Human Rights

[Keef]

It's not very nice but it is not immoral.

 

[Encyclopedia]

But it really isn't right is it? Cruelty towards an innocent can never be.

 

[Danoff]

I think the objective position on torture is that you should never torture anything that hasn't by its own actions or nature forfeited its rights not to be tortured. An animal/human that has demonstrated a willingness to torture has forfeited that right. An animal/human that is driven to torture by its very biological composition (not sure that exists) has also forfeited that right. If you have an example of an animal where you can find a member that is willing to torture and one that is not willing to torture (like humans, or dogs) then it's case-by-case. They have the right until they demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I understand what you're saying, but surely you can never call it right? There's absolutely nothing positive about torture. It cannot be right. And when it comes to us humans, it is a sign that something is not quite right in the head of the individual performing it. So I fail to see how it could be justified even against someone/something that tortures. It would just be like descending to their/it's level.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[FoolKiller]

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

There are legitimate methods of butchering, for cleanliness or safety purposes, that would be considered torture if performed on a human. Heck, there are farming practices that would be considered downright atrocious if done on a human. Castration is the first that comes to mind. But chicken coops, dairy farms, and even bow hunting all strike me as everyday activities that would never be acceptable on a human for any reason.

Now, if there is some form of slow process of creating pain for the joy of it then it says more about the mental state of the person performing the act than anything, but is it morally any different than slicing the testicles off a completely aware and alert animal?

I have a pocket knife that has what my grandmother calls a flesh blade. I use it to open boxes. She has much more disturbing stories from her days raising hogs as a young girl.

 

[Encyclopedia]

There are legitimate methods of butchering, for cleanliness or safety purposes, that would be considered torture if performed on a human. Heck, there are farming practices that would be considered downright atrocious if done on a human. Castration is the first that comes to mind. But chicken coops, dairy farms, and even bow hunting all strike me as everyday activities that would never be acceptable on a human for any reason.

That's why there's, at least in Sweden but other places as well, rules on how animals should be slaughtered that also includes minimizing suffering for the animal.

Animal cruelty of various forms do happen everywhere, even in places with a high level of animal protection laws, but that still doesn't make it right.

Now, if there is some form of slow process of creating pain for the joy of it then it says more about the mental state of the person performing the act than anything, but is it morally any different than slicing the testicles off a completely aware and alert animal?

No not really. Castrating without sedation is in my poinion wrong.

It might be a bigger reason of concern though because it might mean that the person is a psychopath, and might start to move to human targets.

I have a pocket knife that has what my grandmother calls a flesh blade. I use it to open boxes. She has much more disturbing stories from her days raising hogs as a young girl.

I bet she does.

 

[TankAss95]

Is water a human right?

 

[ShobThaBob]

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

So it's there, it's just that nobody is aware of it, nobody can prove it, and nobody recognizes it. Sounds like that's an argument for the religion thread. I've asked several times, but in a place where the value is upholding the government and not any one individual life (like N Korea) how can universal rights exist?

How are those rights in any way tangible or real?

I think the objective position on torture is that you should never torture anything that hasn't by its own actions or nature forfeited its rights not to be tortured. An animal/human that has demonstrated a willingness to torture has forfeited that right. An animal/human that is driven to torture by its very biological composition (not sure that exists) has also forfeited that right. If you have an example of an animal where you can find a member that is willing to torture and one that is not willing to torture (like humans, or dogs) then it's case-by-case. They have the right until they demonstrate otherwise.

And yet, depending on the philosopher, those rights to not have that happen to you are unforfeitable. According to many, you always have the right to not be tortured.

 

[Famine]

So it's there, it's just that nobody is aware of it, nobody can prove it, and nobody recognizes it. Sounds like that's an argument for the religion thread. I've asked several times, but in a place where the value is upholding the government and not any one individual life (like N Korea) how can universal rights exist?

How are those rights in any way tangible or real?

Take a piece of paper. Write some unique words on it. Now burn the paper.

Were the words real? Was the paper? Is paper tangible? Nobody else was ever aware of them, nobody can prove them and nobody would recognise them.


Do not confuse laws with rights.

 

[ShobThaBob]

They were real. The idea exists until it is forgotten.

My issue with rights is that they are based on the values of people who want to achieve certain societal goals. For the bulk of the western world, those goals revolve around personal sovreignty.

For other societies, those values are the greater good and preservation of that specific society without any value placed on the individual experience.

Laws are derived from the rights which societies and governments want to promote.

 

[Famine]

They were real. The idea exists until it is forgotten.

Are we talking about rights or your words on paper?


Exactly.

 

[Keef]

Is water a human right?

Water is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen. It is wet. An integral part of human life indeed, but no human has a right to water. They have rights to their life, their liberty, and their property. Access to water may be a factor those three natural rights but they don't have a right to the water directly.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Are we talking about rights or your words on paper?


Exactly.

So rights exist on an individual level. Societies form and have general consensus on those rights and eventually create laws which reflect the preservation of those rights. That does not mean that those rights are universal, it just means that a group of people believed they were worth upholding with force.

 

[Keef]

So rights exist on an individual level.

Yes.

Societies form and have general consensus on those rights

No. Natural rights (life, liberty, property) are different than legislated rights, which are not actually rights individuals have, but limitations on government intrusion into rights that individuals already have. At least that was the point of the American Bill of Rights.

and eventually create laws which reflect the preservation of those rights.

Some common law like murder, rape, robbery, etc, are there for obvious reasons. In simple terms, murder is a violation of Life, rape a violation of Liberty, and robbery a violation of Property. But not all laws are based on the preservation of natural rights. Most laws, in fact, are stupid and unnecessary.

That does not mean that those rights are universal, it just means that a group of people believed they were worth upholding with force.

We've explained numerous times now how the inalienable human rights of life, liberty, and property are logical consequences of our unique intelligence. Rights are something which exist as ideas waiting to be discovered, like mathematics. Laws are something which are created, and not necessarily to defend rights.

 

[Danoff]

There's absolutely nothing positive about torture. It cannot be right.

Your subjective value system says there's nothing positive about torture. Some value systems (you can find these videos on the internet) suggest that torture is actually a wonderful thing.

Human rights don't exist within a subjective framework that includes arguing the something is "positive" or "negative" - which are in the eye of the beholder. They exist as a recognition that human beings have no objective justification for initiating force against each other.

If someone is guilty of torturing and murdering countless people (Saddam Hussein?), who are you to say that the person that tortures him is not "right". That the person is somehow sick, and that his actions have opened him to force. Someone who commits atrocities has demonstrated that they subscribe to a value system where those atrocities are acceptable. They have, all on their own, given you all of the philosophical support for torturing them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that two wrongs do not make a right.

This isn't about making right.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I see. Well I'm glad laws aren't solely based on objective morals then.

 

[Keef]

Well I'm glad laws aren't solely based on objective morals then.

Why? Laws that aren't based on any rational idea land us with stupid things like curfews and having to put a front license plate on your car and no drinking beer while canoeing down the river. There is no limit to the number of rules a government could make that have no rational basis.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Why? Laws that aren't based on any rational idea land us with stupid things like curfews and having to put a front license plate on your car and no drinking beer while canoeing down the river. There is no limit to the number of rules a government could make that have no rational basis.

What I meant was that for example, there wouldn't be any animal protection laws then. Which I find to be a very good thing.

It would also be legal to kill your own baby as it cannot understand the concept of right of life.

 

[Keef]

What I meant was that for example, there wouldn't be any animal protection laws then.

Like what, like domestic animal cruelty? The reason you get in trouble for killing your neighbor's dog is because you violated your neighbors right to property, which was their dog.

It would also be legal to kill your own baby as it cannot understand the concept of right of life.

I think we have covered this before, and by we I mean Danoff. An infant is human and it's understood that they'll develop into an adult capable of understanding rights. Beyond that, when two adults decide to bring a new human into this world they accept the responsibility of protecting that baby's rights until the baby is capable of caring for itself. If they mess that up then it's possible they'll be convicted of a crime based on the idea that they violated the baby's right to life.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Like what, like domestic animal cruelty? The reason you get in trouble for killing your neighbor's dog is because you violated your neighbors right to property, which was their dog.

Yes for example.

Also you get in trouble if you harm your own pets too. Or even wildlife. And by harm I mean unecessary pain. At least here in Sweden.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I think we have covered this before, and by we I mean Danoff. An infant is human and it's understood that they'll develop into an adult capable of understanding rights. Beyond that, when two adults decide to bring a new human into this world they accept the responsibility of protecting that baby's rights until the baby is capable of caring for itself. If they mess that up then it's possible they'll be convicted of a crime based on the idea that they violated the baby's right to life.

I seem to remember Danoff saying something along the lines that the parents should be allowed to decide on the life of their born child, as there's no quarantee theu'll reach adulthood, in the abortion thread. If I am mistaken I apologize.

Edit: Very sorry for the double post.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Sorry for the long post, I liked the conversation.

We have established that they don't occur naturally, are a product of society, and are subjective.

Do it logically: If the society is the only way that laws are established, you should accept anything the society puts onto you. However many take the state to court for injust laws, but how can you do that if there is not some logical principles that are higher then the laws?

I go as far as that natural laws can not been written down, since language is too subjective. It is more a process of discussion that helps to understand.

Do not confuse laws with rights.

Please all help to repeat this, I hope legal people will understand as Aristotle already did.

Animals can and do kill and torture other animals for fun. Some humans. I have a freezer full of deer meat that says my uncle does it for more than the enjoyment.

That is why I stated "Mostly". I guess there is training for survival and duty to contribute to the group and indeed that applies to men as well. It proves more ethical equivalence and no superiority of one or the other.

You left out the part about being capable.

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

Premiss without why it is needed and the logic behind it.

... An infant is human and it's understood that they'll develop into an adult capable of understanding rights. Beyond that, when two adults decide to bring a new human into this world they accept the responsibility of protecting that baby's rights until the baby is capable of caring for itself. ...

I was hoping to find the above missing logic in this. What I get out of it is that the parents have to protect the rights. That means the rights exist, even if the infant does not understand, but the parents defend it since the infant is incapable of defending the rights.
See kids in a playground, they understand rights, they learn the hard way, but they understand ... exactly like dogs in families, Lions in their pride, etc... (kids question injustice more then rights in my experience)
I do believe that humans have a unique way of conceptual thinking, of logic beyond their immediate need, of transforming nature to their use, ... that is why humans understand animal rights, environmental rights, computer rights, natural rights,....that is why humans defend rights, not only for humans but for anything incapable of defending their rights.

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 ...

The Gaia hypotesis is very interesting. No spiritual thing, no concious earth, etc... it is about balance and reason. When you only take you will make an impact you will probably not survive. Now what is this balance is an other discussion.

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?

I stated before I´m a big sinner: I work for a Blue chip, I go to work in a suit, I defend our capitalistic view, I have a large environmental footprint, etc... Still I think about it and question it, I even take actions that shock many, but assure my survival in the best way I can.

A fair degree of freedom is something that I value very much.

Stated this way it sounds subjective, a value that you choose.

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.

Here you are moving away from the subjective. Logically you understand you should fight for your freedom. Actually I repeated a few pages back, logically out of the defintion that a right is something you can defend, it has to have infinite value, otherwise something else could invalidate it and you could not defend it anymore.

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 does not mean that it is good, again means "It is against the rights". You know "rights are logical" but do not know yet you know.

Imposing their will on others, comes in my theory of:
* If you impose things for the reason of rights, you will gain authority.
* If you impose things against rights, you will lose authority and gain resistance.
That is why I believe many here believe that understanding logical rights is essential, naturally that is what we will evolve to. We all agree with you there is a long path to walk.

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.

Indeed you would not fight the powerfull government, you would bend to their power. We recommend: Don´t.

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

It's not very nice but it is not immoral.

I might be wrong here: I constantly have the impression that there is some "Libertarian" dogma that immoral means against rights and only that, if you are not responsible your (in)action is moral.
I agree that action against rights is immoral, but morality goes further, it is about good and bad, it is the way you chose even between 2 immoral choises.
My definition: Not very nice action = not a good choice = immoral.

... Castration is the first that comes to mind. But chicken coops, dairy farms, and even bow hunting all strike me as everyday activities that would never be acceptable on a human for any reason....

1) Castration was common practice in Sweden on women with low IQ.
2) Chicken coops, makes me think of prisons or Islamic women that may not leave the house unaccompanied.
3) Work camps of Hitler, Stalin, etc... look like dairy farms.
4) Bow hunting the English still use the insult

So that you do not accept it on Humans I understand, it is against rights. That you accept it on animals and others accept it on humans, might mean you/they should reconsider.
Be clear a lot of our habits are based on our struggle to survive. They might have been or might still be acceptable for survival, it does not mean we should see them as normal or as not infringing rights, because it is habit.

Is water a human right?

Again. A right is something you can defend that forces an action on a not innocent other.
I´m in the desert and I do not have water, who can I force to give me some? Who took my water away?

So back to your question. Yes there is a Human Right to water.
For the above I completly reject the term Human Rights, they simply are not rights, they do not follow the definition. To call them rights is illogical. Natural rights is the only sensible thing and there is no Natural right to water.

Clearly:
1) When someone does an activity that pollutes water, they should pay their duty to the society that suffers from this.
2) When you build a dense society, there is a duty of this society to provide for water and sanitation. So the leaders of the society have a duty. When they fail and you can do better, do it yourself.

So rights exist on an individual level. Societies form and have general consensus on those rights and eventually create laws which in their view reflect the preservation of those rights. That does not mean that those rights are universal, it just means that a group of people believed they were worth upholding them with force but probably infringed more rights in their legislative efforts then they protected .

Corrected that, so it made sense to me.

... Laws that aren't based on any rational idea land us with stupid things .... There is no limit to the number of rules a government could make that have no rational basis.

👍 👍 👍

The reason you get in trouble for killing your neighbor's dog is because you violated your neighbors right to property, which was their dog.

What goes beyond me in this reasoning is:
1) One living creature can own another living creature. Man can own a animal.
2) One living creature can not own another living creature. Man can not own a man (slavery).
3) One living creature can not own another living creature. Aliens can not own a man (slavery).
[joke]With 2 out of 3 [/joke] I state: One living creature can not own another living creature.

I seem to remember Danoff saying something along the lines that the parents should be allowed to decide on the life of their born child, as there's no quarantee theu'll reach adulthood, in the abortion thread. If I am mistaken I apologize.

I have only seen Danoff say till the baby is viable to live by itself it is part of the mother and thus decision of the mother. I support this, if you are not a separate entity you have no rights. Now there is the responsibility to raise your child after you created it ... you make a child, your action, you have the responsibility... I have trouble with this right of the child though, that the parent can be forced to take care of it ... where this stops is very subjective.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I agree that action against rights is immoral, but morality goes further, it is about good and bad, it is the way you chose even between 2 immoral choises.
My definition: Not very nice action = not a good choice = immoral.

That's basically what I've been trying to say. 👍

I don't see how a "not very nice action" (torturing an animal in this case) could be anything but immoral.

 

[FoolKiller]

1) Castration was common practice in Sweden on women with low IQ.

It was also one of the first laws Hitler passed after the Nazi party gained full control, according to your link. How that is the same as preventing animals farmed for their meat from having a bitter or "gamey" taste so that it is more palatable for human consumption, or even to prevent over-population of stray domesticated animals, is beyond me. As we have developed painless methods these animals do not have the ability to recognize the act and feel offense for it. But a human who has had it done to prevent breeding due to a possible genetic issue is aware of both the loss and the offense.

2) Chicken coops, makes me think of prisons or Islamic women that may not leave the house unaccompanied.

Makes me wonder if you even know what a coop on a mass produced chicken farm looks like. Last I checked, even the worst of criminals are allowed to stretch their arms and stand up and aren't force fed like other forms of poultry. Heck, even non-criminal imprisoned humans (thinking kidnapped here) have more freedoms. Yet their treatment is frowned upon by nearly every sane human, while I type about the conditions of chicken farms, smelling my wife cooking Purdue branded chicken right now. And my stomach is grumbling.

3) Work camps of Hitler, Stalin, etc... look like dairy farms.

Again, you make me wonder if you've seen a mass dairy farm. A work camp, by it's name alone, already has more freedoms. They are allowed to walk around in a work camp. Dairy cattle are in pens barely large enough to hold a single cow, their head sticks through a hole to reach food and water, and their rear end hangs over a trough for waste. Some farms even suspend them slightly to prevent them from using even their legs. All because the muscle enzymes created in muscle use and creation can affect the taste of milk, as well as free grazing. Controlled movement and food. I have had free range, raw milk before and aside from the occasional onion after taste, don't see an issue. But in a mass production facility one off cow can affect everything.

Again, the work camps are considered atrocious by sane individuals, but are far more free.

4) Bow hunting the English still use the insult

I don't like bow hunting simply because of the fact that the process can lead to a more gamey taste. However, I feel it is a skill we need to maintain for survival purposes in the event of massive natural disasters.

But it is an act done regularly in hunting, but has not been acceptably used against humans since better weapons were created.

So that you do not accept it on Humans I understand, it is against rights. That you accept it on animals and others accept it on humans, might mean you/they should reconsider.
Be clear a lot of our habits are based on our struggle to survive. They might have been or might still be acceptable for survival, it does not mean we should see them as normal or as not infringing rights, because it is habit.

And those who find farming practices wrong should become vegan. I have sharp teeth, a need for the protein building amino acids found almost exclusively in animal products, and need even more due to a medical diet. Those who think my survival is an offense to the animal kingdom can show me how and I will listen, but so far I can put a man and an animal side by side and find their reactions to certain acts are vastly different. The way they treat themselves and others of their own species are vastly different. Until that changes, I will preserve humane behavior for humans.

And of course those who think that Earth and every living thing, like plants, have rights as well; they are welcome to starve to death. Even then I will maintain my work camps and commit genocide on beans, tomatoes, peppers, and herbs every year.

What goes beyond me in this reasoning is:
1) One living creature can own another living creature. Man can own a animal.
2) One living creature can not own another living creature. Man can not own a man (slavery).
3) One living creature can not own another living creature. Aliens can not own a man (slavery).
[joke]With 2 out of 3 [/joke] I state: One living creature can not own another living creature.

In 2 out of 3 the owned creature can recognize the wrongness of being owned and defend its freedom. Sure, an animal being in too small an area may be unnatural for its nature, but it can't explain (even in thought) why it wishes to be out of its enclosure, or why a large enough enclosure would prevent it from fleeing. A human subjugated on an entire planet will still rebel.

 

[Keef]

What goes beyond me in this reasoning is:
1) One living creature can own another living creature. Man can own a animal.

Animals are not capable of recognizing their right to liberty and therefore do not have it. On the flip side, humans are capable of understanding the right to property, and therefore we buy, sell, and care for animals as property because no natural rights are being violated.

2) One living creature can not own another living creature. Man can not own a man (slavery).

Correct. One man owning another would violate the slave's right to liberty.

The American Constitution was written during a time when slavery was popular in the US, especially in the South. Long before the Civil War the Constitution's language was very clear when in came to protecting the liberty of men. The British violation of American liberties was one of many reasons for our fight for independence, and our Declaration of Independence states clearly that all men have an natural right to liberty.

People like to talk about how the Declaration and Constitution were or are flawed and should be changed. But the documents were just as correct then as they are now on the subject of slavery. The thing to keep in mind here is that back in 1776, slaves were not thought of as men. In the minds of the people at the time, slaves weren't people. They were animals. They were dumb, spoke a silly language, were incapable of caring for themselves. They lived among the sticks and pooped in rivers, etc. And because that was the mindset of the time, they did not apply the language of our founding documents ("We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal...with certain inalienable Rights...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...") to slaves because, duh, slaves aren't people.

It took a while for people to get out of their stubborn mindset and come to terms with the fact that slaves are in fact human beings. It makes me chuckle in a sad way. We even amended the Constitution to reflect our sudden revelation that slavery is wrong - why we amended it I'm not sure, perhaps to appease the dull-minded majority, as the language of our founding documents was already quite clear on this issue.

3) One living creature can not own another living creature. Aliens can not own a man (slavery).

Know of any intelligent aliens living in your neighborhood? I don't either. Until we find beings who can fault the as-yet impervious logic behind Life, Liberty, and Property, then I suppose the fact that aliens would enslave us is just a ridiculous idea. And if they did enslave us then that is proof that humans are actually more intelligent than them; clearly they don't respect and probably don't understand our right to liberty.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Animals are not capable of recognizing their right to liberty and therefore do not have it.

Are we talking mental capacity here? This statement alone solidifies and reinforces my belief that rights are not universal, but instead a reflection of what different societies believe should be upheld as their most important values.

You have no criterion by which you can really argue that being human is some sort of special gift which entitles us to something greater than everything else. That is not logical.

 

[Famine]

Are we talking mental capacity here? This statement alone solidifies and reinforces my belief that rights are not universal, but instead a reflection of what different societies believe should be upheld as their most important values.

You have no criterion by which you can really argue that being human is some sort of special gift which entitles us to something greater than everything else. That is not logical.

Your last word kinda cements the contradiction of your post.

 

[ShobThaBob]

If it's really that simple, then show me. Plenty of people here are ready and willing to say rights are subjective, that they don't apply under certain circumstances, to different intelligence levels and what have you. And yet, those same people are saying they're also universal?

 

[TankAss95]

If it's really that simple, then show me. Plenty of people here are ready and willing to say rights are subjective, that they don't apply under certain circumstances, to different intelligence levels and what have you. And yet, those same people are saying they're also universal?

Human rights are subjective, but are a logical following if we value our own lives. At least that's how I understand it.

 

[Famine]

If it's really that simple, then show me. Plenty of people here are ready and willing to say rights are subjective, that they don't apply under certain circumstances, to different intelligence levels and what have you. And yet, those same people are saying they're also universal?

Human rights are subjective, but are a logical following if we value our own lives. At least that's how I understand it.

Objective. Laws are subjective.

As for explaining it... I gave up doing so after the fifth or sixth attempt in this thread. But the explanation is in this thread - many times - if you actually want it.