Human Rights

[cantata]

People talk about Human Rights a lot on CF - Christian and non-Christian alike. Even the most staunch moral non-realist seems to feel uncomfortable about questioning the notion of Human Rights. Yet I find myself utterly bemused by them. I'd be grateful for an explanation.

What are Human Rights?
How did we get them?
How do we know what they are?
Why are we obliged to respect them?

 

[stan1980]

I'm not a legal beagal so I'll leave it for someone else to go over the legalities and stuff of human rights. Far too boring for me to research. If I get arrested I have the right to remain silent. Very kind of the government to grant me that. Oh, and I get a phone call too!

I suspect you are more interested in natural rights (if there is any distinction), for example, "the foetus has a right to live". I was going to say God or someone grants these, but I'm not sure if that is true, because if it was, God hasn't done a very good job of it. Clearly, rights are imaginary, and only exist in the mind (a bit like God I suppose). Don't let it get to you!

 

[billwald]

There is not such thing as "rights" except legal rights.

 

[Polycarp1]

People talk about Human Rights a lot on CF - Christian and non-Christian alike. Even the most staunch moral non-realist seems to feel uncomfortable about questioning the notion of Human Rights. Yet I find myself utterly bemused by them. I'd be grateful for an explanation.

What are Human Rights?
How did we get them?
How do we know what they are?
Why are we obliged to respect them?

Perhaps the most famous avowed Deist (i.e., not a Christian by the CF definition) in American history might provide the answer you're looking for:

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....

It's been 232 years and 2 months since he penned those words, but I believe they remain the best statement in history of what will answer your questions.

 

[TeddyKGB]

There is not such thing as "rights" except legal rights.

This, for the most part. I suppose there is a certain amount of self-interest/guilt at work, but the only tangible consequences of violating rights are prison, money, and death.

 

[cantata]

It's been 232 years and 2 months since he penned those words, but I believe they remain the best statement in history of what will answer your questions.

His answer was "It's self-evident." If it were self-evident, he wouldn't have needed to say it. I must say, I find the idea that a god bestowed a mysterious quality upon human beings, such that one inherently ought to treat them in a particular way, is one of the least self-evident notions I can think of.

How do we know what rights we have?
In what sense do we "have" them?
How do they supervene on reality? (That is to say, how do they actually affect our lives?)

 

[jayem]

What we call "rights" comes partly from our biology, and partly from societal consensus. Human beings evolved as social primates, living in groups. For group living to succeed, certain behaviors are necessary. Like not killing or injuring one's tribe members, and not stealing their food. And acting cooperatively. Evolution has thus given humans a degree of natural inhibition to wantonly killing or stealing from each other. And we've also evolved some tendency to show empathy to our fellows and treat them accordingly. Obviously these tendencies vary from person to person. But in general, we agree that there are certain privileges due to everyone, simply by being a member of society. Recognizing this allows all of us to thrive as a social species (i.e., the social contract.) Fundamentally, this is instinctual and derives from natural selection. It is then modified by different cultures, and at the conscious level is accepted by societal consensus. Intellectually, we call it "human rights." But they come partly from evolution, and partly from our conscious agreement to observe them.

 

[Bombila]

Jayem's response is pretty close to the one I would give. We've added a lot of peripheral rights to those rights that are so basic any human can agree with them, and that is also in the nature of humans - we are the social decorators of the primate family, never content with the social status quo.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think jayem is on the right, if someone tortuous*, track. I would like to suggest that the concept of human rights is tied irrevocably into the idea of government, and that human rights constitutes those necessities that must be fulfilled before one can participate meaningfully in government.**



*gre word
**i actually talk like this

 

[keith99]

His answer was "It's self-evident." If it were self-evident, he wouldn't have needed to say it. I must say, I find the idea that a god bestowed a mysterious quality upon human beings, such that one inherently ought to treat them in a particular way, is one of the least self-evident notions I can think of.

How do we know what rights we have?
In what sense do we "have" them?
How do they supervene on reality? (That is to say, how do they actually affect our lives?)

I'll stand with Heinlein, there is no such thing. What we often do have is a social contract where all members of a group obtain certian 'rights'. Of course they have these rights only as long as the group can protect them, both from within and without.

Life? Sorry we all die. Much as I sometimes claim I will be an exception I find it likely I will die.

Liberty? Men have had liberty taken from them at all times and all places.

But Jeffersons words do make sense, at least if one stands back just a little. There was such a social contract, between England and it's citizens. England was holding up it's end of the bargain. Jeffersons words are making that point and implied is that all men want these things and if England will not provide them then perhaps another social group will, without saying it in a way that would have been clearly treasonous.

 

[Polycarp1]

Um... I may have hijacked the thread a bit -- but I stand by my answer. The common consensus among those who thought about such things at the time, in the late 18th Century, was that natural law and natural rights did exist, though not in the sense in which they are often spoken of by the Radical Right today.

There exists in Latin (universally known by the educated then) a verb form known as the gerundive, used in the passive periphrastic construction. The significance of this verb form and construction was to say in a word what was proper, what ought to be done. A good example is the final word in the phrase abbreviated Q.E.D. used at the end of proofs -- the full phrase is quod erat demonstrandum -- "which was (properly set) to be demonstated."

The attitude was: These rights exist, are inherent in the condition of being human and part of an organized society. The proper role of government is to recognize, guarantee, and defend those rights. If, Jefferson went on to say, a government fails to do so, as George III's Government under Lord North was failing to do for the American colonies, then the proper course for society to take is to turn out such a government and replace it with one which will do its proper job. The whole Declaration is at the same time a statement of defiance to the British Government of the day and a carefully crafted, logical argument founded on universally held principles as to why that course was in fact proper.

But to get back to the basic question -- the Rights of Man, as understood then and now, are not subject to enumeration. Rather, they derive from the concept of liberty -- that a free individual has the right to do whatever he lists within the bounds of the society in which he lives. And the limits to liberty are, interestingly, those of the Golden Rule, in its negative formulation: Whatsoever you would desire not be done to you, do not do the same unto others.

Don't want to be shot and killed? Then don't shoot and kill others. Don't want to be stolen from? Then don't steal from others. Don't want someone to sneak in and seduce your wife? Then don't do it to someone else's wife. Want to be able to go places freely without being assaulted? Then don't bully and assault others. Wish to worship God in the way you feel proper -- or not, if you so choose? Then accord others the same right. Wish to be able to marry the person you love? Then allow others to do so as well with the person they love. And so on. It's not a shopping list of specific rights, it's a formulary for living together in a society as free people.

 

[Polycarp1]

Um... I may have hijacked the thread a bit -- but I stand by my answer. The common consensus among those who thought about such things at the time, in the late 18th Century, was that natural law and natural rights did exist, though not in the sense in which they are often spoken of by the Radical Right today.

There exists in Latin (universally known by the educated then) a verb form known as the gerundive, used in the passive periphrastic construction. The significance of this verb form and construction was to say in a word what was proper, what ought to be done. A good example is the final word in the phrase abbreviated Q.E.D. used at the end of proofs -- the full phrase is quod erat demonstrandum -- "which was (properly set) to be demonstated."

The attitude was: These rights exist, are inherent in the condition of being human and part of an organized society. The proper role of government is to recognize, guarantee, and defend those rights. If, Jefferson went on to say, a government fails to do so, as George III's Government under Lord North was failing to do for the American colonies, then the proper course for society to take is to turn out such a government and replace it with one which will do its proper job. The whole Declaration is at the same time a statement of defiance to the British Government of the day and a carefully crafted, logical argument founded on universally held principles as to why that course was in fact proper.

But to get back to the basic question -- the Rights of Man, as understood then and now, are not subject to enumeration. Rather, they derive from the concept of liberty -- that a free individual has the right to do whatever he lists within the bounds of the society in which he lives. And the limits to liberty are, interestingly, those of the Golden Rule, in its negative formulation: Whatsoever you would desire not be done to you, do not do the same unto others.

Don't want to be shot and killed? Then don't shoot and kill others. Don't want to be stolen from? Then don't steal from others. Don't want someone to sneak in and seduce your wife? Then don't do it to someone else's wife. Want to be able to go places freely without being assaulted? Then don't bully and assault others. Wish to worship God in the way you feel proper -- or not, if you so choose? Then accord others the same right. Wish to be able to marry the person you love? Then allow others to do so as well with the person they love. And so on. It's not a shopping list of specific rights, it's a formulary for living together in a society as free people.

 

[keith99]

.....

But to get back to the basic question -- the Rights of Man, as understood then and now, are not subject to enumeration. Rather, they derive from the concept of liberty -- that a free individual has the right to do whatever he lists within the bounds of the society in which he lives. And the limits to liberty are, interestingly, those of the Golden Rule, in its negative formulation: Whatsoever you would desire not be done to you, do not do the same unto others.

Don't want to be shot and killed? Then don't shoot and kill others. Don't want to be stolen from? Then don't steal from others. Don't want someone to sneak in and seduce your wife? Then don't do it to someone else's wife. Want to be able to go places freely without being assaulted? Then don't bully and assault others. Wish to worship God in the way you feel proper -- or not, if you so choose? Then accord others the same right. Wish to be able to marry the person you love? Then allow others to do so as well with the person they love. And so on. It's not a shopping list of specific rights, it's a formulary for living together in a society as free people.

Notice how these rights are linked to their implimentation. They are rather unlike other 'rights' like health care, food or shelter. With the kind of right you spoke of there is no issue of who gets it when times are tight, no question of who gets that last loaf of bread. If the right is there for one it is there for all. If it is taken from one it is endangered for all.

 

[Polycarp1]

You know, Keith, we're not as far apart as we may seem from our wording. I'm working from Jefferson's metaphysics (if you can call it that), you from Heinlein's pragmatism (you didn't mention it, but I suspect you're heavily referencing "The Pragmatics of Patriotism," right?). But -- and this is interesting -- we're arriving at the same conclusions.

 

[platzapS]

People talk about Human Rights a lot on CF - Christian and non-Christian alike. Even the most staunch moral non-realist seems to feel uncomfortable about questioning the notion of Human Rights. Yet I find myself utterly bemused by them. I'd be grateful for an explanation.

What are Human Rights?
How did we get them?
How do we know what they are?
Why are we obliged to respect them?

1. Human rights are things that every human is entitled to, like freedom from government interference in their speech and peaceful religious practices, and fair and swift trials if they are accused.

2. It tends to be that in societies where "human rights" are respected, people tend to be happier and even those who with great hardships at least feel like they have a chance.

3. Trial and error and experience. I guess it's just a codified expression of the golden rule, applied to politics and society.

4. We should respect and protect them for others, because ultimately it will probably benefit us and the ones we love when our "rights" are under attack.

 

[GrayCat]

People talk about Human Rights a lot on CF - Christian and non-Christian alike. Even the most staunch moral non-realist seems to feel uncomfortable about questioning the notion of Human Rights. Yet I find myself utterly bemused by them. I'd be grateful for an explanation.

What are Human Rights?
How did we get them?
How do we know what they are?
Why are we obliged to respect them?

The concept of what is a human right and what is not, differs among societies and individuals. We construct these idea's across time.


I personally believe that freedom and individual choice are the most fundamental human rights.

 

[quatona]

What are Human Rights?

Liberties of which the person speaking feels they ought to be granted to every individual human in every society.

How did we get them?

If and when our environment is willing to grant them to us.

How do we know what they are?

Hopefully the person speaking will explain what she means when saying Human Rights or refer to a document that explains the notion she shares.

Why are we obliged to respect them?

I guess persons who operate with the term Human Rights are hoping that the benefits of what they include in this term are immediately intelligible to us.

 

[cantata]

I don't want you all to think I'm an inhumane sort of person for questioning the notion of human rights. The reason I wish to do so is as follows:

I am reasonably comfortable with the framing of our empathetic desires - that is, our desires for the wellbeing of other people - in terms of "rights". I take it that when someone says, "Everyone has a right to freedom from government interference with their speech," what they mean is that they would like it if everyone were free from government interference with their speech. That's absolutely fine. I understand that people want to place more authority and value in what they consider their more noble desires than simply saying that they want this or that. I should think that they also want to emphasise that they have those desires because they have empathetic feelings and desire others' wellbeing directly, rather than because they think the object of their desire would be primarily advantageous to them (and only incidentally beneficial to others).

The problem is that although talk of "rights" is all very fine and good when you wish to make a point about just how strongly you feel that the world should be this way rather than that, people tend to think that there's some more substantial quality to the ideological privileges that they designate "rights". They tend to think, in fact, that there are objective rights, that the property of having a right lies not in what privileges or concessions are bestowed on you or desired for you by your fellow human beings, but in being human itself. It is the natural inclination of our species to "make official" our mere sympathies, to project what we regard as our finer feelings onto reality. And this is problematic because people then attempt to apply the notion of rights to situations in which our natural empathies are not inspired.

The reason that I ask questions like "How does the existence of rights supervene upon our existence?" is because I wish to draw attention to the fact that rights do not exist except insofar as human beings believe that they do and act as if they do. You cannot see a right. We are not endowed with rights-detectors that make us able to discern that someone has a right or that someone's rights are being violated. What we actually have is simply empathy. We are deeply troubled by the curtailment of a person's freedom, by the taking of a person's life, and by the deliberate causing of suffering to a person. So it is that we feel people have rights not to experience these things. But trying to undertake some kind of moral reasoning from the premise that rights are universal is a fruitless exercise, because, to repeat, rights exist only when we deign to apply them.

 

[quatona]

I tend to think that the idea of "Human Rights" is a manifestation of the wish (dream?) that we all could unversally agree on at least a few basic ethical principles that then could not be questioned nor had to be argued for anymore. A little bit of undisputed and undisputable common ground, just a few shared premises and paradigms that - due to universal agreement - would be consider so cut in stone that "It´s a Human Right" in itself would suffice as an argument.

On a slightly related note (I don´t want to derail the thread, though) I think there is another problem with the idea of "Unalienable Rights" or "Human Rights". Even those who operate with this term usually do not at all think these "rights" are unalienable or should be granted to every human. Soon following the attempt to establish the idea of such rights are attempts to qualify them ("unless they are criminals", "unless allowing them these rights poses a danger", "unless they are underaged", "unless there´s war" etc. etc.).

 

[platzapS]

Rights

Yeah, rights are slippery-er than we usually think of them. I don't think you're an inhuman monster for questioning human rights, because I agree with you that there's no divine tablet given to us specifying that THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS ARE UNQUESTIONABLE. You actually seem like one of the most compassionate people on the forum .