The West's monopoly on rights

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It is not uncommon to hear people say things like "human rights are a Western invention".

Other people insist that human rights are not a Western invention. Basically, I think that they are saying that they believe in natural rights.

Maybe both are wrong.


"Rights, of course, are a human construct, so technically speaking there is no such thing as “natural” rights. At most there are natural desires (to life, property, happiness, and so on), and which of these — if any — we codify into rights is a matter of human reflection and agreement..." http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/12/about-objectivism-part-iv-politics.html


But whose reflection and agreement?

Maybe the problem with universal human rights is not that they are the product of one civilization that is trying to coerce/force other civilizations to embrace them. Maybe the problem is that the process through which human rights have been codified has been extremely ethnocentric and dominated by the West.

In other words, if everybody, not just Westerners, had an equal voice in codifying rights would rights look the same?

Wouldn't rights that everybody contributes to the codification of and represent all peoples and cultures be better, even if they end up different--even if it turns out there is, say, no right to a jury trial?

 

[quatona]

The good part about rights you don´t like to have is: You are under no obligation to take advantage of them.

 

[Mystman]

Wouldn't rights that everybody contributes to the codification of and represent all peoples and cultures be better, even if they end up different--even if it turns out there is, say, no right to a jury trial?

In general, more viewpoints can help make better decisions, but sometimes different viewpoints are just incompatible. Human rights wouldn't "improve" if ISIL was allowed to have a say in them.

That, and the west in the past ~500 years just has a freer, more developed, more dynamic market place of ideas than most other places in the world. It isn't controversial to state that due to our advances in technology, a modern western house is objectively superior (in terms of providing shelter, a place to store your stuff and food, etc) to some mud hut in Africa. Then why _is_ it controversial to state that due to our advances in philosophy, our concept of rights is superior to that of the goat herder living in said mud hut?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

That, and the west in the past ~500 years just has a freer, more developed, more dynamic market place of ideas than most other places in the world. It isn't controversial to state that due to our advances in technology, a modern western house is objectively superior (in terms of providing shelter, a place to store your stuff and food, etc) to some mud hut in Africa. Then why _is_ it controversial to state that due to our advances in philosophy, our concept of rights is superior to that of the goat herder living in said mud hut?

I think that all of that is internally inconsistent.

The West has oppressed the non-West and developed with resources stolen from the non-West. To say that an oppressor is superior to the people it is oppressing and is therefore better positioned to be a global model for being non-oppressive is absurd.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not uncommon to hear people say things like "human rights are a Western invention".

Other people insist that human rights are not a Western invention. Basically, I think that they are saying that they believe in natural rights.

I view it a bit differently. Philosophers in the West have made an argument in support of what they describe as natural rights. It's a pretty good argument. It is founded on simple principles of empathy and reason, and could be boiled down to what most people call the Golden Rule: Treat others as you want to be treated. Would you want your property to be taken from you? Probably not. Therefore, a just government will protect property. Would you want to be enslaved? Probably not. Therefore, a just government will protect the right to personal freedoms.

It is really the argument that groups who disagree with Western philosophies need to address.

 

[Dave-W]

It is not uncommon to hear people say things like "human rights are a Western invention".

I think Chairman Mao said that in response to UN allegations of "human rights abuses" in China.

In general, more viewpoints can help make better decisions,

How do you think it would have been different if China had been at the table drawing up the UN statement on human rights?

 

[Mystman]

I think that all of that is internally inconsistent.

The West has oppressed the non-West and developed with resources stolen from the non-West. To say that an oppressor is superior to the people it is oppressing and is therefore better positioned to be a global model for being non-oppressive is absurd.

You can call it absurd, but look at the evidence. Judging by the rights the culture/government gives you, would you rather be a citizen of a western country, or some country in the Middle-East or Africa? If the latter: are you planning to move?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Judging by the rights the culture/government gives you, would you rather be a citizen of a western country, or some country in the Middle-East or Africa?...

That is like saying, "If one person offers to give you $1.00 out of the $100.00 dollars he has stolen from others and another person offers to give you $0.01 out of what he has left over after the former stole from him, which offer would you accept?"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Rights and freedoms are for a people prepared for those rights and freedoms. Western culture has been preparing for freedom for millennia while the rest of the world remained enslaved, if only to their traditions.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't think 'rights' which were more representative of other cultures would be better. The West is currently more advanced, free, and fair than most other places. Not that it is perfect, or has nothing to learn.

I don't think all cultures are equal and have the same number of good ideas.

 

[Dave-W]

The West is currently more advanced, free, and fair than most other places. Not that it is perfect, or has nothing to learn.

I am sure the Chinese would not agree.

 

[Paradoxum]

I am sure the Chinese would not agree.

It's irrelevant if they agree. What matters is who is right.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am sure the Chinese would not agree.

A people can be very advanced materially but still enslaved to long held social traditions and superstitions.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"Rights " are a political construct.

They need institutions, money, lawyers, etc to exist.

Theyre not "naturally existent" by some form of natural law, discovered like gravity. That would be a human rights myth, and the less of those shenannigins the more I might trust you all.

Ok, it might help you sell the idea to the ignorant and unlettered, but a scam is still a scam.

I dont mean rights are bad in anty sense, only they're "artificial" or cultural things. So, in that light no we dont have a monopoly on rights, just like we dont have a monopoly on driving laws, taxation rules, courtroom standards etc etc etc.

And even if we did, and ruled all the world, rights would still be cultural, plastic, malleable, changeable.

Perhaps though, we do have rights to a degree, but certain clases of people have more rights than others. "We bring you freedom" said Bush, but there are cases in the west where people cant use courts out of fear, cant change faith out of fear, cant express religious, political or moral opinions out of fear etc.

Even if the rights are there in the letter of the law, on the ground, away from acedemia, peoples lives can be vastly different. Even here in the "free world".

 

[Eric Ericson]

Human rights are a rational human invention. The UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) was brought into fruition by such humans and agreed upon by many others.

"On 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favor, none against, and eight abstentions (the Soviet Union, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Poland, Union of South Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). Honduras and Yemen—both members of UN at the time—failed to vote or abstain." - Wikipedia


Since human rights have basis in human rationality, the common ground, every rationally driven human had an equal voice in codifying the rights. Anything outside of reason has no basis in codifying rights. Cultural differences not based within rationality are therefore irrelevant, and yet they are protected by the UDHR insofar as they don't violate any of the statutes therein. The common ground was already established way before it was ever codified. It was just a matter of documenting it and garnering consensus.

Take note of those who did not sign and for what reasons. Some Muslim countries, for example, offered an alternative declaration of their own, the CDHRI (Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam) as Many Islamic values placed limitations on certain rights, particularly that of women and religion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There are natural human rights. However one must have the freedom to exercise them. For example everyone has the right to speak against the State, however we might not have the freedom to do so publically without repercussions.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think the West can seem arrogant inflated. Rights may be ok in principle but
often they seem to be used in the psychodynamics (deep psychology) and smoke and mirrors of international affairs.

I mean there are human rights abuses all over, but the focus will somewtimes be where it serves a nations strategic interests.

So rights in iran are mentioned more than rights in a more plolitically aligned nation, I think.

eg

Iran has dismissed as “politically-motivated” a UN resolution critical of the country’s human rights record, saying Tehran attaches no value to any resolution adopted based on ulterior political motives. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/20/438458/Iran-UN-General-Assembly-human-rights-Jaberi-Ansari

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Human rights without the balancing effect of personal and corporate responsibility isn't conducive to an orderly society. Someone exercising their right to zig on the highway causes everyone else to zag. Not good.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the West can seem arrogant inflated. Rights may be ok in principle but
often they seem to be used in the psychodynamics (deep psychology) and smoke and mirrors of international affairs.

I mean there are human rights abuses all over, but the focus will somewtimes be where it serves a nations strategic interests.

So rights in iran are mentioned more than rights in a more plolitically aligned nation, I think.

eg

Iran has dismissed as “politically-motivated” a UN resolution critical of the country’s human rights record, saying Tehran attaches no value to any resolution adopted based on ulterior political motives. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/20/438458/Iran-UN-General-Assembly-human-rights-Jaberi-Ansari

Imperfect application of rights and justice does not make them go away.

 

[Dave-W]

It's irrelevant if they agree. What matters is who is right.

And who is the arbiter to decide independently which one is "right?"