Universal Rights

Paradoxum said,

"True, but this is actually also based on my understanding of Human Rights which (I think) at their most basic are the rights of Autonomy, Liberty and Welfare. Liberty seems to be the one that comes up the most when talking about banning something."

Click to expand...

Who came up with the notion that Autonomy Liberty and Welfare are important to society? Without life none of these are worth anything. And we know how people differ on what life is. LOL But think about it….without life you can't have the others.

"My view isn't that people should be able to do anything they want. I also value Autonomy and Welfare, and Liberty has to be compatible with others Liberty. One shouldn't do something that harms others (put very simply). The right to life goes against killing people when it isn't necessary and that comes under Welfare."

Click to expand...

Why don't you mention LIFE? Isn't that the most basic right someone has…to their own life? Who should decide on the rules and decide what is moral? Do societies around the world have the right to differ with what we in the United States might believe? In this case there can't be any universal system of rights and morals. If you live in a country that believes rape is ok…that a husband has the right to the woman's body whenever he wishes….then shouldn't they be allowed to believe this? Who are we to stop them?
A lot of people thought that the killing in Iraq was justified. A lot of people thought of it as murder. In war innocent people die. But what is the outcome for the majority? Sadam can't slaughter his own people now. Schools are open even to women…is life better for the majority?

"What Iran is doing has a good chance of killing many people. My morality is based on both Human Rights and Utilitarianism at the moment. It's just that freedom alone comes up alot in what I talk about."

Click to expand...

That is just your opinion. Many like Ron Paul believe…that they won't. Many countries have nuclear capabilities. Why single Iran out as one who won't be allowed to have them? What right do we have to stop them from doing something they might never do? You are taking this countries rights to protect themselves away. Are you against the religion of Islam? Do you think that most of the people are terrorists and want to kill us? You must believe their society is not stable and dangerous.

Paradoxum said:

I know the terms can be confusing at first, but I am using the terms of a philosopher. Autonomey: Freedom of thought; Liberty: Freedom of action; Welfare: Conditions needed for Autonomy and Liberty. I would place property under liberty or welfare.

Click to expand...

If liberty stands as you define it….then the actions of Iran wanting nuclear bombs…would have to be allowed. They are free to act to protect themselves against others who might want to use their nuclear bombs against them.

Paradoxum said:

Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

Click to expand...

Many people in the world don't want what Americans have. I have some friends from Africa and people from Africa call them and write them asking for money. As if they could pick up some dollars lying around and send them home. They don't understand that the standard of living is high in America because you have to work for it. They tell me people in Africa are poor but they are happy, unlike in US where many are relatively rich but unhappy and stressed out all the time. I think America is great too but I understand people tend to live how they feel comfortable.

Paradoxum said:

Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Click to expand...

The idea of racism with Human Rights being applied to non-western countries kind of evade me. Do you want to make Human Rights based on race? You can't really be racist when you believe in HUMAN rights and want them applied to non-western countries.

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

Click to expand...

I do, many do. Part of who we are...caring for our fellow species based in abstract ideas that other creatures do not have the capability to know.
Why political figures use a double standard in regards to who receive aid and help is a question I cannot answer because there are too many possible answers.

Paradoxum said:

Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Click to expand...

It isn't.

Paradoxum said:

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

Click to expand...

I care and anyone who cares about minimizing suffering and increasing flourishing in humans should, as well.

Autumnleaf said:

Many people in the world don't want what Americans have. I have some friends from Africa and people from Africa call them and write them asking for money. As if they could pick up some dollars lying around and send them home. They don't understand that the standard of living is high in America because you have to work for it. They tell me people in Africa are poor but they are happy, unlike in US where many are relatively rich but unhappy and stressed out all the time. I think America is great too but I understand people tend to live how they feel comfortable.

Click to expand...

Of course, this isn't true for everyone. In Mexico, where I'm from, people work as hard as Americans and their standard of living isn't as high and trust me, they want what the US has. So, it's not a matter of simply "working harder" and you're set. The opportunities and money simply aren't available in Mexico that are available in the US.

mdancin4theLord said:

If liberty stands as you define it….then the actions of Iran wanting nuclear bombs…would have to be allowed. They are free to act to protect themselves against others who might want to use their nuclear bombs against them.

Click to expand...

And shouldn't our actions also be allowed to stop them? After all, aren't we "free to act to protect [ourselves] against others who might want to use their nuclear bombs against [us]."

Paradoxum said:

By racist I mean is the west forcing its values on the rest?

Click to expand...

Ok. I may have misunderstood because I don't see the idea that say us Westerners feel our culture values are more superior than non-Westerners as racist because it isn't a racism, but ethnocentrism.

I do believe that Western culture in its imperfections is better than the non-western culture. If it is ethnocentric for say the UN to be against violations of Human Rights that, sure may be a product of Western thinking, and they are against it to such a degree that they put sanctions on countries that do that...good. If it is ethnocentric for Western nations to be on the side of the people of a country that has a government that doesn't share Western values...good.

Why should we, in how far we have come with how we value our own species and life in general, why we should belittle our progress because of the fear of being ethnocentric?

Now if the people of say a nation that doesn't share our Western values, do not want Western values, it should never be forced.

I agree. I like Human Rights. I was asking to see if anyone disagreed.

Click to expand...

I see.

And as for is the West forcing its values...I am not sure I equipped to answer such a thing.

This is where the imperfections come. Take some of the major world powers. If/when we force our value, it is for strategic positions in some global fight for terror, what we get out of it in terms of money, oil, political questionable allies etc.

I think there is one side that, wouldn't it be just as immoral as say the non-western dictator to be left to do what the dictator chooses by the Western nations?

And then...

Isn't it against Western values to enforce its values on a non-Western country?

Tough call for me to make.

It depends what one means by, and thinks are, human rights. From a secular pov I agree with the UN Declaration to protect the man and woman and child regardless of race sex or nationality to life and freedom if thought.

I don't think that human rights are necessarily inapplicable to cultures that don't value them simply because they are foreign to those cultures. If they are correct conceptions of human rights, then it is right for those peoples to value them and implement them in their legal systems. My concern is that if they don't value human rights, we can't expect cultural support for those rights, which makes any attempt at nation building futile.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Cuddles222 said:

So far as I know, only Christians believe that all people everywhere have inalienable rights. This is because we believe these 'rights' come from God.

Click to expand...

You do realize that there are other religions that also claim that your rights come from God, right?