When Do Human Rights Begin?

[Tree of Life]

Consider this: how would you be able to determine if a human had or had not a specific "right"?

Not decide that they had. Not declare that they ought to have. Just find out if they have it.

How would you do that?

Consult the Creator. I.E. Read the Bible.

 

[Freodin]

Consult the Creator. I.E. Read the Bible.

Considering that a lot of people did read the Bible, and, with some justification, came to the conclusion that some humans did not have any right to "life" or "liberty" or "happiness"... this seems to be a very flawed process.

There are rules in the text that you may use to conclude to a form of "rights" - like "You shall not steal" may be constructed to point to a "right of property".

But considering that there are also detailed rules about how to correctly deprive other humans of their personal liberty, a general idea of "human rights" based on the Bible is... difficult to establish.

And there are other problems, like "rights" that most of us take for granted, but that are never mentioned in the Bible... "rights" the basic idea of which would seem foreign to the people in those times. Like, the right to participate in the government.


But maybe you have points I did not consider.
So, tell me: where in the Bible would you go to look and find the right of some pagan african tribesman not to be captured by a European trader... or sold into slavery by the people he just lost a war against?

 

[gaara4158]

Consult the Creator. I.E. Read the Bible.

Interesting. I know the Bible outlines a set of responsibilities and prohibitions for humans, but does it also outline human rights?

 

[Tree of Life]

Considering that a lot of people did read the Bible, and, with some justification, came to the conclusion that some humans did not have any right to "life" or "liberty" or "happiness"... this seems to be a very flawed process.

I would chalk it up to flawed humanity, not flawed Bible.

There are rules in the text that you may use to conclude to a form of "rights" - like "You shall not steal" may be constructed to point to a "right of property".

But considering that there are also detailed rules about how to correctly deprive other humans of their personal liberty, a general idea of "human rights" based on the Bible is... difficult to establish.

I don't think so. I would appeal to Scripture in order to refute some of the Civil War Era Biblical justifications of slavery. Their problem is not that they are building a biblical case for slavery. Their problem is that they are not understanding the Bible well enough to see that there is no Biblical case for the kind of slavery the colonies were practicing.

And there are other problems, like "rights" that most of us take for granted, but that are never mentioned in the Bible... "rights" the basic idea of which would seem foreign to the people in those times. Like, the right to participate in the government.

The right to be self-governing stems from the Biblical principle that God alone is the Lord of the conscience and he has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men. We belong to God and to no other.

But maybe you have points I did not consider.
So, tell me: where in the Bible would you go to look and find the right of some pagan african tribesman not to be captured by a European trader... or sold into slavery by the people he just lost a war against?

There are plenty of commands in Scripture that forbid man stealing and kidnapping. Consider, for example, Exodus 21:16 - "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

 

[Tree of Life]

Interesting. I know the Bible outlines a set of responsibilities and prohibitions for humans, but does it also outline human rights?

Yes the rights are implied in the commands. "Ye shall not steal" implies property rights.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When does a human being get their rights? How you answer this will likely depend upon where you believe human rights come from. Here are some options that I can imagine:

• When they are conceived.
• When they are born.
• When they become a citizen.

Maybe your answer is something in between these points or something else altogether. When do human rights begin for an individual?

I'm actually more interested in knowing what Human Rights are and when and where they ... end. So, I'll just refrain from making comments and remain an observer of this here discussion.

 

[Tree of Life]

So, there are rights we think we ought to have, and then there are the rights that we effectively have. Which is OP asking about? This will determine how I answer the question.

Rights we have according to law I would call "civil rights". Rights we ought to have according to law I would call "human rights". We ought to have them legally because we do have them by nature. That is my view, at least.

For example, no one has a right to kill me* because I have a right to life by nature. I do not need a group of people to award me this right and a group of people cannot deprive me of this right even by unanimous decision.

*(for no good reason. I'm not saying that there are never instances where a person can forfeit their right to life.)

 

[Tree of Life]

No, not quite understood. It´s not about my opinion, it´s about the observation of the fact that they hadn´t been granted these legal rights - therefore effectively didn´t have them.
If, however you are asking what - "according to my view" - rights people should be legally granted that´s a completely different question.

I believe that legal rights are not identical to human rights. Just like what's legal is not identical to what's moral.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm know there are but there are no way to use a "right" if it is not recognized by law.

There are quite a few views on "rights" in moral philosophy and legal academia.

I think you've got it backwards. Human rights are not based on laws. Good laws are based on natural human rights. A just law is one that accords with the rights that we naturally have. This is why we're constantly seeking to improve laws so that we might create a more just society.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think you've got it backwards. Human rights are not based on laws. Good laws are based on natural human rights. A just law is one that accords with the rights that we naturally have. This is why we're constantly seeking to improve laws so that we might create a more just society.

No, ”natural human rights” are just a religious belief and cannot be shown (or even agreed upon).

We do change laws as our views on whats fair change (as do our moral values change).

 

[Tree of Life]

No, ”natural human rights” are just a religious belief and cannot be shown (or even agreed upon).

We do change laws as our views on whats fair change (as do our moral values change).

So your position is that there is no such thing as human rights. There are only legal rights which are man-made, awarded by the government, and can be taken away by the government. Is this right?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No, ”natural human rights” are just a religious belief and cannot be shown (or even agreed upon).

We do change laws as our views on whats fair change (as do our moral values change).

I think I must agree. And yet our constitution states otherwise.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Self evident? It is a nice thought but I am not so sure. "The maxim do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Is probably something we could all agree on because it is based on an inherent desire to avoid suffering and experience good. But aright must be given and secured. And that takes a government with enforcement.

 

[VirOptimus]

So your position is that there is no such thing as human rights. There are only legal rights which are man-made, awarded by the government, and can be taken away by the government. Is this right?

Yes, and I think it is self-evident that it is so.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes, and I think it is self-evident that it is so.

When you talk about debating the merits of certain legal rights, this implies to me that you're measuring them by something outside of the law itself. On what basis could the merits of a legal right ever be judged?

 

[VirOptimus]

When you talk about debating the merits of certain legal rights, this implies to me that you're measuring them by something outside of the law itself. On what basis could the merits of a legal right ever be judged?

The argument one makes for the law of course. How persuasive those are will determine the merit of the law.

 

[gaara4158]

Rights we have according to law I would call "civil rights". Rights we ought to have according to law I would call "human rights". We ought to have them legally because we do have them by nature. That is my view, at least.

For example, no one has a right to kill me* because I have a right to life by nature. I do not need a group of people to award me this right and a group of people cannot deprive me of this right even by unanimous decision.

*(for no good reason. I'm not saying that there are never instances where a person can forfeit their right to life.)

Can you say more about what it means to have rights “by nature?” I would say that there are a set of rights that we all would like to see protected by the community for natural reasons, but I’m not sure that’s the same thing you’re talking about.

 

[Tree of Life]

The argument one makes for the law of course. How persuasive those are will determine the merit of the law.

What does one appeal to in order to persuade?

 

[Desk trauma]

I think I must agree. And yet our constitution states otherwise.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Self evident? It is a nice thought but I am not so sure. "The maxim do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Is probably something we could all agree on because it is based on an inherent desire to avoid suffering and experience good. But aright must be given and secured. And that takes a government with enforcement.

That’s from the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.

 

[Tree of Life]

Can you say more about what it means to have rights “by nature?” I would say that there are a set of rights that we all would like to see protected by the community for natural reasons, but I’m not sure that’s the same thing you’re talking about.

A right by nature would be a right that we possess simply because we are human beings. For example, I believe that every human being deserves respect simply because they are made in the image of God. Just like our intellectual capacities are an essential part of our humanity, so are rights. To be human is to have rights.

Man-made rights that we have only because they are given to us by law are not natural rights. And rights that we wish we had because we see them as important to our wellbeing are not natural rights. Maybe you don't think that there is such a thing as natural rights.

 

[VirOptimus]

What does one appeal to in order to persuade?

Whatever on appeals to when one makes any argument, just watch any debate on any topic.