When Do Human Rights Begin?

[St_Worm2]

Also, as your country uses capital punishment the above "rights" isnt "unalienable" in your country.

Hi again VirOptimus, the very same One who told us, "You shall not murder", also told us,

Genesis 9
6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image.​

Of course, you already know that

The unalienable rights given to us by our Creator form the basis for our moral (not immoral) societal interactions. We, in fact, form our governments to insure that these unalienable rights are not infringed upon by others, and to stop and punish those who do.

These rights were put in place to protect the innocent from the guilty, or from individuals or groups who would harm them if they could, not the other way around (nor were these rights intended to protect the guilty from God's or from a just government's judgment, condemnation and punishment for violating the rights of others).

Of course, you already know that too

--David

 

[Freodin]

Hi VirOptimus, I believe that there may be some disagreement about that. For instance:

"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."

~The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (excerpt)
​

--David

So, all "men" (which I assume you want to interpret as every member of the Homo sapiens species) have unalienable Rights, given directly by their Creator.

Among them, the unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty. Thus declared, unanimously, the thirteen united States of America.

These same United States of America endorses capital punishment, needed decades of time as well as a major war to end slavery... and has the - by percentage as well as pure numbers - largest prison population on earth.

I can understand that many people think there are good reasons for all that. But that basically means: you have unalienable Right, as long as someone doesn't decide to take them away from you for good reasons.

 

[Freodin]

Hi again VirOptimus, the very same One who told us, "You shall not murder", also told us,

Genesis 9
6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image.​

Of course, you already know that

The unalienable rights given to us by our Creator form the basis for our moral (not immoral) societal interactions. We, in fact, form our governments to insure that these unalienable rights are not infringed upon by others, and to stop and punish those who do.

These rights were put in place to protect the innocent from the guilty, or from individuals or groups who would harm them if they could, not the other way around (nor were these rights intended to protect the guilty from God's or from a just government's judgment, condemnation and punishment for violating the rights of others).

Of course, you already know that too

--David

As I said: I can understand that people think there are good reasons for all that. Some - many - disagree just what these "good reasons" are in particular.

But that doesn't solve the basic problem here: this means that your "inalienable rights" are, in fact, alienable, under certain circumstances that you don't get to decide.

It is always someone else who - good reasons or not - decided that here and now in this case, your "inalienable rights" are forfeit.

I repeat again: I can understand the reason for that approach. But this is a clear contradiction to the idea of "inalienable rights", and it is also the precendent for the idea of "rights" being subject to certain circumstances.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hi again VirOptimus, the very same One who told us, "You shall not murder", also told us,

Genesis 9
6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image.​

Of course, you already know that

The unalienable rights given to us by our Creator form the basis for our moral (not immoral) societal interactions. We, in fact, form our governments to insure that these unalienable rights are not infringed upon by others, and to stop and punish those who do.

These rights were put in place to protect the innocent from the guilty, or from individuals or groups who would harm them if they could, not the other way around (nor were these rights intended to protect the guilty from God's or from a just government's judgment, condemnation and punishment for violating the rights of others).

Of course, you already know that too

--David

As an atheist I dont care for the bible but I think its pretty clear that the author of the Ten Commandments is not the same person who wrote genesis.

Byt es, I'm well versed in christian theology and moral philosophy in general. Doesnt change the fact that rights are by definition what the law states.

 

[Tree of Life]

As an atheist I dont care for the bible but I think its pretty clear that the author of the Ten Commandments is not the same person who wrote genesis.

Byt es, I'm well versed in christian theology and moral philosophy in general. Doesnt change the fact that rights are by definition what the law states.

How can we talk about human rights violations when people are being abused under legal situations where they have no legal rights? Many think that what our administration is doing with migrants amounts to human rights violations even though migrants to our country don't have any legal rights.

 

[VirOptimus]

How can we talk about human rights violations when people are being abused under legal situations where they have no legal rights? Many think that what our administration is doing with migrants amounts to human rights violations even though migrants to our country don't have any legal rights.

Because there are legal writings about human rights (f.ex. in UN conventions and the european convention of human rights).

 

[jayem]

@miamited God says "Ye shall not murder". Does this not imply a God-given right to life? God says: "Ye shall not steal". Does this not imply a God-given right to property? Paul teaches that husbands and wives have conjugal rights. Are these not given by God?

Every society decides by consensus what privileges and entitlements their members possess. And also what limits are placed thereupon. This decision may be based on tribal traditions, or on objective sociological study, or--as you posted--on religious scripture. But in the end, they are all arbitrary decisions. It's just as arbitrary to claim that rights are granted by a supernatural god as it is to base them on non-theistic human psychology. What matters is how it works in practice. Does our concept of human rights result--to the greatest degree possible--in a safe, stable, thriving, productive, and happy society for everyone?

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Human rights are granted at birth. They are conferred by other humans. While I believe in God, I believe God is to us, what we are to ants and "human rights" isn't something on his radar.

Human rights are a social construct that vary widely depending on the society in which you live. And considering the rates of human rights abuses, God doesn't much care.

 

[Tree of Life]

Because there are legal writings about human rights (f.ex. in UN conventions and the european convention of human rights).

Was the kidnapping of Africans and selling them into slavery in the US colonies a violation of their human rights?

 

[durangodawood]

I'm talking about essential human rights....

We deny full rights to all minors under parental supervision. Rights of mobility, assembly, speech, property, and many others are not presumed to vest fully in minors. We permit parents to curtail them.

I think thats reasonable.

 

[Tree of Life]

We deny full rights to all minors under parental supervision. Rights of mobility, assembly, speech, property, and many others are not presumed to vest fully in minors. We permit parents to curtail them.

I think thats reasonable.

I agree. But parents do not have absolute authority over their children. They maintain some essential rights like bodily autonomy (they cannot be physically or sexually abused).

 

[quatona]

Was the kidnapping of Africans and selling them into slavery in the US colonies a violation of their human rights?

If applying the criteria of said conventions? Yes.

 

[Tree of Life]

If applying the criteria of said conventions? Yes.

But there was no government that was giving them any rights. Where did they get them from?

 

[quatona]

But there was no government that was giving them any rights. Where did they get them from?

Quite obviously they didn´t have them, back then. Or else we wouldn´t wish they had been granted them.

 

[Tree of Life]

Quite obviously they didn´t have them, back then. Or else we wouldn´t wish they had been granted them.

Ah understood. According to your view, those African slaves did not have any human rights. Therefore their rights were not violated when they were kidnapped and sold into slavery.

 

[gaara4158]

So, there are rights we think we ought to have, and then there are the rights that we effectively have. Which is OP asking about? This will determine how I answer the question.

 

[Tone]

Hi VirOptimus, I believe that there may be some disagreement about that. For instance:

"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."

~The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (excerpt)
​

--David

Exactly, which is why I told another atheist recently, that they could not enjoy any "human right", specifically "universal human rights" without Christianity.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

As an atheist I dont care for the bible but I think its pretty clear that the author of the Ten Commandments is not the same person who wrote genesis.

Byt es, I'm well versed in christian theology and moral philosophy in general. Doesnt change the fact that rights are by definition what the law states.

Why would a proud atheist who doesn't care for the Bible join and or participate in a Christian forum?

OT: The baby has the right to live.

 

[quatona]

Ah understood. According to your view, those African slaves did not have any human rights. Therefore their rights were not violated when they were kidnapped and sold into slavery.

No, not quite understood. It´s not about my opinion, it´s about the observation of the fact that they hadn´t been granted these legal rights - therefore effectively didn´t have them.
If, however you are asking what - "according to my view" - rights people should be legally granted that´s a completely different question.

 

[Freodin]

Ah understood. According to your view, those African slaves did not have any human rights. Therefore their rights were not violated when they were kidnapped and sold into slavery.

Consider this: how would you be able to determine if a human had or had not a specific "right"?

Not decide that they had. Not declare that they ought to have. Just find out if they have it.

How would you do that?