Are Human Rights Truly Compatible or Just a Matter of Semantics?

  • News
  • Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date
In summary: The question asks if it is possible to invent a social construct which maximizes well-being in individuals, not if it is possible to find a social construct which maximizes well-being in individuals.
  • #71
Al68 said:
Totally agree. The idea espoused by some that animals have rights comparable to those of humans is preposterous. But my point that animals could have rights, at least in principle, was in the context of determining the source of those rights, not a context of whether humans are obligated to recognize or protect those rights.

Yet while we may be the dominant species of animal on our planet, should not other animals have rights? If so, to what extent?

I didn't thump that cougar during my encounter with him, although I could have. As it was, it was an interesting encounter! Sort of a mutual understanding. Of what, I'm not quite sure! Still, he (she?) didn't attack, and we just sort of interacted.

Mutual respect? Perhaps the cougar and I were both sensing a mutual wariness. Perhaps the cougar was sensing more than I could. Their sense of smell is much better than ours. I'm sure they can smell fear (which I had in abundance), but can they also smell the fact that had it attacked me I'd have done some rather unspeakable things to in while defending myself? I was certainly thinking about it, just as I'm sure it was sizing me up, as well.

I think most animals can sense much more than most of us humans. We may have brains, but they have to rely on their instincts. We may not have teeth or claws, but even small women are not exactly informidable, and some have defeated mountain lions with their bare hands.

Back to being harmonius, whether between us humans or with our animal relatives, I think we'd all be much better off...

But wait? What about us meat-eaters? Cattle, horses and sheep are not. Dogs, wolves, and we humans, however, are.

Well, most of us. I enjoy a good steak from time to time...

Interestingly enough, we humans have one of the most diverse appetites on the planet, a factor I believe is just as responsible for our still being here as our brains.

So how do I reconcile this with being harmonius?

Hmm...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Al68 said:
OK, you acknowledged the possibility that animals could have rights, which I agree with. Would you agree that an elephant, for example, had the same rights 2 million years ago that an elephant has today? And if so, what was the source of those rights?

I don't believe in rights... I believe that an elephant has no rights! They don't NEED to have rights for us not to kill them, and eat them, just like we don't need anything except the CAPACITY to defend ourselves from an elephant if that's what comes down to it.
 
  • #73
mugaliens said:
This summer I ran into a cougar, near the creek running by our apartment complex. Scary? Heck yes!

Somewhere along the line, though, mankind became the dominant species on our planet. I know it. The cougar knew it (thank God), as did the bear I ran into a few years back, and the wolf, a couple of years before then.

I think they get it. Mostly, anyway.

I've never run into a wild elephant, though. I don't think I'd care to, either, and firmly believe I'd be toast! African crocodiles are similarly not on my list of "friendly species."

Here in the U.S., we've largely domesticated our wildlife, if not simply pushed them into the great white north.

Still, I've kayaked with killer whales, swam with dolphins, barracudas, and sharks (never a great white, though! Thankfully)

Honestly, seals scare me more than sharks. They are so dang smart! They could have easily taken me apart six ways to Sunday. But they didn't. They simply swam alongside me as I kayaked (a different trip than the killer whale trip) in So. California.

Why is that? Why is it that most of our interaction with other animals tends to involve mutual respect?

Getting back to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3068147&postcount=1", I'm not really sure I get it. Russ Waters, post #2, seemed to be scratching his head, as well.

Meanwhile "the rights to be harmonious" is a very nebulous statement, so if others here have piggybacked on whatever they thought it meant and ran off with a tangent, more power to them! Robert A. Heinlein was a staunch supporter of "bull sessions," whereby college students would sit around debating whatever came to mind, so in that spirt, let's carry on. :)

I'd like to be harmonious myself, but quite frankly, I cannot. It's not in my nature to relinquish my beliefs, particularly when so many of them came at such a dear price.

If anything, this may be what separates us from the other animals on our planet.

Amen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
mugaliens said:
Yet while we may be the dominant species of animal on our planet, should not other animals have rights?
Before rights come responsibilities. Animals can not take responsibility, thus neither can they have rights. People have responsibilities and rights; with dominion over the natural world also comes the responsibility to conserve it.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
mheslep said:
Before rights come responsibilities. Animals can not take responsibility, thus neither can they have rights. People have responsibilities and rights; with the right to dominion over the natural world also comes the responsibility to conserve it.

We have dominion over the natural world? I'm sorry, but until I see proof that we can live in an artificial biosphere, the only dominion we have is our nearly viral replication and exploitation.

We're constantly at the mercy of microscopic organisms, we're host to more, and eventually they eat us. I think "dominion" is getting needlessly biblical and grand.
 
  • #76
nismaratwork said:
We have dominion over the natural world? I'm sorry, but until I see proof that we can live in an artificial biosphere, the only dominion we have is our nearly viral replication and exploitation.

I don't see why artificiality is a requisite for domination.
 
  • #77
FlexGunship said:
I don't see why artificiality is a requisite for domination.

He didn't say domination, he said dominion which is VERY different. The former is actually a subset of the latter in which there is legal or 'other' authority.

Beyond that, how can you claim to dominate over what you're subject to, even to the point of pandemic and death? How do you dominate a system you don't understand, especially when the majority of the planet is water...
 
  • #78
nismaratwork said:
He didn't say domination, he said dominion which is VERY different. The former is actually a subset of the latter in which there is legal or 'other' authority.

Beyond that, how can you claim to dominate over what you're subject to, even to the point of pandemic and death? How do you dominate a system you don't understand, especially when the majority of the planet is water...

I believe "dominion" and "domination" share some sort of common linguistic ancestor. Regardless, this discussion seems to fall apart if we nitpick semantics. So I'll simply retract my statement.

mugaliens said:
Meanwhile "the rights to be harmonious" is a very nebulous statement, so if others here have piggybacked on whatever they thought it meant and ran off with a tangent, more power to them! Robert A. Heinlein was a staunch supporter of "bull sessions," whereby college students would sit around debating whatever came to mind, so in that spirt, let's carry on. :)

BTW, I totally have a man-crush on Heinlein (which, if you've read his books could've put me in physical jeopardy, were he still alive). I think he's just about one of the best thinkers our species has ever produced. Not an actual genius of some sort (though, very intelligent), his manner of discourse and conduct were of the highest degree. His books are a reminder of how a roughly average mind can produce amazingly above-average thoughts if you're just willing to throw your prejudices away and open your mind. Stranger in a Strange Land is my favorite book with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in a very close second. I even named the dog I never had "Anson." My audio engineering PC is called "Mycroft" and my laptop is named "Dora."

Heinlein could win both sides of an argument.
 
  • #79
FlexGunship said:
I believe "dominion" and "domination" share some sort of common linguistic ancestor. Regardless, this discussion seems to fall apart if we nitpick semantics. So I'll simply retract my statement.

Domination is simple, Dominion means domination with higher authority, legal, divine, kingly, imperial... whatever.
FlexGunship said:
BTW, I totally have a man-crush on Heinlein (which, if you've read his books could've put me in physical jeopardy, were he still alive). I think he's just about one of the best thinkers our species has ever produced. Not an actual genius of some sort (though, very intelligent), his manner of discourse and conduct were of the highest degree. His books are a reminder of how a roughly average mind can produce amazingly above-average thoughts if you're just willing to throw your prejudices away and open your mind. Stranger in a Strange Land is my favorite book with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in a very close second. I even named the dog I never had "Anson." My audio engineering PC is called "Mycroft" and my laptop is named "Dora."

Heinlein could win both sides of an argument.

I love Heinlein... I have every book, every book on audio. He's my favorite author next to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Did you know, Mycroft is the name of Sherlock Holmes's brother...?
 
  • #80
nismaratwork said:
I love Heinlein... I have every book, every book on audio. He's my favorite author next to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Did you know, Mycroft is the name of Sherlock Holmes's brother...?

Of course! How could I be so dense? Mike even says that Sherlock is his brother in Moon.
 
  • #81
FlexGunship said:
Of course! How could I be so dense? Mike even says that Sherlock is his brother in Moon.

It's not dense... I've been reading like a machine (and re-read almost obsessively) since I was nearly a toddler, and they're my favorite authors...

...Before the net, it was just a very clever and relatively obscure reference; only now is it an obvious thing.
 
  • #82
nismaratwork said:
I don't believe in rights...
LOL. Then why argue so much about where they come from? That's like an atheist arguing about God's gender.
nismaratwork said:
I love Heinlein... I have every book...
Well, there's something else we agree on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
Al68 said:
LOL. Then why argue so much about where they come from? That's like an atheist arguing about God's gender.

You do realize that engaging in a discussion about why I argue is the equivalent of looking into one mirror opposing another. :rolleyes:

Beyond that the content of what people commonly call rights, in this very religious country, is essentially what I'm talking about except that I believe they're a wise fiction. In a debate about rights, it's kind of an important distinction to make; I didn't expect this to become a tug of war about what we choose to call the principles we agree (Flex and I) or disagree (you and I) on.
 
<h2>1. What are human rights?</h2><p>Human rights are a set of fundamental rights and freedoms that are inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, gender, nationality, religion, or any other status. These rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and equality before the law, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to education, work, and healthcare.</p><h2>2. Are human rights truly compatible or just a matter of semantics?</h2><p>This is a complex and debated question. Some argue that human rights are universal and should be recognized and respected by all, while others argue that cultural and religious differences make it difficult to have a universal understanding of human rights. Ultimately, it is up to individuals and societies to determine the compatibility of human rights and how they should be understood and applied.</p><h2>3. How are human rights protected?</h2><p>Human rights are protected through international treaties, national laws and constitutions, and the work of human rights organizations and activists. The United Nations has also established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which serves as a guiding document for the protection and promotion of human rights.</p><h2>4. Are there any limitations to human rights?</h2><p>While human rights are considered universal, there are limitations to their application. For example, certain rights may conflict with each other, and in some cases, governments may impose restrictions on certain rights in the interest of public safety or national security. However, these limitations should be carefully balanced and not undermine the overall protection of human rights.</p><h2>5. How can we ensure that human rights are respected?</h2><p>Respecting human rights requires a collective effort from individuals, governments, and organizations. It is important to educate people about their rights and hold governments accountable for upholding human rights standards. This can also be achieved through promoting dialogue and understanding between different cultures and religions, and addressing systemic issues that hinder the protection of human rights.</p>

1. What are human rights?

Human rights are a set of fundamental rights and freedoms that are inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, gender, nationality, religion, or any other status. These rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and equality before the law, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to education, work, and healthcare.

2. Are human rights truly compatible or just a matter of semantics?

This is a complex and debated question. Some argue that human rights are universal and should be recognized and respected by all, while others argue that cultural and religious differences make it difficult to have a universal understanding of human rights. Ultimately, it is up to individuals and societies to determine the compatibility of human rights and how they should be understood and applied.

3. How are human rights protected?

Human rights are protected through international treaties, national laws and constitutions, and the work of human rights organizations and activists. The United Nations has also established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which serves as a guiding document for the protection and promotion of human rights.

4. Are there any limitations to human rights?

While human rights are considered universal, there are limitations to their application. For example, certain rights may conflict with each other, and in some cases, governments may impose restrictions on certain rights in the interest of public safety or national security. However, these limitations should be carefully balanced and not undermine the overall protection of human rights.

5. How can we ensure that human rights are respected?

Respecting human rights requires a collective effort from individuals, governments, and organizations. It is important to educate people about their rights and hold governments accountable for upholding human rights standards. This can also be achieved through promoting dialogue and understanding between different cultures and religions, and addressing systemic issues that hinder the protection of human rights.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
726
Replies
5
Views
872
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
947
  • Classical Physics
3
Replies
85
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top