Human Rights

[Keef]

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.

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 came to read this (in French): People without papers can not be held in detention anymore solely on this basis in France.
Actually it seems it is a European court decision that is at the basis.

I find this of utmost importance, let me explain:
A group of people (that is a democracy) decides you need to have papers. You are wondering around innocently. Suddenly you are put in prison since the you do not obey to the democratic rule of having papers.

Natural rights are clear for me, if you are innocent (= not violating the natural rights of others) you should not be punished.

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

👍 indeed

 

[ShobThaBob]

Elaborate.

Sorry this took so long, my freetime has been severely cut into in the past month or so. Getting set up at a new job that pays a lot better than the last one and also gives me a lot more freedom! Yay!.

Anyway, I've been reading up a lot on your 'logic' base for arriving to your conclusions (or in some cases, lack thereof.) Ultimately, my problem with accepting your line of reasoning is that it isn't actually logical. It's a very reasonable approach to human rights, most of it I agree with, but there is no logic behind the idea of human rights. It's not scientific, it's an emotional plea to an idea that we're somehow better and Naturally afforded something different from every other living thing on the world. If we are not infused with these rights in a natural state (without government or a ruling group or set rules) then they're not universally applied to everyone.

Pronouncing that we ARE naturally granted these rights by simply being human as apposed to any other living being is decidedly illogical, as you have no basis for that assumption. Being able to realize the nature of the universe and reality does not change anything - it is as it always has been. Just the same, the realization and pronunciation of those rights shouldn't change anything, because they would have always just been. And yet, they haven't. Pronouncing those rights and demanding that they be recognized has changed a great deal across the world.

If those rights were natural and applied to everyone anyway, nothing would have changed because nothing would've had to.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry this took so long, my freetime has been severely cut into in the past month or so. Getting set up at a new job that pays a lot better than the last one and also gives me a lot more freedom! Yay!.

Anyway, I've been reading up a lot on your 'logic' base for arriving to your conclusions (or in some cases, lack thereof.) Ultimately, my problem with accepting your line of reasoning is that it isn't actually logical. It's a very reasonable approach to human rights, most of it I agree with, but there is no logic behind the idea of human rights. It's not scientific, it's an emotional plea to an idea that we're somehow better and Naturally afforded something different from every other living thing on the world. If we are not infused with these rights in a natural state (without government or a ruling group or set rules) then they're not universally applied to everyone.

Pronouncing that we ARE naturally granted these rights by simply being human as apposed to any other living being is decidedly illogical, as you have no basis for that assumption. Being able to realize the nature of the universe and reality does not change anything - it is as it always has been. Just the same, the realization and pronunciation of those rights shouldn't change anything, because they would have always just been. And yet, they haven't. Pronouncing those rights and demanding that they be recognized has changed a great deal across the world.

If those rights were natural and applied to everyone anyway, nothing would have changed because nothing would've had to.

I'm extremely familiar with this issue, as it's one of the very first ones I grappled with. I know that this seems iron-clad to you and that there is no way around it, but it's a misunderstanding of what I'm saying human rights are.

I'm not saying that human rights are an invisible force field that controls everyone's behavior such that they are never violated. I'm not saying that lions eat gazelles, but humans never kill each other because of human rights.

You need to understand that human rights can be violated (they'd be pointless if they couldn't) and that the natural state of all animals (including man) is to ignore rights and kill/force entirely selfishly.

What human rights are is a recognition of behavior and the cognitive ability to behave differently. Basically if you act like an animal (as most of the animal kingdom does) you should expect to be treated like an animal. If you recognize the philosophical nature of force (and thereby human rights) and treat others with that in mind, they may still treat you like an animal, but at that point, philosophically, they can be treated like an animal (and locked in jail). If they instead act in accordance with human rights, you guys can do your secret handshake and be on your way.

Better?

 

[ShobThaBob]

Of course, and I completely agree. Where we differ greatly is how those rights are bestowed. They're not natural, that much we agree upon. They're not universal, otherwise they would've existed regardless of what we think/do/act upon. So, the creation of human rights is a societal statement of values. I reject the idea that, in a place like N Korea, their rights are being infringed upon. The entire society is built around the premise that those rights do not exist. The societal value puts the government above all else. Even the individuals within that system who are in forced labor camps adhere to this idea and believe in it.

 

[Danoff]

Of course, and I completely agree. Where we differ greatly is how those rights are bestowed. They're not natural, that much we agree upon.

That's like saying logic is not natural. It is. That just doesn't stop people from saying illogical things.

They're not universal, otherwise they would've existed regardless of what we think/do/act upon.

Logic applies to everyone regardless of what they think/do/act upon. The logical consequences of their actions depend on what they think/do/act upon, but logic does not.

So no, both of these premises are wrong. Human rights exist because of logic. That doesn't mean people have to act in accordance, it just results in the logical consequences of their actions.

So yes, in North Korea, their rights are being infringed upon.

Edit:

And when I say it results in the logical consequences of their actions, I don't mean that a hand comes out of the sky and smites them as soon as they violate human rights. I mean that they are logically open to the use of force against them if someone chooses to do so.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Your assumption only works if we assume that human life is more important than everything else. Logic does not bring us to that conclusion, it's an outside value that must be applied, and from there logic brings you to your conclusions. If this is somehow wrong, can you show me how?

 

[Danoff]

Your assumption only works if we assume that human life is more important than everything else.

Not true. There's nothing specific to humans about it (other than the title). Lions are simply incapable of the cognitive capability of understanding the logical implications of their actions - and thereby ignore them entirely.

That's fine, no problems there. Lions are still philosophically open to the logical consequences of their actions. Whether they understand that or not is irrelevant.

The only distinction regarding humans is that they are capable of understanding this so they are capable of acting accordingly. They don't HAVE to (and often do not) but when they make that choice (as the lion) they are open to the logical consequences of those actions (as the lion).

 

[Encyclopedia]

Even if the lion could understand it would still have to kill to survive though. Maybe not it's own kind but certainly other animals.

Edit: Is it simply the understanding that matters the most?

 

[ShobThaBob]

That still doesn't explain why the preservation or the reverance of life is something worth valuing. You claim that this in infallible, and I'm wondering if you're capable of illustrating how you A - came to that conclusion and B - how it is infallible. In the reading I've done so far, people use logic as a reasoning tool by which they come to conclusions - like a formula. You still have to supply the values of the formula yourself - much like you're doing.

 

[Danoff]

That still doesn't explain why the preservation or the reverance of life is something worth valuing.

Maybe it isn't. The Lion doesn't think so. There's no saying that the lion isn't right. What one can say is that valuing force over non-force is subjective.

To make it clear, the fundamental concept here is not that human life is valuable, but that the ability to produce force is subjective. Not worthless, not valuable, subjective.

The initiation of force is an act that demonstrates your willingness to subscribe to a subjective value system - which opens you to other subjective value systems.

I've refined my message some since creating this thread, so some of what I've written in the past here was unnecessary.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Subjectivity is precisely what I was getting at. Thanks.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Even if the lion could understand it would still have to kill to survive though. Maybe not it's own kind but certainly other animals.

Edit: Is it simply the understanding that matters the most?

Now let's attack this logically.

1) Your premiss is that the lion would have to kill to survive (note that we do this as well we do kill animals and plants).
2) It would be the right of the lion, if he really needs to do this to survive.
3) The victim, I guess another animal will defend itself, trying to hurt the attacking lion. Based on their right to survive the victim has the right to defend.

Mostly I believe rights are respected by animals, they will only attack when they need it to survive or defend themselves. Why: otherwise they risk unneeded injury from the defense of the other animal.

Humans hunt for fun, this seems hardly superior to me. They are violating rights, not defend their right but for the superficial pleasure.
On the other side: Santhara is an Indian practice where people stop killing other beings since they believe their life is not worth it anymore, these people die from starvation. I guess this would be an example of human superiority that I would accept, they give up their right to survive, since they believe the right of the others to live is superior (not acting out of self interest, but out of logic).

What one can say is that valuing force over non-force is subjective.

Logically:
1) I value non-force: I do not force things on others except for defending my rights and thus expect the others not to force anything on me except for defending their rights. => works for me.
2) I value force: I force things on others defending my preference and thus expect the others to force anything on me at their free will. => this always makes me think of Klingons in Star Trek, but even these have a code of honor: "There is no honor in attacking the weak", but you give a fair battle when they attack you, so they can die in honor. So even here it makes only sense to me when you push the weak, but you do not hurt them! When you go to "I kill at will and have no problem to be killed at will", I see no way this system will work, it will create an field of corpses that you get quickly tired of and constant fear that will degrade your quality of life to such an extend you will ask for 'justice', 'rights'.

...I reject the idea that, in a place like N Korea, their rights are being infringed upon. The entire society is built around the premise that those rights do not exist. The societal value puts the government above all else. Even the individuals within that system who are in forced labor camps adhere to this idea and believe in it.

You seem to believe in democracy and utilitarian theory = the greater number or greater result allows anything against the individual.

The issue with the societal value, you mention, is that the members of that society are forced into the society. If this society really believed that they did not infringe the rights, they would let people choose. The ones that really believe will stay and the ones that do not will go to South Korea. I agree some will stay, but it will show quickly the more the government abuses the power the more people will leave. The government does not have the societal support, individuals are not free to leave, which is an infringement of individual rights and thus undermines the authority of that government.

Your statement on N Korea sounds to me like: In a prison the prisoners that accept their penalty are the ones that ask the guards to keep them imprisoned.

The initiation of force is an act that demonstrates your willingness to subscribe to a subjective value system - which opens you to other subjective value systems.

Very good formulation.

Logically:
1) I see myself as superior and can decide over inferior creatures (animals) at will. Gives that anyone that sees themselves superior (aliens) can decide over you at will. => survival of the fittest.
2) I see myself as superior and will respect rights of inferior creatures. Gives that anyone that sees themselves superior has to respect your rights. => respect of rights

So 1 does not change the rights, it just shows your value system.

...Logic applies to everyone regardless of what they think/do/act upon. The logical consequences of their actions depend on what they think/do/act upon, but logic does not...

What the above states for me:
1) Rights are logical, indisputable, innate, natural, valid for anyone, anywhere.
2) Punishment / judgement is a subjective value evaluation, it depends on what the judging party thinks/does/acts upon

 

[Encyclopedia]

Now let's attack this logically.

1) Your premiss is that the lion would have to kill to survive (note that we do this as well we do kill animals and plants).
2) It would be the right of the lion, if he really needs to do this to survive.
3) The victim, I guess another animal will defend itself, trying to hurt the attacking lion. Based on their right to survive the victim has the right to defend.

Mostly I believe rights are respected by animals, they will only attack when they need it to survive or defend themselves. Why: otherwise they risk unneeded injury from the defense of the other animal.

Humans hunt for fun, this seems hardly superior to me. They are violating rights, not defend their right but for the superficial pleasure.
On the other side: Santhara is an Indian practice where people stop killing other beings since they believe their life is not worth it anymore, these people die from starvation. I guess this would be an example of human superiority that I would accept, they give up their right to survive, since they believe the right of the others to live is superior (not acting out of self interest, but out of logic).

I agree with that.

 

[Keef]

Humans hunt for fun, this seems hardly superior to me. They are violating rights...

Whose rights? The rights of an animal who is incapable of observing rights and therefore doesn't have any?

On the other side: Santhara is an Indian practice where people stop killing other beings since they believe their life is not worth it anymore, these people die from starvation. I guess this would be an example of human superiority that I would accept

Actually that's a good example of how stupid some people are.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I wouldn't say that animals have absolutely no rights. It cannot possibly be right to torture an animal for example.

 

[W3H5]

The whole thing about the lion.....well, it's the lioness' who hunt.

 

[Encyclopedia]

The whole thing about the lion.....well, it's the lioness' who hunt.

Feminist!

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The rights of an animal who is incapable of observing rights and therefore doesn't have any?

Again logically that does not make any sense:
Who does not observe rights:
1) A baby
2) A dead man
3) A person in coma
4) A cannibal (other culture)
5) An animal
6) Earth

Your definition of rights seems to be like this: You only have a right if you understand that right. That makes rights arbitrary and changeable in light of understanding/observation.

Natural rights come out of logic, you do not need to understand the logic to have the right, it comes to you naturally, innate, .... no need to put a premiss of understanding. No need to introduce a subjective value that humans are superior.

 

[ShobThaBob]

That is, of course, assuming you accept that people have natural innate rights. I still haven't seen any concrete contentions that come anywhere close to convincing me that such things exist. We have established that they don't occur naturally, are a product of society, and are subjective.

 

[FoolKiller]

Mostly I believe rights are respected by animals, they will only attack when they need it to survive or defend themselves. Why: otherwise they risk unneeded injury from the defense of the other animal.

Someone has never owned a pet cat or witnessed footage of dolphins tossing a pufferfish around.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/dolphins-adelaide.html#cr

Animals can and do kill and torture other animals for fun.

Humans hunt for fun, this seems hardly superior to me. They are violating rights, not defend their right but for the superficial pleasure.

Some humans. I have a freezer full of deer meat that says my uncle does it for more than the enjoyment.

On the other side: Santhara is an Indian practice where people stop killing other beings since they believe their life is not worth it anymore, these people die from starvation. I guess this would be an example of human superiority that I would accept, they give up their right to survive, since they believe the right of the others to live is superior (not acting out of self interest, but out of logic).

And the Shakers believed in lifelong abstinence. I visit their empty village about once year. If death and extinction is logic then call me very illogical.

Who does not observe rights:
1) A baby
2) A dead man
3) A person in coma
4) A cannibal (other culture)
5) An animal
6) Earth

You left out the part about being capable.
Baby - incapable due to lack of development, which is a necessity for an intelligent species to be born alive. The ability to be capable is why a baby cannot yet recognize rights. For this reason we bestow these rights on them honorarily.

A dead man - was capable and we respect his post-mortem wishes ( within reason) in recognition of that. No known wishes and we merely do as the family wants.

Person in coma - same as dead man. Was capable and respect of that given when possible.

Cannibal - capable. We respect their human rights so long as they don't attempt to eat us or any unwilling, particularly if they are on bath salts.

Animal - incapable. Dinner.

Earth - WTF? Um, not even conscious by any measurable means. If it were it would imply a level of being and spirituality to completely rework the entire argument. But since I don't believe in any Gaia mother spirit living inside this hunk of rock we live on I don't believe the Earth has rights, is capable of recognizing them or not, and deserves any more respect than we should give any inanimate source of resources.

You aren't one of those guys that keeps a rock in his pocket in order to maintain in touch with the Earth while even in the office are you?

That is, of course, assuming you accept that people have natural innate rights. I still haven't seen any concrete contentions that come anywhere close to convincing me that such things exist. We have established that they don't occur naturally, are a product of society, and are subjective.

It is hard to argue with someone that sees state sponsored atrocities like The Trail of Tears, slavery, genocide, etc as not being a violation of rights. Somehow, I think you would disagree if you were on the receiving end of such practices. Sure, there is room for argument over things like local ordinances and even highly contentious issues like abortion. But how you can defend death, torture, and imprisonment for simply being born or thinking a certain way I do not understand.

 

[ShobThaBob]

It's not something I defend, I see it as detrimental to the survival of society and personal freedom. A fair degree of freedom is something that I value very much. I don't think it's inherently something that we as humans deserve, but I think it's something that is worth preserving and fighting for. In the end, however, the stronger person(s) are in a better position to impose their will on others. It's what's most natural. That doesn't mean that it's good, but it is how we got to where we are today.

 

[Encyclopedia]

It is hard to argue with someone that sees state sponsored atrocities like The Trail of Tears, slavery, genocide, etc as not being a violation of rights. Somehow, I think you would disagree if you were on the receiving end of such practices. Sure, there is room for argument over things like local ordinances and even highly contentious issues like abortion. But how you can defend death, torture, and imprisonment for simply being born or thinking a certain way I do not understand.

Could be applied to animals. At least partly.

 

[FoolKiller]

In the end, however, the stronger person(s) are in a better position to impose their will on others. It's what's most natural. That doesn't mean that it's good, but it is how we got to where we are today.

That doesn't mean the rights don't exist and aren't violated. Might makes right is the fall back of a society refusing to recognize rights due to greed.

If the fact that might makes right invalidates the argument of innate rights then there are no such thing as atrocities.

Could be applied to animals. At least partly.

If animals had the capability to recognize rights. But they don't.

 

[ShobThaBob]

That's where the disconnect is. Recognization of rights has nothing to do with their existence. If it does, then the idea of universal rights doesn't exist. In places like N Korea, you don't have the right to life. There is nobody there to protect it, uphold it, or preach it. It does not exist. And of course atrocities exist, but, like beauty, they're in the eye of the beholder. Most everyone I know considers slavery, child prostitution, and the holocaust atrocities. There are plenty of people that do not. To them, those things could be considered miracles or just right (as in correct.) That doesn't in any way diminish my view on it, and it shouldn't diminish your view on it.

 

[Danoff]

It's not something I defend, I see it as detrimental to the survival of society and personal freedom. A fair degree of freedom is something that I value very much. I don't think it's inherently something that we as humans deserve, but I think it's something that is worth preserving and fighting for. In the end, however, the stronger person(s) are in a better position to impose their will on others. It's what's most natural. That doesn't mean that it's good, but it is how we got to where we are today.

The issue is that might makes right is arbitrary. It is how we got where we are today, but it's subjective. It's the moral equivalent of assuming that blonde white people have a greater right to life than ethnic jews. It's entirely subjective, and we should strive for objectivity.

That's where the disconnect is. Recognization of rights has nothing to do with their existence. If it does, then the idea of universal rights doesn't exist. In places like N Korea, you don't have the right to life. There is nobody there to protect it, uphold it, or preach it. It does not exist.

It does exist. Those people are saddled in a subjective system, their actions/lives forced by arbitrary authority. Human rights acknowledges that, even if no one enforces it, even if no one understands it.

 

[ShobThaBob]

The issue is that might makes right is arbitrary. It is how we got where we are today, but it's subjective. It's the moral equivalent of assuming that blonde white people have a greater right to life than ethnic jews. It's entirely subjective, and we should strive for objectivity.

I couldn't agree more.

It does exist. Those people are saddled in a subjective system, their actions/lives forced by arbitrary authority. Human rights acknowledges that, even if no one enforces it, even if no one understands it.

If no one enforces it, then it really doesn't exist. =/

 

[Keef]

In places like N Korea, you don't have the right to life.

Yes they do. It isn't respected but they do have it which in turn means that it is being violated.

By the logic in your statement it would be okay for any dictator to simply declare that the people in his country do not have a right to life, and at that point genocide would become perfectly acceptable. Does that make any sense to you?

Most everyone I know considers slavery, child prostitution, and the holocaust atrocities. There are plenty of people that do not. To them, those things could be considered miracles or just right (as in correct.)

And those people would be what the rest of us call "dumb" wrong. They're human so they're capable of learning and understanding these concepts.

 

[Danoff]

If no one enforces it, then it really doesn't exist. =/

Not only does it exist, that's when it's important.

 

[Encyclopedia]

If animals had the capability to recognize rights. But they don't.

So it should be legal to torture animals? Or let me rephrase that, it is not wrong?