Human Rights

[Encyclopedia]

Driving is not a right. You must pass a test and prove you are capable.

You're right, I messed up there. Replace driving with another right that is not the right to life.

 

[FoolKiller]

You're right, I messed up there. Replace driving with another right that is not the right to life.

To get very detailed, drinking alcohol, using tobacco, some countries have legal age restrictions on media, some force schooling until a specific age, working overtime, etc. Basically anything that only has age as a legal barrier to doing something.

 

[Encyclopedia]

To get very detailed, drinking alcohol, using tobacco, some countries have legal age restrictions on media, some force schooling until a specific age, working overtime, etc. Basically anything that only has age as a legal barrier to doing something.

Yes, and I don't think those rights are comparable to the right to life.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes, and I don't think those rights are comparable to the right to life.

So liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not as important as life?

 

[Danoff]

Yes, and I don't think those rights are comparable to the right to life.

Freedom from force is what establishes the right to life and is more fundamental.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

[Keef]

Yes, and I don't think those rights are comparable to the right to life.

Life, liberty, and property are all logically intertwined with each other and mutually dependant. I don't like the phrase "pursuit of happiness" as is in the Constitution because it's too specific. Life, liberty, and property seem to be the most basic statement of natural human rights from which everything else can be derived, including the pursuit of happiness - you can't pursue happiness unless you exist, are free to pursue, and have tools with which to pursue that happiness. Life, liberty, property.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Just to make sure I haven't missunderstood something here. Right to life = right to exist?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Just to make sure I haven't missunderstood something here. Right to life = right to exist?

Very interesting discussion going on.

@Encyclopedia I'm more on your side, why:

1) That you need to understand a right for it to exists is a premises that I logically can not add to my theory of rights. It would take away the right to live of a baby. This has the consequence that dog has a right to live as well.
On animals, animals that attack you make that you can defend yourself, you should leave alone animals that leave you alone. That we have lived differently for centuries does not make it less wrong. I'm a big sinner myself.
2) The theory like most people defend it puts in a value, Humans are superior to animals. Rights should avoid being mingled up with values.


I just came back to the site on a related issue with your question above:

1) The right to live:
a) Correct interpretation, you can restrict the action of anyone (a right) that is taking actions that will threaten your life.
b) Incorrect interpretation: a government is responsible to provide you with drinkable water, suitable housing, a reasonable standard of life, a job, access to property, etc...

So a government should not give you shelter, but if they remove your shelter, you have a right to claim alternative shelter from them: e.g. the French destroy camps and send the Roma to an other country; I do not like the camps, at first sight I do not like those people (even if I do not know them), but what are their rights?


I'm living in a very safe place (low criminality, low threats, etc...) and it is easy to talk about freedom. One of the issues that people state with African development is the lack of security (having to flee violence does not help development).
It seems that with much of legislation is defended with the protection of your right to live. We restrict you here since it is dangerous for your (or others) right to live.
So how far can you restrict rights to assure protection against violence or threats on the life in a community?

 

[ShobThaBob]

So, after perusing this thread, I fail to see any guidelines by which logic dictates a set of rights that are universally applicable to all human beings. In fact, I see the exact opposite.

 

[Danoff]

Elaborate.

 

[TankAss95]

So, after perusing this thread, I fail to see any guidelines by which logic dictates a set of rights that are universally applicable to all human beings. In fact, I see the exact opposite.

I suffer from the same confusion.

 

[Danoff]

You should also feel free to elaborate.

 

[Dennisch]

"I don't get it, so I am confused."

 

[TankAss95]

You should also feel free to elaborate.

Basically how we can derive an ought from an is. Also, I've always been intended to assume that ought implies can.

Basically the problems with moral relativism and determinism (or rather the absence of free will).

 

[Danoff]

Basically how we can derive an ought from an is.

Try not to think of it that way. You wouldn't think of an animal that way. If a lion eats a tourist in Africa, you don't say "the lion shouldn't have done that". You say "well, the lion is an animal, and that's what animals do". The important part is that the lion doesn't have rights because it's an animal and that's what animals do.

The same is true of violent criminals. They don't have rights because their actions forfeit their rights. The only difference between the criminals and the Lion is that the criminals belong to a species that we know is capable of observing rights, whereas a Lion does not. Whether the Lion kills the tourist, or a criminal kills the tourist, either way we logically have free reign to incarcerate or put them down.

 

[Dotini]

Is it a human right to know if we are eating genetically modified food?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Danoff]

No.

You can refuse to purchase he food someone is giving you until they answer the question. If they lie they're guilty of fraud. You can't compel someone to do something, including telling you whether the food they're selling is genetically modified. All you can do is refuse to voluntarily trade with them.

 

[TankAss95]

Quick question.

In pure logic, why are human rights objective when logically an optimum secular society would be practicing utilitarianism?

 

[FoolKiller]

Quick question.

In pure logic, why are human rights objective when logically an optimum secular society would be practicing utilitarianism?

Does practicing mean by force of law or by individual will in this case?

 

[TankAss95]

Does practicing mean by force of law or by individual will in this case?

Force of law I suppose.

I don't agree with utilitarianism because it is simply wrong to needlessly hurt an innocent person so that multiple people will benefit from it (which could happen with utilitarianism). But if hurting an innocent person would somehow create a further, outweighing benefit for society or human flourishing, then logically why would it be wrong? Why do human rights surpass this?

We could presuppose that human life is of infinite value (which I do in fact believe for religious reasons) but if this is not so, what's logically wrong with utilitarianism?

 

[FoolKiller]

Force of law I suppose.

I don't agree with utilitarianism because it is simply wrong to needlessly hurt an innocent person so that multiple people will benefit from it (which could happen with utilitarianism). But if hurting an innocent person would somehow create a further, outweighing benefit for society or human flourishing, then logically why would it be wrong? Why do human rights surpass this?

Because, this subjects any life to the whim of a select few individuals. Utilitarianism does not look beyond the present in the determination of what is best for society. It doesn't know if the one innocent killed may one day cure cancer or if one or more of the group saved become abusive addicts, child molesters, murderers, etc. It's a flawed philosophy that presumes no change occurs over time.

 

[TankAss95]

Because, this subjects any life to the whim of a select few individuals. Utilitarianism does not look beyond the present in the determination of what is best for society. It doesn't know if the one innocent killed may one day cure cancer or if one or more of the group saved become abusive addicts, child molesters, murderers, etc. It's a flawed philosophy that presumes no change occurs over time.

All that utilitarianism is is the viewpoint that actions should be judged upon by the nature of the outcome that it will produce. Lacking omniscience does not validate this viewpoint - a utilitarian society would just base their decision on probability, surely?

I'm pretty sure that the objective of any society ultimately comes down to striving towards maximum flourishing of sentient life and living together as a whole harmoniously with as little discomfort as possible. Now, if we as humans have no intrinsic value, why should we give a minority of persons rights if their actions are likely to disrupt or upset the majority as a whole?

Again, I wholeheartedly oppose this view. I'm just genuinely trying to see how, without presupposing intrinsic worth of value to humans (or all sentient life), Human Rights can remain objective facts.

 

[FoolKiller]

All that utilitarianism is is the viewpoint that actions should be judged upon by the nature of the outcome that it will produce. Lacking omniscience does not validate this viewpoint - a utilitarian society would just base their decision on probability, surely?

But no one knows the outcome that will be produced other then the number of people that die, or whatever. The reason why I asked if it was by force of law was to determine how the actions and outcomes are considered and judged. What sounds like the right idea may be judged to be wrong. If it was judged that there was overpopulation then the government would sacrifice the largest number possible, as that would be seen to have the best outcome for society. Utilitarianism is oversimplified by those who support it.

I'm pretty sure that the objective of any society ultimately comes down to striving towards maximum flourishing of sentient life and living together as a whole harmoniously with as little discomfort as possible. Now, if we as humans have no intrinsic value, why should we give a minority of persons rights if their actions are likely to disrupt or upset the majority as a whole?

If they are upsetting any number of people by their actions it is safe to assume they have over stepped their rights. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if we define upsetting as the majority just doesn't like it. But that kind of justification is how we wind up with what is ultimately considered the worst atrocities ever.

I'm just genuinely trying to see how, without presupposing intrinsic worth of value to humans (or all sentient life), Human Rights can remain objective facts.

How can they not? Do you actually think that they aren't?

 

[TankAss95]

But no one knows the outcome that will be produced other then the number of people that die, or whatever. The reason why I asked if it was by force of law was to determine how the actions and outcomes are considered and judged. What sounds like the right idea may be judged to be wrong. If it was judged that there was overpopulation then the government would sacrifice the largest number possible, as that would be seen to have the best outcome for society. Utilitarianism is oversimplified by those who support it.

Again, lacking omniscience does not invalidate the philosophy of utilitarianism.

If, let's say, a train was about to run over pretty much the whole population of the world, and you could switch the tracks so the train avoids billions of people and instead kill 1 guy, according to human rights this would be wrong. You are not supposed to intervene. A utilitarianist would disagree, saying that saving the maximum amount of people is always justified, regardless of what might happen in the future. A utilitarian government would simply use the limited amount of knowledge they have.

If they are upsetting any number of people by their actions it is safe to assume they have over stepped their rights. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if we define upsetting as the majority just doesn't like it. But that kind of justification is how we wind up with what is ultimately considered the worst atrocities ever.

That's presuming that rights are objective facts.

I'm trying to understand why, without believing/presupposing any sort of human intrinsic value, human rights are given a greater priority than a utilitarian regime when the objective for society would be to maximise human flourishing and minimise human discomfort (which again cannot be logically justified, without presupposing human intrinsic worth).

How can they not? Do you actually think that they aren't?

Yes, I absolutely do believe that human beings have intrinsic value because I believe we are made in the image of God (I'm a Christian). It seems that we all pretty much agree that human life has intrinsic value because we all deep down know that it's true anyway (regardless of any other sort of beliefs). This is a mere belief though because although we know that it's true we can't support it logically without introducing subjective opinions.

I can't see how human rights can be objective if human beings have no intrinsic worth. If we cannot demonstrate evidence that human beings have objective worth then it would follow that human rights are subjective, surely?

And further more, I can't understand why a concept of human rights would supersede a concept of utilitarianism in a world where human beings have no intrinsic value, but seemed to presuppose that trying to live with minimal discomfort and maximising human flourishing is objectively right morally.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Nations have a fundamental duty to protect their populations from mass attacks. however I believe the danger of anit-terrorist laws is clear: I enjoyed this read.

Who should protect the population?
=> for me it is the population themselves, indeed it might be organized by a limited centralised group (Military), but they should always represent the population, their only power comes from the population.

The issue remains that the population might infringe the individual rights and sometimes the population needs to be limited in what they allow others to do! Teach people the essence of rights!

Edit: just added this comment

concept of utilitarianism

I come back to the example that everyone understands: the utilitarian vision on transplant:

Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the “donor”. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and McCloskey 1965).

We need to add that the organ recipients will emerge healthy, the source of the organs will remain secret, the doctor won't be caught or punished for cutting up the “donor”, and the doctor knows all of this to a high degree of probability (despite the fact that many others will help in the operation). Still, with the right details filled in, it looks as if cutting up the “donor” will maximize utility, since five lives have more utility than one life (assuming that the five lives do not contribute too much to overpopulation).

First natural rights, if that does not give a decision, utilitarian arguments can be used to select a preferred option.

Edit2: needed more elaboration:
A right is something that you can defend, to protect your freedom to act, and that imposes restrictions of freedom to act on others that are not innocent.
A pure utilitarian action could impose restrictions on your freedom (killing you), due to needs of others, even if you are innocent.

So rights are there to protect the innocent against arbitrary acts that restrict their freedom.
If you fundamentally do not believe in freedom, you might have a utilitarian view above natural rights. You accept not to defend your freedom.

 

[Danoff]

In pure logic, why are human rights objective when logically an optimum secular society would be practicing utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism requires a value judgement that is not supported objectively. That value judgement being that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Force is then initiated against innocent individuals with this as the reason.

This is quite literally the trolley car example - killing one to save 5. There is no objective means to determine that the 5 are worth more than the 1. And in many subjective evaluations, the 1 may be worth more than the 5.

 

[Keef]

In pure logic, why are human rights objective when logically an optimum secular society would be practicing utilitarianism?

Bro, utilitarianism isn't logical. It's instinctual. The reason humans are the most successful species on earth is because we are able to reason while other species are incapable and rely on instinct for survival. While we have risen above primal instinct and see the world in a different light, they're still dumb.

 

[TankAss95]

Thanks for the responses. 👍

I just had a hard time understanding how human rights could be objective on par with stuff like mathematics. Now I understand that human rights are subject to the ability to comprehend those rights.

Human rights are universally applicable in this way because we all, naturally want our own lives protected. If we recognise and identify our own rights, then these apply to everyone else too.

Simply put, we attribute human life as valuable because we value our own lives. If we didn't value our own lives, then we would value anything we thoughts as being true. It would be self-refuting.

Am I right here?

 

[Danoff]

Thanks for the responses. 👍

I just had a hard time understanding how human rights could be objective on par with stuff like mathematics. Now I understand that human rights are subject to the ability to comprehend those rights.

Human rights are universally applicable in this way because we all, naturally want our own lives protected. If we recognise and identify our own rights, then these apply to everyone else too.

Simply put, we attribute human life as valuable because we value our own lives. If we didn't value our own lives, then we would value anything we thoughts as being true. It would be self-refuting.

Am I right here?

I'd rephrase that last bit:

"If we don't value others' lives, then we can't expect them to value ours."

 

[Vince_Fiero]

....I just had a hard time understanding how human rights could be objective on par with stuff like mathematics. Now I understand that human rights are subject to the ability to comprehend those rights.

I'm one of the only ones here, but I completely reject the premiss that "you need to have an ability to comprehend those rights".
Why: For me the definition of a right is: "Something that can be defended that restricts the action of not innocent others." It does not say you need to defend it yourself (baby, you are dead, coma, animal, plant, earth ...) so it does not include you need to comprehend.
Mathematics is logic based on some rules: 1+1=2, 1+2=3, etc...
Rights come from a logic based on the definition of rights. The subjective in it are the definitions. But also these definitions can be logically tested and proven to be incoherent.

Human rights are universally applicable in this way because we all, naturally want our own lives protected. If we recognise and identify our own rights, then these apply to everyone else too.

Logic: If you want to be able to defend your own rights but you do not respect the rights of others, why would the others have to respect your rights? (you can defend this by adding subjective value statements)
If you do not want to be able to defend your rights, you are illogical since a right is something that is defendable by definition.
So by the definition of rights you want them to be respected and for that you need to respect the rights of others, logically.

So respecting the rights of others is the only logical option.

Simply put, we attribute human life as valuable because we value our own lives. If we didn't value our own lives, then we would value anything we thoughts as being true. It would be self-refuting.

Value is subjective, it is not logical. Here you go into belief. I for example value my own life very low (in tests I will die more then others since I do not protect myself or people near me at all cost), but I believe you can logically prove 1 value: the value of natural rights is indefinite. (posted proof before)

Indefinite has some special mathematical properties, which imply things like, one natural right is not superior to an other, etc...