Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...

[2PhiloVoid]

... that's right! You heard what I said! Humanity, today, as it continues to increasingly reject a really substantial metaphysics by which to buttress what should be a Prescriptive admonishment to treat other human beings with respect, compassion and care, is pandering instead to an ethereal sense of Human Rights, one that isn't made up of principles containing much in the way of any evident axiomatic integrity: no, it just kind of floats upon a thin veneer of talk about something called "Well-Being."

No, if anything, today's supposed ethical superior position of secularized Human Rights over and against a more Christian sense of Human Rights is nearly, although not quite, the push to acquire equality and humanitarian essentials through the social exertion of sheer will-power, to bring about a pragmatic application to meet human needs that were defaced through Two World Wars, various horrors of the Cold War and fragmentation over various international squabbles that have been taking place for the last several decades.

So, with that said, it's time for everyone to start getting up to speed on the basic ideas that are really at play in our world on the international ethical stage. I think, too, personally, the discussion about the supposed nature of Human Rights and Ethics and Morality, and how it should be articulated and how it is applied, even legally, should start with our reading of a chapter from Langlois' brief tour of the development of thinking on modern Human Rights and its inherent problems:

Langlois, Anthony J. "Normative and Theoretical Foundations of Human Rights."

 

[klutedavid]

... that's right! You heard what I said! Humanity is, today, as it continues to increasingly reject a really substantial metaphysics by which to buttress what should be a Prescriptive admonishment to treat other human beings with respect, compassion and care, is pandering instead to an ethereal sense of Human Rights, one that's isn't made up of principles that contain much in the way of any evident axiomatic integrity.

No, if anything, today's supposed ethical superior position of secularized Human Rights over and against a more Christian sense of Human Rights is nearly, although not quite, the push to acquire equality and humanitarian essentials through the social exertion of sheer will-power, to bring about a pragamatic application to meet human needs that were smacked in the face of the World through Two World Wars, horrors of the Cold War, and the various international squabbles that have been taking place for the last several decades.

So, with that said, it's time for everyone to start getting up to speed on the basic ideas that are really at play in our world on the international stage, and I think, personally, the discussion about the supposed nature of Human Rights and how it should be articulated and applied, even legally, should start with our reading of a chapter from Langlois' brief tour of the development of, and its inherent problems, of modern Human Rights.

Langlois, Anthony J. "Normative and Theoretical Foundations of Human Rights."

This is more of an academic post rather than a post for everyone to discuss.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is more of an academic post rather than a post for everyone to discuss.

No, it's not! It's for everyone, and it's just the beginnings of a more elaborate and complex venturing into ignored ethical lands of realization, brother Klutedavid.

When it comes to the state of the world as it is and the state of Human Rights, we don't get to start simply with 'where' we are in all of this since it all socially encompasses, and is bigger than any one person or any one group on the planet. Of course, this is how it's always really been whether people know it or not or care about it or not.

 

[klutedavid]

No, it's not! It's just the beginnings of a more elaborate and complex venturing into ignored ethical lands of realization, brother Klutedavid.

When it comes to the state of the world as it is and the state of Human Rights, we don't get to start simply with 'where' we are in all of this since it all socially encompasses, and is bigger than-as it has always been--any one person or any one group on the planet.

I do not believe that an average person in society; raising two kids and working six days a week. Will have the time or the educational background to even understand your post, let alone reply to it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do not believe that an average person in society; raising two kids and working six days a week. Will have the time or the educational background to even understand your post, let alone reply to it.

Yet they'll want the benefits of 'rights' that the various societies of the world wrestle over as each of many different people in different groups----not to mention within individual families----will advocate on their own behalf regardless of the independent (and sometimes relative) assertions which sit in their heads, and they'll demand rights that they say should be recognized. Rights that, on the other hand, aren't always recognized, rights over which other individuals or societies may not feel should have to be observed, and we see this is even the case when people interact with others in their own households (or in their own nation, for that matter).

Needless to say, being that you and I are Christians, we ALREADY have a form of human rights and an ethical axiom by which to substantively prescribe to us what our moral behaviors should be as part and parcel in how we treat others, and we label that ethical axiom: JESUS CHRIST!

But the rest of the World doesn't share this ethical axiom. For them, they don't really have a common ethical Archimedian Point by which to views the human rights it thinks most, many, or all should enjoy.

Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[klutedavid]

Yet they'll want the benefits of 'right' that the various societies of the world wrestle over as each of many different people in different groups----not to mention within individual families----will advocate regardless of the independent (and sometimes relative) assertions which sit in their heads, rights that they say should be recognized. Rights that others, on the other hand, aren't recognized or over which others may not feel should have to be observed, even when interacting with others in one's household (or in one's own nation, for that matter).

Needless to say, being that you and I are Christians, we ALREADY have a form of human rights and an ethical axiom by which to substantively prescribe to us what our moral behaviors should be as part and parcel of how we treat others, and we label that ethical axiom: JESUS CHRIST!

But the rest of the World doesn't share this ethical axiom as an Archimedian Point for its own views on the rights it thinks it should enjoy.

Do you see what I'm saying?

I probably understand the scripture very differently to the way you interpret the scripture.

I believe in a basic set of human rights that should apply to everyone and regardless of religious or political influence.

I don't see JESUS as ethical. I see Jesus as eternal love in human form and much higher than ethics.

We are not on the same page and probably never will be. You strike me as a conservative Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I probably understand the scripture very differently to the way you interpret the scripture.

I believe in a basic set of human rights that should apply to everyone and regardless of religious or political influence.

I don't see JESUS as ethical. I see Jesus as eternal love in human form and much higher than ethics.

We are not on the same page and probably never will be. You strike me as a conservative Christian.

I don't even know what 'conservative' is? The term sounds so "American."

What was Jesus' political position, as He stood between the political demands of His own nation, Israel, on one hand and with Rome hitting Him up on the other? I don't think Human Rights, or the place of Jesus in any particular modern political vision, should be sliced and diced in a way that is nothing more than an anachronistically induced transposition of today's social and political ideologies, very often made to merely buttress EITHER the Liberal Left OR the Radical Right, at least speaking in terms of American Politics.

However, this thread ISN'T precisely about politics in the U.S.; it has little or nothing to do with whatever is presently transpiring with the current president. No, this is a venture into the underpinnings of the philosophy that supposedly drives the Ethics and Morality of the present World, mostly as they drive themselves in Non-Christian Terms with groundless notions of Human and Civil Rights.

If anything, this thread is about how we all need to do better to see that Human and Civil Rights, as they are presently and too diversely articulated among the worlds nations, needs an Ethical Axiom, but the Secular world, at present, has a fairly weak one.....one that they then, ironically, use to JUDGE the concept of the God of the Bible.

 

[klutedavid]

I don't even know what 'conservative' is? The term sounds so "American."

There is a difference between say a British understanding of the term 'conservative' and an American definition of that term, 'conservative'.

The definition of Conservative (British).

According to Quintin Hogg, the chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959:

"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself"
(wikipedia)

Whereas the American version of 'Conservative' is very different.

The major conservative party in the United States is the Republican Party, also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party). American conservatives consider individual liberty, as long as it conforms to conservative values, small government, deregulation of the government, economic liberalism, and free trade.

What was Jesus' political position, as He stood between the political demands of His own nation, Israel, on one hand and with Rome hitting Him up on the other?

Jesus was not political at all; Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth.

I don't think Human Rights, or the place of Jesus in any particular modern political vision should be sliced and diced in a way that is nothing more than an anachronistically transposition done to merely buttress EITHER the Liberal Left OR the Radical Right, at least speaking in terms of American Politics.

Now your talking from the American conservative viewpoint. People not born in the United States will struggle to understand the unique political and social paradigm that is the United States.

Do you believe in the human right of anyone and no matter where they live, has the right to believe and practice their religion free from persecution?

However, this thread ISN'T precisely about politics in the U.S.; it has little or nothing to do with whatever is presently transpiring with the current president. No, this is a venture into the underpinnings of the philosophy that supposedly drives the Ethics and Morality of the present World, mostly as they drive themselves in Non-Christian Terms with groundless notions of Human and Civil Rights.

If your digging deeper into the concept of human rights, then you will collide with the very definitions of the terms that you employ.

If anything, this thread is about how we all need to do better to see that Human and Civil Rights, as they are presently and too diversely articulated among the worlds nations, needs an Ethical Axiom, but the Secular world, at present, has a fairly weak one.....one that they then, ironically, use to JUDGE the concept of the God of the Bible.

As far as I have seen; people and including many Christians do not really understand the scripture. Let alone the revelation of the Christ to humanity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a difference between say a British understanding of the term 'conservative' and an American definition of that term, 'conservative'.

The definition of Conservative (British).

According to Quintin Hogg, the chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959:

"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself"
(wikipedia)

Whereas the American version of 'Conservative' is very different.

The major conservative party in the United States is the Republican Party, also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party). American conservatives consider individual liberty, as long as it conforms to conservative values, small government, deregulation of the government, economic liberalism, and free trade.
Jesus was not political at all; Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth. Now your talking from the American conservative viewpoint. People not born in the United States will struggle to understand the unique political and social paradigm that is the United States.

Do you believe in the human right of anyone and no matter where they live, has the right to believe and practice their religion free from persecution?If your digging deeper into the concept of human rights, then you will collide with the very definitions of the terms that you employ.As far as I have seen; people and including many Christians do not really understand the scripture. Let alone the revelation of the Christ to humanity.

I believe in the veracity of Human Rights, but not as presently arbitrated on the World Stage. Regardless, I'm sure you'll agree that mass education on these matters is highly pertinent ...

So then, in reflection of the 'article' I've posted in the OP, what is your view on Human Rights as they thus stand in legal and ideological articulation Today? Don't you think they're a bit too weak by which to 'judge' the narratives of the Bible? I do.

 

[klutedavid]

I believe in the veracity of Human Rights, but not as presently arbitrated on the World Stage. Regardless, I'm sure you'll agree that mass education on these matters is highly pertinent ...

So then, in reflection of the 'article' I've posted in the OP, what is your view on Human Rights as they thus stand in legal and ideological articulation Today? Don't you think they're a bit too weak by which to 'judge' the narratives of the Bible? I do.

Do you believe in the human right of anyone and no matter where they live, has the right to believe and practice their religion free from persecution?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you believe in the human right of anyone and no matter where they live, has the right to believe and practice their religion free from persecution?

This question puts the cart of Application before the Metaphysical horse, klutedavid. I've already stated that I believe in another articulation of Human Rights, one that applies to all people everywhere, one that assumes that no one is necessarily privileged to escape moral accountability more than anyone else as we all live among and beside each other.

No, what you should be asking is: Does Jesus "believe in the human right of anyone and no matter where they live, has the right to believe and practice their religion free from persecution?"

You see, what I WON'T allow here is for anyone, whether atheist skeptic or fellow Christian believer, to come along and attempt to undercut my whole enterprise that I have invested in the exercise of this particular OP thread I've started. I'm fairly confident that I'm not morally suspect, and really shouldn't be, especially not if I'm simply questioning the conceptual elements of today's ethical axioms and conceptual framework. In fact, I'd assert that I'm not really doing anything different than what a John the Baptist type person or a Paul type person would do when addressing a Herod type person or an Elymas type person. Besides, it's not my fault if the World doesn't want to hear what I'm bringing to their attention.

So, I asked you a question above in relation to the OP, and in the fellowship in Christ we both have, I'd expect you to answer the question rather than challenge me on any or all of what I'm proposing everyone needs to become more educated on in this thread, especially not by throwing another question my way as a response. Does this make sense?

 

[public hermit]

... that's right! You heard what I said! Humanity, today, as it continues to increasingly reject a really substantial metaphysics by which to buttress what should be a Prescriptive admonishment to treat other human beings with respect, compassion and care, is pandering instead to an ethereal sense of Human Rights, one that isn't made up of principles containing much in the way of any evident axiomatic integrity: no, it just kind of floats upon a thin veneer of talk about something called "Well-Being."

No, if anything, today's supposed ethical superior position of secularized Human Rights over and against a more Christian sense of Human Rights is nearly, although not quite, the push to acquire equality and humanitarian essentials through the social exertion of sheer will-power, to bring about a pragamatic application to meet human needs that were smacked in the face through Two World Wars, various horrors of the Cold War, and also fragmented through various international squabbles that have been taking place for the last several decades.

So, with that said, it's time for everyone to start getting up to speed on the basic ideas that are really at play in our world on the international stage. I think, too, personally, the discussion about the supposed nature of Human Rights and how it should be articulated and applied, even legally, should start with our reading of a chapter from Langlois' brief tour of the development of, and its inherent problems, of modern Human Rights:

Langlois, Anthony J. "Normative and Theoretical Foundations of Human Rights."

Great post. This post appeals to me because, as you know, I like to see how things are grounded.

I'm torn. I wholly agree that the philosophical underpinnings of natural rights have been shorn. And they were abandoned in the very period that they were promulgated. But, the chances of convincing the masses to embrace a theistic grounding is slim to none. This quote from the article (Jacques Maritain) captures my position:

"I am fully convinced that my way of justifying the belief
in the rights of man and the ideal of liberty, equality,
fraternity, is the only one which is solidly based on
truth. That does not prevent me from agreeing in these
practical tenets with those who are convinced that their
way of justifying them, entirely different from mine, or
even opposed to mine in its theoretical dynamism, is
likewise the only one that is based on truth. Assuming
they both believe in the democratic charter, a Christian
and a rationalist will nevertheless give justifications that
are incompatible with each other, to which their souls,
their minds and their blood are committed, and about
these justifications they will fight. And God keep me
from saying that it is not important to know which of the
two is right! That is essentially important. They remain,
however, in agreement on the practical affirmation of
that charter, and they can formulate common principles
of action."

I would rather us agree on a practical level, even if we disagree as to the justification, than to disagree at the practical level and then have to endure the outcome of a mass of people who don't assume humans have rights.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great post. This post appeals to me because, as you know, I like to see how things are grounded.

I'm torn. I wholly agree that the philosophical underpinnings of natural rights have been shorn. And they were abandoned in the very period that they were promulgated. But, the chances of convincing the masses to embrace a theistic grounding is slim to none. This quote from the article (Jacques Maritain) captures my position:

"I am fully convinced that my way of justifying the belief
in the rights of man and the ideal of liberty, equality,
fraternity, is the only one which is solidly based on
truth. That does not prevent me from agreeing in these
practical tenets with those who are convinced that their
way of justifying them, entirely different from mine, or
even opposed to mine in its theoretical dynamism, is
likewise the only one that is based on truth. Assuming
they both believe in the democratic charter, a Christian
and a rationalist will nevertheless give justifications that
are incompatible with each other, to which their souls,
their minds and their blood are committed, and about
these justifications they will fight. And God keep me
from saying that it is not important to know which of the
two is right! That is essentially important. They remain,
however, in agreement on the practical affirmation of
that charter, and they can formulate common principles
of action."

I would rather us agree on a practical level, even if we disagree as to the justification, than to disagree at the practical level and then have to endure the outcome of a mass of people who don't assume humans have rights.

Pssst!!! PH. Don't tell anyone, but this thread isn't intended to persuade anyone. Rather, I'm mainly presenting it as an educated heads-up to challenge the World's Masses---whomever they may be---to reassess the ways and the philosophical by-ways through which they are tempted (i.e. literally tempted) to, in over-assurance, hold the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob .... somehow morally culpable for what they think are His moral failures. But again, just keep this between you and me!

 

[com7fy8]

the Ethics and Morality of the present World,

groundless notions of Human and Civil Rights.

People can have a worldly way of wanting rights to what they want for their own selves, and that no one will interfere.

But what worldly people want is what is not good enough for them, certainly not what God desires.

An example is how people can want independence, but this isolates them so they are not able to love and share as family with other people. So, they can get lonely, while perhaps getting things they want . . . for pleasure. And getting their own pleasure and adrenaline rushes is not really a challenge; so they can become bored, no matter what they make to happen for their own selves.

But learning how to share with and submit to God and find out how He has us loving . . . this is our best education and most worthwhile challenge!

 

[Tolworth John]

I find it a good idea to ask people where they get the idea that they have rights from?
Atheistic and evolutionary philosophy says nothing about human rights.
Legal rights as found in legal codes are based as are the convention of human rights on Christian ideas, so it follows I someone is claiming such a right they also need to have an interest in finding out about Christianity.

 

[durangodawood]

I find it a good idea to ask people where they get the idea that they have rights from?
Atheistic and evolutionary philosophy says nothing about human rights.
Legal rights as found in legal codes are based as are the convention of human rights on Christian ideas, so it follows I someone is claiming such a right they also need to have an interest in finding out about Christianity.

If I think of rights as something like this:

"2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

Then "rights" originate in the natural facts about what kind of beings we are. Those facts may result from creation, or from evolution. So I dont see how any one religion is necessary for explaining our sense that we have rights.

 

[pleinmont]

Christian extremists and human rights is an oxymoron, as I know from bitter experience. If the Bible is literary true the god featured there wasn't big on the rights of humans either.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christian extremists and human rights is an oxymoron, as I know from bitter experience. If the Bible is literary true the god featured there wasn't big on the rights of humans either.

I'm sure it is an oxymoron, but so is the term "Christian extremist," since one CAN'T really be a Christian AND be a radical political or ideological extremist (i.e. KKK and/or other similar groups) at the same time.

No, love for other human beings isn't an option, so if someone claims to be a Christian but in actuality thinks certain other human beings don't qualify as being human or as worthy of being treated with care, then I'd think those so-called 'Christians' are, without repentance, going to STRAIGHT TO HELL! No ifs, No ands, No buts!

Now, back to the original discussion. What did you find to be interesting in the OP article? That is what this thread is about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great post. This post appeals to me because, as you know, I like to see how things are grounded.

I'm torn. I wholly agree that the philosophical underpinnings of natural rights have been shorn. And they were abandoned in the very period that they were promulgated. But, the chances of convincing the masses to embrace a theistic grounding is slim to none. This quote from the article (Jacques Maritain) captures my position:

"I am fully convinced that my way of justifying the belief
in the rights of man and the ideal of liberty, equality,
fraternity, is the only one which is solidly based on
truth. That does not prevent me from agreeing in these
practical tenets with those who are convinced that their
way of justifying them, entirely different from mine, or
even opposed to mine in its theoretical dynamism, is
likewise the only one that is based on truth. Assuming
they both believe in the democratic charter, a Christian
and a rationalist will nevertheless give justifications that
are incompatible with each other, to which their souls,
their minds and their blood are committed, and about
these justifications they will fight. And God keep me
from saying that it is not important to know which of the
two is right! That is essentially important. They remain,
however, in agreement on the practical affirmation of
that charter, and they can formulate common principles
of action."

I would rather us agree on a practical level, even if we disagree as to the justification, than to disagree at the practical level and then have to endure the outcome of a mass of people who don't assume humans have rights.

I know that Jacques Maritain was a smart man, but unfortunately, the actual issues involved with the articulation of human rights as conceived by the U.N. councils, ever since Eleonore Roosevelt led the first international assemblies after WW II, have made what should have been more substantive ideas and document(s) for safe-guarding human well-being instead into ethical phantoms of well-wishing.

Moreover, (and what I say from this point isn't so much directed at you, PH, but to everyone), it's that word "practical" that is a problem here, one that becomes a 'wax-nose' for whatever group wants to contort it to its own agendas. And its inherent malleability also allows it to be formed into a battering ram against those 'other' forms of ideology, wherever they may be found--and even if they may be found in something like the Old Testament--that rub up against what the world, in its desperation and wisdom since World War II, thinks it would need to have so as to be socially, ethically and morally 'practical' in today's world.

But, this thread is mainly about looking at the tenuousness of modern human rights thinking and because it is tenuous, we might all want to think more deeply about the philosophical problems that are actually part and parcel of what we think our goals for humanitarianism are and/or can be. For those interested, I propose they start with the following two journal articles for further consideration, and not that these are the end of the deliberation. No, very, very far from the end of it:

Freeman, Michael. "The philosophical foundations of human rights." Hum. Rts. Q. 16 (1994): 491.

Glendon, Mary Ann. "Foundations of human rights: The unfinished business." Am. J. Juris. 44 (1999): 1.

 

[public hermit]

it's that word "practical" that is a problem here, one that becomes a 'wax-nose' for whatever group wants to contort it to its own agendas.

Well, I think you're right. Practical, if it's not tied down to something more substantial than what works at the moment, is going to change and be susceptible to the whims of the one employing it.

But, this thread is mainly about looking at the tenuousness of modern human rights thinking and because it is tenuous, we might all want to think more deeply about the philosophical problems that are actually part and parcel of what we think our goals for humanitarianism are and/or can be. For those interested, I propose they start with the following two journal articles for further consideration, and not that these are the end of the deliberation. No, very, very far from the end of it:

I don't have access to these articles (I don't think). Can you summarize the possibilities they bring out about how to go forward? I think Christians have all the metaphysical underpinnings they need to promote human rights and human dignity. What matters most is for us to work consistently with what we have and embody what we called to be. Do you disagree?