What are "Human Rights" and where do they come from?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This question is addressed particularly to the non-theist. Does human rights actually exist? Or are they merely an invention of our own design? Are human rights objectively established, or are they relative? Or do I dare to say that they are "God given"?
 

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This question is addressed particularly to the non-theist. Does human rights actually exist? Or are they merely an invention of our own design? Are human rights objectively established, or are they relative? Or do I dare to say that they are "God given"?
They are strictly a subjective human invention that varies from society to society. As they say; your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins; IOW there are always restrictions on Human Rights.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
They are strictly a subjective human invention that varies from society to society. As they say; your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins; IOW there are always restrictions on Human Rights.
I find your subjective definition to be quite agreeable. However, if human rights are merely a subjective human invention created by a society, who are we to judge another sociologically established variation? For example, do people in the west have the "right" to impose their ideas of women's rights onto Saudi Arabia?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I find your subjective definition to be quite agreeable. However, if human rights are merely a subjective human invention created by a society, who are we to judge another sociologically established variation? For example, do people in the west have the "right" to impose their ideas of women's rights onto Saudi Arabia?
If they want to do business with us, and they want to be our friends, we can impose whatever restrictions we feel our friendship and business is worth.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What we call human rights are instinctive desires. We evolved from social primates living in smallish clans or tribes. Within that paradigm, we want the freedom to act so that we, and our tribe, reproduce ourselves and flourish. We want to live in peace. We want our families to have safe, secure homes. To be free from harm. We don't want our resources stolen from us. We don't want be oppressed, or persecuted by either our own tribe members or by other tribes. The specific ways and degrees to which these are expressed can vary among individuals and societies. But at the most fundamental level, our brains are hard-wired to value these aspirations. And we incorporate them into our social order as "rights." As a naturalist, I don't believe we got the concept of rights from any divine creator. We got them from our evolution.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What could a yes answer possibly mean?

Please describe what that could look like if human rights did actually exist..
That was the question I was hoping for a secular answer. If human rights are merely a human invention, then they are more an abstract idea than something that exists in reality. An illusion that morphed into a social contract.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What we call human rights are instinctive desires. We evolved from social primates living in smallish clans or tribes. Within that paradigm, we want the freedom to act so that we, and our tribe, reproduce ourselves and flourish. We want to live in peace. We want our families to have safe, secure homes. To be free from harm. We don't want our resources stolen from us. We don't want be oppressed, or persecuted by either our own tribe members or by other tribes. The specific ways and degrees to which these are expressed can vary among individuals and societies. But at the most fundamental level, our brains are hard-wired to value these aspirations. And we incorporate them into our social order as "rights." As a naturalist, I don't believe we got the concept of rights from any divine creator. We got them from our evolution.
Do these human rights "evolve" with the evolution of humanity or did they always exists and were only recognized as humanity evolves?
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Do these human rights "evolve" with the evolution of humanity or did they always exists and were only recognized as humanity evolves?

Both. At the very basic level, all sentient animals want to live their lives without interference. To be free from predators who would kill and eat them. To protect their territories and resources. And to raise their young in safety. These are instinctive and have been favored by natural selection because they promote the reproduction of the population. But we have big brains and form very complex societies. We add in other desires which make our lives satisfying, and enshrine them as rights. Like the ability to communicate freely without fear of adverse consequences. And to be treated fairly by others. These are more dependent on societal structure, and they likely do evolve as societies evolve. Although, I have read of experiments suggesting that other primates and dogs may have some sense of fairness. So what we conceptualize as the right to equal treatment under the law may also have roots in more basic instincts.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
They are strictly a subjective human invention that varies from society to society.

If it varies from society to society, then they're not human rights, because they don't apply to all people. Rights are a legal concept. They are what the law says they are, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,119
Los Angeles Area
✟820,543.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I find your subjective definition to be quite agreeable. However, if human rights are merely a subjective human invention created by a society, who are we to judge another sociologically established variation?

Everyone makes subjective judgments all the time. It's not very difficult.

For example, do people in the west have the "right" to impose their ideas of women's rights onto Saudi Arabia?

We've just established that rights are subjective agreements. So one side could declare such a right and act upon it. Obviously there are some real world consequences to imposing (by war?) one set of values over another.

As when one group of people believes they have the right to own other people, and another group believes they shouldn't have that right, and the difference becomes important enough that they come to blows over it.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Everyone makes subjective judgments all the time. It's not very difficult.



We've just established that rights are subjective agreements. So one side could declare such a right and act upon it. Obviously there are some real world consequences to imposing (by war?) one set of values over another.

As when one group of people believes they have the right to own other people, and another group believes they shouldn't have that right, and the difference becomes important enough that they come to blows over it.
So when it comes to human rights, might makes right? What if the group with power says it is okay to own another person?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
That was the question I was hoping for a secular answer. If human rights are merely a human invention, then they are more an abstract idea than something that exists in reality. An illusion that morphed into a social contract.
Can you provide the religious answer to what human rights would look like if they did actually exist...?

The secular answer is they dont look like anything. They are an ideal that lives in our minds and in the culture, an expression of natural human values, and thats it.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,119
Los Angeles Area
✟820,543.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
So when it comes to human rights, might makes right?

No, we've already hypothesized that rights are subjective or intersubjective things created by people. Might makes things happen, but that doesn't make it right.

What if the group with power says it is okay to own another person?

Then possibly in that society, slavery would be legal. This does not make it right. Nor would such a law change any individual's opinion on the matter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, we've already hypothesized that rights are subjective or intersubjective things created by people. Might makes things happen, but that doesn't make it right.



Then possibly in that society, slavery would be legal. This does not make it right. Nor would such a law change any individual's opinion on the matter.
But you said that human rights are subjective agreements. If a more power country subjectively believes in slavery and a smaller country subjectively is against slavery, how then can slavery be either right or wrong.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Can you provide the religious answer to what human rights would look like if they did actually exist...?
Well, for brevity the simple answer to human rights from a biblical point if view comes from the creation. Particularly the teaching that all of humanity is created in the image of God. Regardless or race, all are seen as equal in the eyes of God. The Bible teaches that God does not discriminate or show favoritism (Acts 10:34). Every person is a unique creation of His, and He loves each one (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9). “Rich and poor have this in common: / The LORD is the Maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2). In turn, the Bible teaches that Christians should not discriminate based on race, cultural background, or social standing (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11; James 2:1-4). We are to be kind to all (Luke 6:35-36). The Bible gives strict warnings against taking advantage of the poor and downtrodden. “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God” (Proverbs 14:31).
 
Upvote 0

FatalFantasy

Active Member
Jan 30, 2019
121
71
50
Brisbane
✟2,057.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This question is addressed particularly to the non-theist. Does human rights actually exist? Or are they merely an invention of our own design? Are human rights objectively established, or are they relative? Or do I dare to say that they are "God given"?
There God inspired, that's not the same as dictation. There is wiggle room with God.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,119
Los Angeles Area
✟820,543.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
But you said that human rights are subjective agreements. If a more power country subjectively believes in slavery and a smaller country subjectively is against slavery, how then can slavery be either right or wrong.

It can't be, in the same objective way that it is true that bachelors are unmarried. Only subjectively. Just carefully read what I wrote. I am not asserting that slavery is objectively right or wrong. By asserting that it is subjective, I am explicitly denying that.

"No, we've already hypothesized that rights are subjective or intersubjective things created by people. Might makes things happen, but that doesn't make it right.

Then possibly in that society, slavery would be legal. This does not make it right. Nor would such a law change any individual's opinion on the matter."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It can't be, in the same objective way that it is true that bachelors are unmarried. Only subjectively. Just carefully read what I wrote. I am not asserting that slavery is objectively right or wrong. By asserting that it is subjective, I am explicitly denying that.

"No, we've already hypothesized that rights are subjective or intersubjective things created by people. Might makes things happen, but that doesn't make it right.

Then possibly in that society, slavery would be legal. This does not make it right. Nor would such a law change any individual's opinion on the matter."
I understand your point. The point that I am making is that slavery can neither be right nor wrong if human rights are a subjective.
 
Upvote 0