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

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,127
Los Angeles Area
✟820,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
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.

It can't be objectively right or wrong, no. That's not the kind of statement that moral statements are. It is enough for me that I believe it is wrong.

(Getting back to the question of rights. If rights were objective then they wouldn't change with society. So assuming that everyone has the right to be free, they always had that right. Nobody freed the slaves; they were free all along, because no one could grant them the right of freedom. If a slave actually had an objective right to be free, while she was born in slavery, lived in slavery, and died in slavery, then it is an objective thing not worth having.)
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,733
57
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟119,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
This question is addressed particularly to the non-theist. Does human rights actually exist?

They apply.

Or are they merely an invention of our own design?

They are inventions! However, they are designed in recognition of facts of human existence. They are not pure inventions in the sense of flights of fancy. Even a rocket, while an invention, is designed with reality in mind -- or else it wouldn't fly.

Are human rights objectively established, or are they relative?

I'd say objective. At least, they strive to be.

Or do I dare to say that they are "God given"?

Why? There's no need.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Freodin
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,643.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
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?

For the same reason we have the "right" to impose our ideas of murder being wrong on our own country. i.e. We can show reasoning why we feel it is wrong and try to convince others we are correct. If we convince enough people things slowly change.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,643.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
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.

I disagree. I can think of several reasons why slavery can be considered wrong regardless of human rights being subjective.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
In the history of mankind, what we call "human rights" have never applied to all people; they only apply to the people in the society of which the term is used.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
If humans are special because they were created in the image of God, if intelligent life were discovered on another planet, and they looked different than us; should we assume we are superior to them because we are in God's image and they are not? Should they be seen, and treated as we see and treat a typical beast of the field that is not in the image of God?
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If humans are special because they were created in the image of God, if intelligent life were discovered on another planet, and they looked different than us; should we assume we are superior to them because we are in God's image and they are not? Should they be seen, and treated as we see and treat a typical beast of the field that is not in the image of God?

That assumes that the 'image' refers only to physiology.
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,606
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,468.00
Faith
Atheist
That assumes that the 'image' refers only to physiology.
You say that, but ... when I was a Christian I was in a discussion about what it means that we'll have bodies in heaven. My interlocutor said, "Of course, we'll have physical bodies. How else will we bend the knee."

Another time, a male friend (in a male group) said, "Of course God is male." And I replied, "Really? How big is his penis?"

I agree with you that assuming physiology is short sighted, but I'd wager that a lack of imagination is endemic to Christendom (admittedly, to the human race).
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
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"?

Why do you ask? What does it matter? How is this any different than asking...

'Does human [economics] actually exist? Or are they merely an invention of our own design? Are human [economics] objectively established, or are they relative? Or do I dare to say that they are "God given"?'

(or)

'Does human [politics] actually exist? Or are they merely an invention of our own design? Are human [politics] objectively established, or are they relative? Or do I dare to say that they are "God given"?'

Does an ultimate answer to the 'moral' question get you any closer to the meaning of life?
 
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
I disagree. I can think of several reasons why slavery can be considered wrong regardless of human rights being subjective.
Then it would no longer be subjectively wrong. In this case, human rights wouldn't be a subjective invention of humanity. Rather, humanity, as we evolved, came to the gradual realization of the objective existence of human rights.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Then it would no longer be subjectively wrong. In this case, human rights wouldn't be a subjective invention of humanity. Rather, humanity, as we evolved, came to the gradual realization of the objective existence of human rights.

Fast forwarding to the end, it can be concluded that if Yahweh exists, He considers slavery to be 'a okay' in His book.

The conflict then prevails... Are humans becoming increasingly perverse, as they steadily increase in their staunch disagreement to God's acceptance of slavery, that slavery is instead 'wrong'? Because remember, if humans receive their 'moral compass' from the likes of God, then wouldn't we objectively and eternally consider slavery acceptable, like some will assert we inherently know theft and murder are not acceptable - (even though many will do so anyways, but in the 'back of their brain', know they are 'wrong')?

According to Yahweh, slavery would be an act, like any other mundane acceptable act - indifferent...
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,127
Los Angeles Area
✟820,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Then it would no longer be subjectively wrong. In this case, human rights wouldn't be a subjective invention of humanity. Rather, humanity, as we evolved, came to the gradual realization of the objective existence of human rights.

I think Belk is drawing a line between morality (which he believes can have objective answers, such as that slavery is wrong) and 'human rights', which are legal fictions drawn up by human beings.
 
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
I think Belk is drawing a line between morality (which he believes can have objective answers, such as that slavery is wrong) and 'human rights', which are legal fictions drawn up by human beings.
Oh. I see. I apologize for my confusion.
 
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

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
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).
So it looks like rights are..... teachings or commands written down in religious scripture. Is that it?

What disturbs me about that is: then rights are contingent on your religious faith. I prefer a derivation of rights thats a little more demonstrable, as we have to share this world with people of many faiths, or none.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,643.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Then it would no longer be subjectively wrong. In this case, human rights wouldn't be a subjective invention of humanity. Rather, humanity, as we evolved, came to the gradual realization of the objective existence of human rights.

Yes, it would still be subjectively wrong. You see if we build consensus based on convincing reasoning then the fact that it is subjective is not really relevant. You seem to be demanding black and white thinking when we live in the world with it's myriad shades of color. Why would something have to be objectively wrong before we try to change it?
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,643.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I think Belk is drawing a line between morality (which he believes can have objective answers, such as that slavery is wrong) and 'human rights', which are legal fictions drawn up by human beings.
Close. I'm pointing out that simply because things are subjective does not mean we can't try to implement change.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You say that, but ... when I was a Christian I was in a discussion about what it means that we'll have bodies in heaven. My interlocutor said, "Of course, we'll have physical bodies. How else will we bend the knee."

Sounds like hell to me.
 
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

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I disagree. I can think of several reasons why slavery can be considered wrong regardless of human rights being subjective.
I contend those reasons you can think of why slavery can be considered wrong, are all subjective reasons. Do you agree?
 
Upvote 0