right to knowingly correct information: if you do not have that you can not defend you rights.
So lying is objectively illogical, you would accept others to lie to you and thus be unable to defend your rights.

I know we use "white lies", but still that is a value we put on them, a Vulcan would not understand.

It's simply a description. Objectivity, by definition, applies to everyone. Subjectivity applies, by definition, to the individual (possibly like-minded individuals).

Indeed you can get to objectivity in 2 ways: 1 you wait till people negotiate till only the essence remains or you build it up logically, the conclusion will be the same.

 

[Danoff]

Subjective again, you are valuing life.

Not exactly, I'm delineating the use of force against someone who can understand and observe objective rights and someone who cannot.

For me there is an objective right to knowingly correct information: if you do not have that you can not defend you rights.

I don't see how the second part follows from anything. Having an objective right to knowing "correct" information requires the existence of "correct" information, an inherent value of "correct" information, and the ability to force someone else who might value "incorrect" information to provide you with information you will consider to be a "correct" interpretation of events or or physical properties.

Your values (for correct information) do not justify the initiation of force against someone else to supply that information to you (free of charge no less).

 

[FoolKiller]

There is an interesting negotiation ongoing today.

I would call it "Freedom of Speach" against "Property rights".
Since it is a negotiation, there can not be Human Rights involved.

The "Freedom of speach" can use some arguments of the Objective Right to have knowingly correct information. Although that does not give you the right to say anything, anywhere at anytime.

I believe that the discussion proves that "Freedom of speach" and "Property rights" need interaction and negotiation and thus are subjective.

When did protesting unjust legislation become a negotiation? Freedom of Speech is being violated in an over-reaching attempt to protect property rights. It is the fact that rights would be violated by this law that has people upset. But they are not negotiating.

Also, do not mistake legalized rights violation as a sign that those rights are up for debate and subjective. To do so would be to say that the right to freedom from slavery or the right to life are subjective and up for negotiation, as slavery and genocide do happen while being condoned by governments. Rights exist, even if a government refuses to recognize them. Government is not the ultimate decider of human rights.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Not exactly, I'm delineating the use of force against someone who can understand and observe objective rights and someone who cannot.

Subjective: You value someone that can understand and observe objective rights higher then someone who cannot.

I don't see how the second part follows from anything. Having an objective right to knowing "correct" information requires the existence of "correct" information, an inherent value of "correct" information, and the ability to force someone else who might value "incorrect" information to provide you with information you will consider to be a "correct" interpretation of events or or physical properties.

Your values (for correct information) do not justify the initiation of force against someone else to supply that information to you (free of charge no less).

The "knowingly" correct is important, you can be mistaken but it should be not "knowingly". The right is only on the quality of the information, you are right it should be reformulated to express this better. The other always has the right to remain silent.

It is not a value statement from my side: If people can give "knowingly wrong information", you can not defend your rights. They still have the right to remain silent. When they lie they just violate your right to defend your rights.

When did protesting unjust legislation become a negotiation? Freedom of Speech is being violated in an over-reaching attempt to protect property rights. It is the fact that rights would be violated by this law that has people upset. But they are not negotiating.

Freedom of speech is not a right, it is a negotiation, if there was freedom of speech, you would be allowed to lie unpunished, which would make you are not be able to defend your rights as discussed above. I think it is wrong language usage to use this discussion to make something a right when it isn't.

But I do believe that the restriction on the internet we are discussing risks to be a way that governments try to limit the information people have and thus they are infringing the right for everyone of defending their rights. I agree that this legislation is against our rights!

As proven below, we both believe that rights are not something that is negotiated, we just disagree on the freedom of speech, show some logic why there should be freedom of speech? I might change my mind.

Also, do not mistake legalized rights violation as a sign that those rights are up for debate and subjective. To do so would be to say that the right to freedom from slavery or the right to life are subjective and up for negotiation, as slavery and genocide do happen while being condoned by governments. Rights exist, even if a government refuses to recognize them. Government is not the ultimate decider of human rights.

👍 We agree, the law is just something written, it does not change rights! That someone subjectively abuses rights, does not mean the rights are not there. Subjective rights can just be specific implementation of Objective Rights, then they are not up for discussion.

Freedom of Slavery and Right to life are subjective by introducing the terms Slavery and Life, however they are supported logically by objective rights, so they are not open for debate.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

So some improvements, thanks for the discussion it is helpful:

Objective Rights (or whatever you want to call it) are:
* Objective: result of logic (you need no interaction to describe the right how to interact) out of the 2 sole definitions here
* Rights: Something you can defend, with arguments based on logic, that can limit the actions of others Edit: who would be infringing rights.

* there is an Objective Right to decide on the next action you take not infringing the Objective Rights of others. Otherwise you can not defend yourself against an attacker, it would would be illogical. Otherwise you can be stopped to defend your rights, stopped to exercise your rights to stop the actions of others.
This supports Subjective rights like:
The right to live. The right to be free from slavery.
* there is the Objective Right to have the assurance that people spread only knowingly correct information. Otherwise you can not defend yourself on a correct basis. The others can lie to break down your defense.
This does not change a right on freedom of spreading knowingly correct information without infringing other Objective rights.=> out of freedom to act above
* there is the Objective Right to remain silent. Since otherwise you could be forced to give incorrect information or not defend your rights
====================
Objective Right to decide on the next action you take not infringing the Objective Rights of others: Once there is conflict (Right against Right), it becomes subjective what to choose, a social negotiation.

Edit: I was still too quick on the trolley case before. You could argument that it is about the defending the Human Right of 1 to live compared to defending the Human Right of 5 to live. But the right does not give you an excuse to act against an innocent, so that is where it goes wrong.
Similar in the Bolshevik Great Terror: They thought people would kill them and there was a situation of they die or I die. But the people were innocent, so it was not justified.
* there is an objective right to be presumed innocent, otherwise people could use their rights against you at random.

 

[Danoff]

Subjective: You value someone that can understand and observe objective rights higher then someone who cannot.

Again, not correct. I'm valuing an objective system above a subjective system. I do this for rational reasons. Whether or not someone is behaving in a way consistent with an objective system, or attempting to enforce their own subjective values on others does not concern me as much as the logical outcome of that behavior.

I'm not valuing someone who chooses not to steal above someone who chooses to steal. I'm recognizing that the former is an objectively supportable position and that latter relies on subjective values. The logical outcome of that is that if we choose to have an objective system, we can objectively use force to stop the theft. Another logical outcome is that someone who chooses to live by subjective values has inherently foregone the need for an objective system.

Again, nothing subjective.

It is not a value statement from my side: If people can give "knowingly wrong information", you can not defend your rights.

I have no idea where you get this from. You cannot rely on information from others to make this determination because in the end you are responsible for your own actions.

They still have the right to remain silent. When they lie they just violate your right to defend your rights.

No one can possibly comply with a "right" to force them to tell the "truth".

Freedom of speech is not a right, it is a negotiation, if there was freedom of speech, you would be allowed to lie unpunished, which would make you are not be able to defend your rights as discussed above.

Yes, there is a freedom of speech (including a freedom to lie). Someone else lying has no bearing on whether you can defend your rights.

Forcing people to tell the "truth" is the initiation of force against an individual with the justification of "truth" being valued over "falsehood", which is a subjective value judgement. In many instances people value falsehood over truth - a trivial example being the question "how are you doing?". The answer "I'm having a rough day because my dog had a seizure this morning" is often less valued and sometimes negatively disruptive compared to "fine". There are many many people that you know (but whom you're not particularly close with) who value the lie over the truth in this (and many other) examples.... not that I need examples to show that this is subjective. There is no objective proof that truth is better than falsehood (and it is not in all instances).

 

[FoolKiller]

Freedom of speech is not a right, it is a negotiation,

I can say whatever I wish about whatever I wish, up to and including lying. Freedom of speech is merely an expression of freedom of thought. It is the verbalization of your thoughts (and whatever else you can lump into what you hold within your brain).

if there was freedom of speech, you would be allowed to lie unpunished,

Huh? People lie unpunished all the time. Even if they didn't you described it as not being allowed to. To not allow something requires it to be regulated in some way. And you, yourself said that just because it is regulated against does not mean it is not a right. Lying, while ethically questionable in most cases (but some lies protect the innocent), does not violate anyone's rights. It only limits people who believe the lie, but does not prevent them from doing whatever rightful action they choose.

You can make it illegal to say certain things, but you cannot stop me from saying them, and nothing can stop me from holding the thoughts that cause that speech to be created.



Also, I believe we have a bit of a language barrier issue, as a negotiation is not what we had yesterday. We had a protest. A negotiation would involve both sides of the disagreement discussing a resolution with each other. What happened was a group of Internet sites, which represent one side of the dispute, protesting against the other side. Nothing the people in favor of the law would have done would have stopped the actions of those sites, short of stopping any attempts to make the law. Protesting is what people do when negotiation has been rejected or has failed to achieve a compromise. In this case, it was rejected by lawmakers.

 

[Wolf-M]

You can make it illegal to say certain things, but you cannot stop me from saying them, and nothing can stop me from holding the thoughts that cause that speech to be created.

Without laws, rights are not observed. There are still rights.

Objective Rights come out of the definitions of Objective and Rights it needs no society. They are also existing in a natural state, with some abuses but then maybe less then what humans do.

It's a bit of a fiction to say that without laws one can have rights. If a right is not enforceable it is no right. You may have the freedom, absent laws, or even with laws yet under the threat of criminal penalty, to say whatever you like; yet once your words (say for example) trigger the law's sanction, can you really realistically suggest you have a right to free speech?


In that sense, and in response to Danoff's proposition that there is no right or wrong in our discussion, only objectivity and subjectivity, I would say that the assumption of such hypothetical right is more subjective than to look at what the state of the law is, and ideally to contribute to its reform.

there is an objective right to be presumed innocent, otherwise people could use their rights against you at random.

I beg to differ. Since when, before due process was recognised as one of the fundamental pillars of our legal system, was presumption of innocence generally observed in the courts? Even in the UK, it was relatively recent in history that it was explicitly recognised that the right to be presumed innocent is one golden thread of English criminal law.

In the absence of state enforcement, there is no right; what there is is only an empty aspiration.

I'm valuing an objective system above a subjective system.

Since it's a value, it's subjective - it's your choice to adopt that stance, however reasonable it may appear to be.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's a bit of a fiction to say that without laws one can have rights. If a right is not enforceable it is no right. You may have the freedom, absent laws, or even with laws yet under the threat of criminal penalty, to say whatever you like; yet once your words (say for example) trigger the law's sanction, can you really realistically suggest you have a right to free speech?


In that sense, and in response to Danoff's proposition that there is no right or wrong in our discussion, only objectivity and subjectivity, I would say that the assumption of such hypothetical right is more subjective than to look at what the state of the law is, and ideally to contribute to its reform.




I beg to differ. Since when, before due process was recognised as one of the fundamental pillars of our legal system, was presumption of innocence generally observed in the courts? Even in the UK, it was relatively recent in history that it was explicitly recognised that the right to be presumed innocent is one golden thread of English criminal law.

In the absence of state enforcement, there is no right; what there is is only an empty aspiration.

Don't confuse legal rights with human rights. To do so means that there is nothing wrong with slavery or genocide in countries where it is allowed by law. The law can violate human rights. To ignore this fact means that your life, your freedom, your ability to practice, or not, the religion of your choosing, racial equality, and happiness is all subject to the whim of those in power and whatever they choose to do is just.

 

[Wolf-M]

Don't confuse legal rights with human rights. To do so means that there is nothing wrong with slavery or genocide in countries where it is allowed by law. The law can violate human rights. To ignore this fact means that your life, your freedom, your ability to practice, or not, the religion of your choosing, racial equality, and happiness is all subject to the whim of those in power and whatever they choose to do is just.

Human rights, if without legal force, are not truly rights but aspirations.

Slavery or genocide are wrong, but they are wrong because they are contrary to our moral standards. When enough people deem a certain action to be an affront to our conscience, they put it into law (international law) and in that regard one may say the genocide is against human rights.

It's a fairy tale to suggest that rights can exist in isolation and without conferral by law.

 

[Dapper]

Don't confuse legal rights with human rights. To do so means that there is nothing wrong with slavery or genocide in countries where it is allowed by law. The law can violate human rights. To ignore this fact means that your life, your freedom, your ability to practice, or not, the religion of your choosing, racial equality, and happiness is all subject to the whim of those in power and whatever they choose to do is just.

Those in power are a representation of the public. Every truly progressive change happens from the bottom, or, in other words, the public. This is a fact, not some unobservant, phantom rights. And the same is true if the government is not a representation of the people. Everything you listed is a result of our way of life, and is coincidentally non-existent without our way of life (minus life).

 

[FoolKiller]

Human rights, if without legal force, are not truly rights but aspirations.

Slavery or genocide are wrong, but they are wrong because they are contrary to our moral standards. When enough people deem a certain action to be an affront to our conscience, they put it into law (international law) and in that regard one may say the genocide is against human rights.

It's a fairy tale to suggest that rights can exist in isolation and without conferral by law.

So, law cannot violate rights then? So, if a government official showed up at the door of a home, which sits on land you purchased with money earned from your labor, and that you built yourself from materials you purchased with money earned from your labor, and they told you that the government has taken ownership of your home and land and will be turning it over to a business wishing to build a shopping mall, none of your rights will have been violated? You truly believe that law cannot violate rights because there are no rights without law? That in the early 1800s black men had no rights being violated as they were slaves and that the rich white men had a right to own, and even kill, other humans based on their skin color?

Those in power are a representation of the public.

And I bet every citizen of every third-world nation being run by warlords agrees with you completely as they are marched off, at gun point, to mine rare metals and diamonds. I mean, all dictators come to power by honestly campaigning in elections on the notion of ruling by fear and killing anyone who disagrees with him.

Everything you listed is a result of our way of life, and is coincidentally non-existent without our way of life (minus life).

So, there are no human rights? Just those contradictory feel good rights people like the UN like to make up? Nothing of mine is being violated if the government becomes abusive of its power?

 

[Danoff]

Since it's a value, it's subjective - it's your choice to adopt that stance, however reasonable it may appear to be.

I'm valuing an objective system above a subjective system. I do this for rational reasons.

.

 

[Wolf-M]

So, law cannot violate rights then? So, if a government official showed up at the door of a home, which sits on land you purchased with money earned from your labor, and that you built yourself from materials you purchased with money earned from your labor, and they told you that the government has taken ownership of your home and land and will be turning it over to a business wishing to build a shopping mall, none of your rights will have been violated? You truly believe that law cannot violate rights because there are no rights without law? That in the early 1800s black men had no rights being violated as they were slaves and that the rich white men had a right to own, and even kill, other humans based on their skin color?

In a purely hypothetical setting where there is only one country in this world there will be no rights infringed - because the only system (law) that confers rights does not recognise that right (suppose for instance the national law authorises racial discrimination).

In today's context that must be wrong. International law prevails over domestic law at all times. By agreeing to join the UN, each individual member state has agreed to be subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even if a state is to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty, the declaration has taken the force of customary international law which again overrides domestic law. A state which blatantly violates human rights, whether it has the mandate of domestic law or not, is acting in contravention of international law.

So there is the answer to your concern.

So, there are no human rights? Just those contradictory feel good rights people like the UN like to make up? Nothing of mine is being violated if the government becomes abusive of its power?

The constitutional rights. Absent that the rights conferred by international law. Absent that you have no rights.

Danoff
I'm valuing an objective system above a subjective system. I do this for rational reasons.

A thing being reasonable does not make it "objective".

I value a career in medicine over a career in law. I do this for rational reasons.

It does not make a career in medicine any more objectively superior than a career in law.

Reasonableness is always subjective.

 

[Danoff]

In a purely hypothetical setting where there is only one country in this world there will be no rights infringed - because the only system (law) that confers rights does not recognise that right (suppose for instance the national law authorises racial discrimination).

Law does not confer rights. They exist independent of law.

A thing being reasonable does not make it "objective".

I value a career in medicine over a career in law. I do this for rational reasons.

It does not make a career in medicine any more objectively superior than a career in law.

Reasonableness is always subjective.

Colloquial vs. formal definitions of reason. Your rational reasons for valuing a career in medicine over law are based on your perception (subjective) of those careers. There is nothing subjective about how I come to the conclusion that objective is superior to subjective when it comes to human interaction.

Go after the issue instead of beating around the bush here. Take the argument on for itself, don't just look for ways to interpret language differently.

 

[Wolf-M]

Law does not confer rights. They exist independent of law.

If one day you are subjected to governmental abuse of power, try not to rely on the law or your constitutional rights then. Go talk about morality to the judge. Go educate him with your rights theory. Tell him that you have a heaven-descended inherent right that the government had infringed. See how it goes.

It's a fairy tale that we possess any rights outside the legal framework, domestic or international.

Colloquial vs. formal definitions of reason. Your rational reasons for valuing a career in medicine over law are based on your perception (subjective) of those careers. There is nothing subjective about how I come to the conclusion that objective is superior to subjective when it comes to human interaction.

Go after the issue instead of beating around the bush here. Take the argument on for itself, don't just look for ways to interpret language differently.

Wiki time....

Under the page "subjectivity",

Despite this, subjectivity is the only way we have to experience the world, mathematically, scientifically or otherwise. We share a human subjectivity, as well as individual subjectivity and all theories and philosophies that dictate our understanding of mathematics, science, literature and every concept we have about the world is based on human or individual perspective. The creation of philosophies is within itself subjective, along with the concept of discovery or creation of ideas.

 

[FoolKiller]

In a purely hypothetical setting where there is only one country in this world there will be no rights infringed - because the only system (law) that confers rights does not recognise that right (suppose for instance the national law authorises racial discrimination).

In today's context that must be wrong. International law prevails over domestic law at all times. By agreeing to join the UN, each individual member state has agreed to be subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even if a state is to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty, the declaration has taken the force of customary international law which again overrides domestic law. A state which blatantly violates human rights, whether it has the mandate of domestic law or not, is acting in contravention of international law.

So there is the answer to your concern.

Wow, I gave you a real world example that happens today and you avoided it.

As for the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: They are contradictory hogwash that cannot be fully enforced. Thus, by your reasoning every member state of the UN has violated human rights and the law. And even to a larger point, countries such as the US have blatantly violated it as their own laws do not allow interference from the government in a way to be able to enforce some of the "rights" listed in the UN document. So, by your reasoning the US has attempted to protect human rights as they define it, only to violate rights as the UN defines them. So, by declaring, without explanation, that international law prevails over domestic laws you have claimed that the US violates human rights.

Now, why does international law automatically prevail over domestic law? Why is one definition of rights more correct than another? As you say, it is all subjective.

Or is it plausible that there is a right and wrong answer and a majority does not simply get to declare right and wrong by default?

 

[Wolf-M]

Wow, I gave you a real world example that happens today and you avoided it.

As for the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: They are contradictory hogwash that cannot be fully enforced. Thus, by your reasoning every member state of the UN has violated human rights and the law. And even to a larger point, countries such as the US have blatantly violated it as their own laws do not allow interference from the government in a way to be able to enforce some of the "rights" listed in the UN document. So, by your reasoning the US has attempted to protect human rights as they define it, only to violate rights as the UN defines them. So, by declaring, without explanation, that international law prevails over domestic laws you have claimed that the US violates human rights.

Now, why does international law automatically prevail over domestic law? Why is one definition of rights more correct than another? As you say, it is all subjective.

Or is it plausible that there is a right and wrong answer and a majority does not simply get to declare right and wrong by default?

I thought I answered your question - in the example you've given me you can say that the constitutional (human) rights are infringed, absent that international human rights, and in the absence of either one, no rights infringed.

My argument is that human rights are merely a human construct. It does not matter whether the source of the rights is national (ie constitutional) or international (ie UN/treaty-based). Without either one it's unrealistic to say that you've any right other than resorting to the idealistic fairy tale like idea that we have a heaven-descended right.

On your point between the clash of systems. Yes you guessed it right. Human rights in the domestic context are human rights defined by the constitution. Human rights in the international context are human rights defined by international treaties. Given that both are human constructs, it is inevitable that occasionally the two may conflict with each other. But that does not disprove my point. The US government may well have violated human rights as understood by the international community. Is that a surprise? Treatment of Guantanamo Bay inmates, torture and killing of Iraqi civilians etc etc. The lack of enforcement procedures against the US does not cover the fact that it may have infringed human rights of others outside US territory. What's the source of the human rights? Philosophy? Morality? Seriously? It's the international conventions to which the US is a party and which directly imposes an obligation on the US government to observe them. Some may well argue in philosophy that the US is blameworthy because it's actions were immoral, but that's just it - philosophy. The real force of the argument lies in the fact that the US might have potentially breached international law - that's where the real obligation comes from.

As to why international law automatically prevails over domestic law, it's a matter of...law.

Domestic human rights law governs the relationship between the state and the citizen; international human rights law dictates the obligations of governments. Think of the analogy of a company - clearly the external law (ie legislation) which says what the company can or cannot do is superior to the internal law (ie the company's constitution/articles) which governs the relationship between the company and its shareholders. It is superior not because it is "more correct" as a matter of philosophy/morality, but because it is higher up in the hierarchy.

 

[Danoff]

If one day you are subjected to governmental abuse of power, try not to rely on the law or your constitutional rights then. Go talk about morality to the judge. Go educate him with your rights theory. Tell him that you have a heaven-descended inherent right that the government had infringed. See how it goes.

It's a fairy tale that we possess any rights outside the legal framework, domestic or international.

The fact that rights can be infringed has no bearing on their existence. They do not exist only if they are observed... in fact... when they are observed they have less meaning. Rights have the most meaning when they are being violated, because they weigh in on the arbitrary and unsupported nature of such action.

Wiki time....

Under the page "subjectivity",

Go after the issue instead of beating around the bush here. Take the argument on for itself, don't just look for ways to interpret language differently.

...or not... whatever. The excerpt you posted from wikipedia has been addressed a dozen times at this point.

 

[Wolf-M]

The fact that rights can be infringed has no bearing on their existence. They do not exist only if they are observed... in fact... when they are observed they have less meaning. Rights have the most meaning when they are being violated, because they weigh in on the arbitrary and unsupported nature of such action.

It is not their observance that matters. It is the fact that they are conferred by an objective external system that matters. I'm talking about the source of rights here. Unless of course you subscribe to the idea that somehow, magically, we have some rights that drops from heaven.

...or not... whatever. The excerpt you posted from wikipedia has been addressed a dozen times at this point.

Because that is precisely my argument. What you've said is entirely subjective. I've provided you with what subjectivity means in the realm of philosophy and to show that what you're saying embraces also a subjective value, "formally" but not "colloquially" as you requested. And you ask me to ignore the definition of words?

 

[Danoff]

It is not their observance that matters. It is the fact that they are conferred by an objective external system that matters. I'm talking about the source of rights here. Unless of course you subscribe to the idea that somehow, magically, we have some rights that drops from heaven.

Logic, objectivity, rationality... not heaven.

Because that is precisely my argument. What you've said is entirely subjective. I've provided you with what subjectivity means in the realm of philosophy and to show that what you're saying embraces also a subjective value, "formally" but not "colloquially" as you requested. And you ask me to ignore the definition of words?

Despite this, subjectivity is the only way we have to experience the world, mathematically, scientifically or otherwise.

Mathematically is subjective? Only in the Descartes sense.... like I said, addressed many times.

 

[Wolf-M]

Logic, objectivity, rationality... not heaven.






Mathematically is subjective? Only in the Descartes sense.... like I said, addressed many times.

Precision of language is important to avoid sloppy reasoning.

I'm sure I've mentioned this several times before,


1) Objectivity is related to the truth. An thing being objective means that it is always true regardless of the person considering the matter.


2) There is no objectivity in logic. A logical argument may well be wrong in fact. See the example given above concluding that lizards are mammals - it is a perfectly logical argument, yet there is no objectivity whatsoever in the statement.


3) Reasoning is always subjective. See wikipedia quote above.

- Mathematics (but not scientific theories/predictions and logic) is both objective and subjective. The way in which we perceive the system is subjective. One may argue, however, that some of the truths explained by mathematics represent an absolute truth and so it is objective.

- No matter what the position on mathematics is, it does not relate to this discussion. You do not claim to base your conclusion on a mathematical proof. In any event, there is no absolute truth in the propositions you've made.


4) To give an example:

Your argument - case 1

Subjective assumption: You value the idea that actions should only be taken if it is objectively justifiable.

And logically you arrive at the conclusion that in the trolley example we should not act because there is no objective justification for so doing.


A rational alternative argument - case 2

Subjective assumption: I think it right that actions could always be taken unless there is an objectively discernible reason as to why I shouldn't so do it.

Since - as you've admitted - that might makes right cannot be objectively disproved, that's why I think making the switch in the trolley example is permissible.



It is because of your subjective preference for the assumption mentioned in case 1 that you've logically arrived at your conclusion. Similarly, the conclusion found in case 2 is a logical extrapolation of the subjective assumption stated above. It is equally a logical and rational statement.