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.
  • #1
Loren Booda
3,125
4
Can human rights in general be mutually compatible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Is that a complete sentence? It certainly isn't a complete thought. Please provide a real OP as per the PF guidelines otherwise this thread will be locked.
 
  • #3
Can human rights be mutually compatible when applied to all people?... I doubt it... they don't really exist you know? If not that, then like Russ I'm stumped as to what you're asking or saying.
 
  • #4
Is it possible that human rights for some (the right to food, for instance) ever be fulfilled without interference to the human rights of others (the right to medical care, for instance) - that is, despite lack of resources? Even advanced nations have enough difficulty defending their own constitutions. Are human rights realized through money, will, law or other means?
 
  • #5
This strikes me as something for the Philosophy forum, not politics and world affairs.
 
  • #6
Loren Booda said:
Is it possible that human rights for some (the right to food, for instance) ever be fulfilled without interference to the human rights of others (the right to medical care, for instance) - that is, despite lack of resources? Even advanced nations have enough difficulty defending their own constitutions. Are human rights realized through money, will, law or other means?


Not as long as people think they have a right to something someone else produced, like food or medical care. If people only exercised true rights, like the right to be free to procure their own food, or the right to their own labor so they can pay for medical care, yes they can, imo.
 
  • #7
Loren Booda said:
Is it possible that human rights for some (the right to food, for instance) ever be fulfilled without interference to the human rights of others (the right to medical care, for instance) - that is, despite lack of resources?
No. The only kind of rights that can be mutually compatible are natural rights, since their existence doesn't depend on the servitude of others.
 
  • #8
nismaratwork said:
Can human rights be mutually compatible when applied to all people?... I doubt it... they don't really exist you know? If not that, then like Russ I'm stumped as to what you're asking or saying.

Meh, take it as a simple question with the most far-reaching possibilities. Since human physiology is not significantly different from region to region we would expect that the same types of stimuli cause similar reactions.

People prefer to be fed than starved. People prefer to be able to speak than to be silenced. People prefer to have fun, listen to music, and share ideas! People generally do not enjoy being beaten, abused, or killed.

In a grand sense, yes! There really is no reason for human rights to be fundamentally incompatible with each other.
 
  • #9
FlexGunship said:
Meh, take it as a simple question with the most far-reaching possibilities. Since human physiology is not significantly different from region to region we would expect that the same types of stimuli cause similar reactions.

People prefer to be fed than starved. People prefer to be able to speak than to be silenced. People prefer to have fun, listen to music, and share ideas! People generally do not enjoy being beaten, abused, or killed.

In a grand sense, yes! There really is no reason for human rights to be fundamentally incompatible with each other.

Everyone is free to define anything as a right... who decides which is a right? You immediately run into problems the moment you try to do anything in this model. You can feed everyone, but do you have good surgeons for them? Good teachers? A safe environment? Who gets to live in which spot?

The moment conflict emerges, and is solved, you're just back at 'go'.
 
  • #10
nismaratwork said:
Everyone is free to define anything as a right... who decides which is a right? You immediately run into problems the moment you try to do anything in this model. You can feed everyone, but do you have good surgeons for them? Good teachers? A safe environment? Who gets to live in which spot?

The moment conflict emerges, and is solved, you're just back at 'go'.

Well, let's not speak in terms of "rights." The word has too many connotations. Let's rephrase the question a little more clearly:

"Is it possible to invent a social construct which maximizes well-being in individuals?"​

I would instantly argue that "well-being" isn't as subjective as it used to be. If someone can't tell you if they're happy, then throw them in an MRI; you can figure it out pretty easily.

Imagine a huge multi-dimensional topology where each axis is a different input variable. For example, one input could be "women beaten" with a range from never beaten to constantly beaten with some conditional nuance to the other values (i.e. only beaten if disrespectful to a man).

Yes, the topology would be varied and the peaks and valleys may show no discernible pattern, but no one could claim "there is nothing to be said here." You could then use the strongest contributing variables to form the "rights" of humans. For example, the "right to continue to live." This would seem to be a deciding factor in our topology of human well-being; so let's make it a human right.
 
  • #11
Loren Booda said:
Is it possible that human rights for some (the right to food, for instance) ever be fulfilled without interference to the human rights of others (the right to medical care, for instance) - that is, despite lack of resources? Even advanced nations have enough difficulty defending their own constitutions. Are human rights realized through money, will, law or other means?
I think the American Declaration of Independence is the best first stop for a reference on the topic. The rights enumerated there - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - are mutually compatible with the same rights held by others. They are realized by the mere fact of being human, that is, granted by the creator, not by human law or government dictate. As soon as one expands the notion of 'rights' to something that must be granted in part by other people - food, housing, vacation at the beach - then immediately those rights necessarily i) become incompatible as my clamoring for you to make my food conflicts with your right to vacation, ii) require a third party institution to be stood up (typically governmental) compelling A to fulfill the rights of B, but at any time that institution can at any later time deny they exist and take them away.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
mheslep said:
As soon as one expands the notion of 'rights' to something that must be granted in part by other people - food, housing, vacation at the beach - then immediately those rights i) necessarily become incompatible as my clamoring for you to make my food conflicts with your right to vacation and ii) whatever third party institution is stood up (typically government) to execute those expanded rights can also later decide to deny they exist and take them away.

Wow, what a great distinction! I disagree with the reference to a creator, so I'll see if I can simplify your distinction.

Rights must be implicit in the existence of the individual and can never guarantee action or material.

You cannot say someone has the "right to food" since it isn't implicit in the person's existence. However the "right to free thought" is! The "right not to be hidden in a cloth bag" is another good one.
 
  • #13
FlexGunship said:
Wow, what a great distinction! I disagree with the reference to a creator,
Heh, ok, apparently so does the US President, as he is known to drop that term when quoting the American Declaration.

so I'll see if I can simplify your distinction.

Rights must be implicit in the existence of the individual and can never guarantee action or material.

You cannot say someone has the "right to food" since it isn't implicit in the person's existence. However the "right to free thought" is! The "right not to be hidden in a cloth bag" is another good one.
Yes I agree that construction also provides a compatible set of rights when shared equally among individuals. But I have a problem with it, and this a digression from the OP so it need not go further; your construction alone doesn't get to why those rights obtain to the individual. History is well populated with examples showing that, given the chance and self-indulgence, person A will claim person B has no intrinsic rights whatsoever, that B exists only to serve A.
 
  • #14
mheslep said:
Yes I agree that construction also provides a compatible set of rights when shared equally among individuals. But I have a problem with it, and this a digression from the OP so it need not go further; your construction alone doesn't get to why those rights obtain to the individual. History is well populated with examples showing that, given the chance and self-indulgence, person A will claim person B has no intrinsic rights whatsoever, that B exists only to serve A.

That's an ugly trap you're setting. The argument should be that these rights are implicit. Not that we need to rely on some external source to validate them. It's actually kind of a sickening idea that we need permission (either from a real entity or fictional) to endow ourselves with rights.

I'm afraid we don't see eye-to-eye on this point at all.
 
  • #15
FlexGunship said:
That's an ugly trap you're setting. The argument should be that these rights are implicit. Not that we need to rely on some external source to validate them. It's actually kind of a sickening idea that we need permission (either from a real entity or fictional) to endow ourselves with rights.

I'm afraid we don't see eye-to-eye on this point at all.
As I thought we might, that is why in my second post I dropped discussion of my personal motivation (which was also the US Declaration's), but asked you to explain your reason 'why'. We've had hundreds of generations of human civilization all the way to King George (and beyond) wherein it was common to believe individuals had no rights whatsoever without the blessing of an anointed few. So again, when you say the rights "should be ... implicit", why?
 
  • #16
mheslep said:
As I thought we might, that is why in my second post I dropped discussion of my personal motivation (which was also the US Declaration's), but asked you to explain your reason 'why'. We've had hundreds of generations of human civilization all the way to King George (and beyond) wherein it was common to believe individuals had no rights whatsoever without the blessing of an anointed few. So again, when you say the rights "should be ... implicit", why?

Well, I think you're trying to define the axiom with the resultant proof. We're starting with the idea that we should have rights and moving from there to "which rights" and "who should have them?" If we're going to grant the existence of personal rights, then I don't think they should be contingent on something external. Specifically something (a belief) that 1) might not be shared by all, 2) could be considered "transient" or "malleable", or worse, 3) be the basis for faction fighting.

"Why should rights be implicit?" Because any other foundation can't provide the requisite stability.
 
  • #17
FlexGunship said:
Well, I think you're trying to define the axiom with the resultant proof. We're starting with the idea that we should have rights and moving from there to "which rights" and "who should have them?" If we're going to grant the existence of personal rights, then I don't think they should be contingent on something external. Specifically something (a belief) that 1) might not be shared by all, 2) could be considered "transient" or "malleable", or worse, 3) be the basis for faction fighting.
Well in my view rights are bestowed eternally to all, whether they agree with my philosophy or not. But as you say let's drop this line on my view.

"Why should rights be implicit?" Because any other foundation can't provide the requisite stability.
Couple problems there. First, on stability the historical evidence is of course the opposite, that empires like the Roman's existed for centuries, for a good part of it with the most stability seen in Europe before or since. And I do include today. A Roman citizen during http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana" [Broken] could walk from one end of the continent to the other in near absolute certainty that they would not be robbed or molested in any way. Most Europeans - West Asians of that era assumed no implicit rights; they assumed that all the world was ruled by Ceasar, that's the way it nearly always had been and always would be. Second, if you say that a modern day Roman dictatorship would be unstable because people would insist on their rights to life, liberty, pursuit ..., then you are begging the question, simply asserting the initial point again that rights should be implicit, therefore they are. So again, why should rights be implicit?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
mheslep said:
Second, if you say that a modern day Roman dictatorship would be unstable because people would insist on their rights to life, liberty, pursuit ..., then you are begging the question, simply asserting the initial point again that rights should be implicit, therefore they are.
That seems to be more the purview of enforcement, not deciding whether or not a universal set of human rights could (or does) exist.

mheslep said:
So again, why should rights be implicit?
Because contingency guarantees exceptions.
 
  • #19
FlexGunship said:
That seems to be more the purview of enforcement, not deciding whether or not a universal set of human rights could (or does) exist.


Because contingency guarantees exceptions.

re bold: Amen.

I agree that the Roman example is one of the structure which supports and administers the business end of those rights, not a problem with the structure of rights themselves. I also agree that no rights exist, but that we can work to some from 'the golden rule' and foresight.

I don't agree that they're implicit in the human condition however, anymore than a hydrogen cloud has rights. Even if mheslep's personal view is correct, there's an eternal force to care for matters except for this brief period we call life, and the source is something. Flex, you and I seem to agree that rights are constructions, and simply the best we can manage, not an implicit function of being a person.
 
  • #20
nismaratwork said:
Flex, you and I seem to agree that rights are constructions, and simply the best we can manage, not an implicit function of being a person.

The question was "why should rights be implicit?"

I'm not attempting to frame the list of rights, or argue for a specific implementation, and I can't tell you how to enforce them!

But if you want universal rights, they can't be "based" on some set of conditions. They certainly can't be on loan from an arguably-existent deity. And they definitely can't rely on cultural and social structures for security.

If you want "harmonious" (to use the OP's word) human rights, then the only pre-condition that they apply to you must be that you are vaguely a member of homo sapiens. I'm sorry, but leasing them from the god du jour isn't sufficient. All it takes is someone who doesn't ascribe to your ideology to make these rights non-universal.
 
  • #21
FlexGunship said:
The question was "why should rights be implicit?"

I'm not attempting to frame the list of rights, or argue for a specific implementation, and I can't tell you how to enforce them!

But if you want universal rights, they can't be "based" on some set of conditions. They certainly can't be on loan from an arguably-existent deity. And they definitely can't rely on cultural and social structures for security.

If you want "harmonious" (to use the OP's word) human rights, then the only pre-condition that they apply to you must be that you are vaguely a member of homo sapiens. I'm sorry, but leasing them from the god du jour isn't sufficient. All it takes is someone who doesn't ascribe to your ideology to make these rights non-universal.

Hmmm, it almost sounds as though you just summed up human history in that last paragraph. Oh wait, you did!... which is depressing, but true. I agree; if we can't formulate our own rights, then how can we expect to make them universal of all things?
 
  • #22
nismaratwork said:
Hmmm, it almost sounds as though you just summed up human history in that last paragraph. Oh wait, you did!... which is depressing, but true. I agree; if we can't formulate our own rights, then how can we expect to make them universal of all things?

This is where one of my earlier posts comes in. There seems to be only one set of universal rules. We don't know all of the rules, and some of the details seem hazy, but for the first time in human history we are really starting to understand our factual existence.

Science (specifically neuroscience) can finally answer some questions about which fundamental rights lead to the happiest, healthiest, most vibrantly creative and constructive society!

Does storing women in cloth bags encourage a healthy existence?
Do people flourish under the dictate of lex talionis or the Native American "blood law"?
Does repressing criticism of ruling parties help hold the society together on the individual level?
Can a healthy society be formed in which ritual suicide is an integral part?
What about a culture in which the desire to seek out love and affection is frowned upon?

These aren't rhetorical questions. The answers are knowable! And I can't possibly imagine that every one of them will tell us about "human rights" (they are more likely to describe laws, rules, or regulations)... but we have an absolute starting point. No more guessing.

Please try to find the nuance in my argument.

EDIT: Perhaps we will truly find out that women have happier existences when they are encouraged to simply cook and clean and raise children. I'm saying this specifically because it's such a controversial (wrong?) thing to say! But perhaps the "right to be a homemaker" is implicit in our existence as a product of evolution because our society (as individuals and as a whole) is happier, healthier, and more productive this way.

AGAIN! I'm not actually suggesting that's true.
 
  • #23
FlexGunship said:
This is where one of my earlier posts comes in. There seems to be only one set of universal rules. We don't know all of the rules, and some of the details seem hazy, but for the first time in human history we are really starting to understand our factual existence.

I believe this too, but I have to be realistic: when haven't people believed this? I would add that universal physical laws ARE, whether or not either of us believes in them, or agrees about them; the same cannot be said of the outcome of human rights. One is absolute, and the other is situational depending on the necessities of the time. Not eating shellfish and pork is situationally wise even now, but I don't believe it's a divine mandate, and the fact that later generations focus on such things as a virtue in and of themselves can lead to repression of self and oppression of others. Women in sacks, lex talionis/vendetta, blood feud, blood law, Rache, Vergeltung... so many words, but they existed for a reason. Women in sacks I'm not touching because I find it too annoying.

Vendetta is a very interesting concept that can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi, where there's little indication that it was a new concept. When a nation-state isn't capable of settling conflicts of certain types by mandate or direct action, systematic feud is preferable to spiraling conflict.

Wikipedia said:
Various ideas regarding the origins of lex talionis exist, but a common one is that it developed as early civilizations grew and a less well-established system for retribution of wrongs, feuds and vendettas, threatened the social fabric. Despite having been replaced with newer modes of legal theory, lex talionis systems served a critical purpose in the development of social systems — the establishment of a body whose purpose was to enact the retaliation and ensure that this was the only punishment. This body was the state in one of its earliest forms.

The principle is found in Babylonian Law (see Code of Hammurabi) (1780 BCE).[1] It is surmised that in societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. The retribution might be much worse than the crime, perhaps even death. Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim and offender occupied the same status in society, while punishments were less proportional with disputes between social strata: like blasphemy or laesa maiestatis (against a god, viz., monarch, even today in certain societies), crimes against one's social better were systematically punished as worse.

Roman law moved toward monetary compensation as a substitute for vengeance. In cases of assault, fixed penalties were set for various injuries, although talio was still permitted if one person broke another's limb.[2]

This has to be understood in the context of a society, but when a nation-state CAN effectively rule and settle disputes, lex talionis should obviously be abolished... if only people had "on off" switches for feuds. That doesn't mean that it wasn't central to the formation of organized civilizations, with the further act of transition to a weregild system (monetary or LTL punitive) obviously taking time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

FlexGunship said:
Science (specifically neuroscience) can finally answer some questions about which fundamental rights lead to the happiest, healthiest, most vibrantly creative and constructive society!

You're correct, and it's also showing us that people who act irrationally and criminally don't always (or often) have what we'd consider a healthy brain or psyche. Of course there are people still wedded to vendetta, and people still wedded to weregild (in the form of prison usually) with a constant push to roll back to "better days". :rolleyes: Anyway, you see the social issue... your outrage is probably much the same as that felt by those early Mesopotamians, "Why can't people stop killing entire families or villages, and make even exchange of life for life?"

I personally believe as you do, that we have objective ways of rapidly measuring the 'temperature' now and adjusting our rights to match. UNFORTUNATELY, that seems to be used sometimes to make great advances (civil rights!), but also to champion retreats to barbarism, (everything else ha... ha). I think you should recognize that many parts of the world ARE doing exactly what you describe (apeiron can cite some great examples, such as Finland), but that this is a ragged front. In a world were some people live in failed states and suffer under worse than vendetta, and others are essentially living in what I consider to be enlightened social experiments... we're not going to see even a uniform PERCEPTION of what is a right. In other words, you have a lifetime's work ahead, and that's just a speck.

FlexGunship said:
Does storing women in cloth bags encourage a healthy existence?
The justification often boils down to protecting women, but in practice I haven't seen the evidence that this ever conferred a real benefit. In practice it seems to be a method of subjugation and control where culture and law mingle.

FlexGunship said:
Do people flourish under the dictate of lex talionis or the Native American "blood law"?

Absolutely, and the latter were doing just that until civilized folk got all 'genocidey'. There is a point as with so many things, where the stability of a society can allow it to progress beyond that point, and then vendetta is corrosive, not stabilizing.

FlexGunship said:
Does repressing criticism of ruling parties help hold the society together on the individual level?
For the majority of history the clear answer is: YES, and there were no parties. Now, again, we're in a period where the answer is, 'no' in many countries, but look at China... in the midst of transition [STRIKE]at light speed[/STRIKE] 99.999999...% of c.

FlexGunship said:
Can a healthy society be formed in which ritual suicide is an integral part?
Phew... tough one, but only because the word, "healthy" is a weasel word (I know that's not how you meant to use it). Obviously ritual suicide can be a part of a society for generations, and that society can still thrive and become a leading nation (Japan for instance, but just one example). I've read a lot about this one, and my personal belief is that condoning suicide reflects a lack of regard for human life, which in turn reflects the state of a society ALREADY. Much like civil war, this is probably a better measure of where a society is, so to speak, than it is a basis for a society.

The exception obviously is the Inuit people, and other cultures in which elder-suicide is expected, and based in survival imperatives. Should that happen NOW?... no.

FlexGunship said:
What about a culture in which the desire to seek out love and affection is frowned upon?

At first blush this seems to be clearly anti-life, but what if civilization just crashed (asteroid, to avoid any controversy) and the need to repopulate was FAR more important than the needs of some generations to find love? That took me all of 5 seconds to think of, so I'm betting there are other valid examples, but certainly the situation would have to be terribly dire for a society to have some kind of anhedonic goal.

FlexGunship said:
These aren't rhetorical questions. The answers are knowable! And I can't possibly imagine that every one of them will tell us about "human rights" (they are more likely to describe laws, rules, or regulations)... but we have an absolute starting point. No more guessing.

Every situation presents a unique starting point; thus the trouble with universality. If you confer what you think is a right (giving religion to the savages?) to people, you might get them killed. Would you encourage Afghan women to risk death and not wear their sack? I wouldn't normally encourage someone to press their face into the dirt either, but if bullets are flying overhead, I'd reconsider.

FlexGunship said:
Please try to find the nuance in my argument.

It's nuanced, it's humane, and I admire you for having this passion. I don't believe that changes the relative nature of this, or that you're ignoring complexities in your outrage at what some suffer.

FlexGunship said:
EDIT: Perhaps we will truly find out that women have happier existences when they are encouraged to simply cook and clean and raise children. I'm saying this specifically because it's such a controversial (wrong?) thing to say! But perhaps the "right to be a homemaker" is implicit in our existence as a product of evolution because our society (as individuals and as a whole) is happier, healthier, and more productive this way.

AGAIN! I'm not actually suggesting that's true.

There's no doubt that many women do or DID have a happier existence... I know I'd rather clean m'lord's privy than go off to the crusades! It's the insistence that they have no CHOICE BUT THAT, which is the abrogation of their rights. I'd add, there are guys who fall into this same category, and I think we all remember the ridicule "stay at home dads" faced at first!

If you gave people a choice and lots of money, it's possible that BOTH parents would be thrilled to stay home with their child, and not grind away at work. Most people aren't lucky in their occupations, and if it's not stimulating for you, I'm guessing home and hearth are preferable... Hence 'early retirement'. There are a lot of people who would also lose their minds (hysteria anyone?) if they were trapped in such a role... and indeed we've done just that to (predominantly) women for thousands of years.

Oh, and Flex... you know that I am positive you're not a sexist, bigot, or anything else like that? You don't have to worry that I'll take offense; you're clearly a mix of rationality and what seems to be a painfully deep compassion.
 
  • #24
Okay, Nismar, I'm not going to try to rebuttal-quote. Your response is well reasoned and rational, but I'm going to see if I can't hammer at the center-fire cap in this particular argumental bullet.

1) I'm saying that, in contrast to earlier periods of human history, science finally has something to say about morals, morality, and the well-being of individuals and societies. This is something that is new and unprecedented.

2) I'd like to very clearly contrast a "rule" and a "right." Once we've established rights, we still have to devise laws that could protect them. They are two separate issues. Some rights might turn out to be entirely impractical to protect.

Here are some example rights:
  • The right to physical security
  • The right to sexual freedom
  • The right to emotional freedom
  • The right to intellectual freedom

These are rights, but not laws. In fact... protecting a person's "sexual freedom" could be an incredibly complicated legislative concern. Obviously, we would have to adopt an Asimov-esque rule (not right), that pursuit of an individual's rights cannot impinge upon the pursuit of another individual's rights.

EDIT: What could it mean to protect someone's emotional freedom? All we could know is that people are healthier when they are allowed to express their emotions. But could that lead to violence and violation of other rights? I'm not shirking the considerable problem of laws and rules... but, surely, rights are something science can help us all agree on.l

Sigh... I feel like I have a much stronger point than the one I'm able to demonstrate.
 
  • #25
FlexGunship said:
Okay, Nismar, I'm not going to try to rebuttal-quote. Your response is well reasoned and rational, but I'm going to see if I can't hammer at the center-fire cap in this particular argumental bullet.

1) I'm saying that, in contrast to earlier periods of human history, science finally has something to say about morals, morality, and the well-being of individuals and societies. This is something that is new and unprecedented.

2) I'd like to very clearly contrast a "rule" and a "right." Once we've established rights, we still have to devise laws that could protect them. They are two separate issues. Some rights might turn out to be entirely impractical to protect.

Here are some example rights:
  • The right to physical security
  • The right to sexual freedom
  • The right to emotional freedom
  • The right to intellectual freedom

These are rights, but not laws. In fact... protecting a person's "sexual freedom" could be an incredibly complicated legislative concern. Obviously, we would have to adopt an Asimov-esque rule (not right), that pursuit of an individual's rights cannot impinge upon the pursuit of another individual's rights.

EDIT: What could it mean to protect someone's emotional freedom? All we could know is that people are healthier when they are allowed to express their emotions. But could that lead to violence and violation of other rights? I'm not shirking the considerable problem of laws and rules... but, surely, rights are something science can help us all agree on.l

Sigh... I feel like I have a much stronger point than the one I'm able to demonstrate.

Wait... why are they "rights"?... they're just rules boiled down to a more general form. I think that's good, but if you believe that people have intrinsic rights to be protected, then that's where we disagree. I believe that reasoning rapidly leads us to the conclusion that we SHOULD use "human rights", much as we use currency while accepting its essentially fictional nature. In this case, it's the desire for a better world we want, and in the other a departure from decentralized banking or a barter economy.

As for the difference between rules and rights, should rights exist, then yes. The problem is that Asimovian rules work for machines that are hardwired to think in those limited terms (well... works for a while). The moment two people's exploration of their rights collides, we tend to have at least one consider how much more freedom they'd have without having to respect the RULE
 
  • #26
nismaratwork said:
Wait... why are they "rights"?... they're just rules boiled down to a more general form. I think that's good, but if you believe that people have intrinsic rights to be protected, then that's where we disagree. I believe that reasoning rapidly leads us to the conclusion that we SHOULD use "human rights", much as we use currency while accepting its essentially fictional nature. In this case, it's the desire for a better world we want, and in the other a departure from decentralized banking or a barter economy.

As for the difference between rules and rights, should rights exist, then yes. The problem is that Asimovian rules work for machines that are hardwired to think in those limited terms (well... works for a while). The moment two people's exploration of their rights collides, we tend to have at least one consider how much more freedom they'd have without having to respect the RULE

Okay, let me try again.

A "human right" is a fundamental truth about the hardware of the human being which seeks to maximize the health and well-being of an individual and his/her society.
 
  • #27
FlexGunship said:
Okay, let me try again.

A "human right" is a fundamental truth about the hardware of the human being which seeks to maximize the health and well-being of an individual and his/her society.

To which my response is that society is not a single entity, but a continuum ranging from the rubble of Afghanistan, to NYC and Copenhagen! How can you formulate universality with that formula... you'd have to couch everything in "coordinate systems" as with Relativity!
 
  • #28
FlexGunship said:
Okay, let me try again.

A "human right" is a fundamental truth about the hardware of the human being which seeks to maximize the health and well-being of an individual and his/her society.

Grr... now it feels too abstract to be useful.
 
  • #29
nismaratwork said:
To which my response is that society is not a single entity, but a continuum ranging from the rubble of Afghanistan, to NYC and Copenhagen! How can you formulate universality with that formula... you'd have to couch everything in "coordinate systems" as with Relativity!

To which my response is that not all societies are optimized. I understand your criticism, and maybe I should remove "and his/her society" from my loose definition, but I'm trying to build the idea that a "human right" has to be about the human... about the machinery we call homo sapiens.
 
  • #30
FlexGunship said:
To which my response is that not all societies are optimized. I understand your criticism, and maybe I should remove "and his/her society" from my loose definition, but I'm trying to build the idea that a "human right" has to be about the human... about the machinery we call homo sapiens.

In principle I agree with you, but harmony is the seamless interaction of those various societies, or the integration of them into a utopia. If we're talking about an ideal we should aim for in lieu of the older "GOD IS WATCHING" fallacy, then I agree, but I don't see it ever being realizable. I think the best you can do is take a snapshot of the world as it is now, and analyze each culture and society. Then, grid the whole thing and make it a heat-map with the original data. THAT would be your starting point for formulating a universal PLAN to instill humans with rights by our own will.

In other words, we need a Brazilian 'URV' for humanity, but can you imagine that collective delusion holding? I can't.
 
  • #31
nismaratwork said:
I'd add, there are guys who fall into this same category, and I think we all remember the ridicule "stay at home dads" faced at first!

Erm... just wanted to say, "at first"?
 
  • #32
nismaratwork said:
THAT would be your starting point for formulating a universal PLAN to instill humans with rights by our own will.

See, this is where I'm disagreeing. People carrying guns around doesn't work in some areas of the world. But...

In actuality, I think the "right to bear arms" should be a fundamental "human right." It equates literally and exactly to the idea that every man and woman should be capable of using deadly force to protect his or her safety against outside incursion from any force. In practicality, that's a good example of a right that has many legislative problems in many cultures when making rules.

NOTE: I used the colloquialism "right to bear arms" because it is easily recognizable. A better title for it would be "the right to defend oneself [with equal or greater force than your attacker]."

So, you should need no "heat map" of socio-cultural economic trends. Human rights should be internal to the person. The enforcement and adherence is an issue of local laws and customs. I don't know how to solve that.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Char. Limit said:
Erm... just wanted to say, "at first"?

True, it's still a major issue, I stand corrected, but it's compared to the initial reaction... wow.

Flex: OK, but where is that right coming from? Who decided that was a fundamental right through scientific research? I understand that you are dividing the world of what I'd call mutually extended privileges (MEPs! lol), and rules of law to be applied based on circumstance. The problem is that we're having the, "is the moon there when I can't see it?" QM debate, when the real position I'm taking in that scenario is: "There is no such thing as "moon", but we should agree on one!".

The heat map then is for the rules to be applied, but...

...Who makes the rules and enforces them, without impinging on the rights to be defended? This is an old question, as yet to be answered well in practice AFAIK.
 
  • #34
nismaratwork said:
Flex: OK, but where is that right coming from? Who decided that was a fundamental right through scientific research? I understand that you are dividing the world of what I'd call mutually extended privileges (MEPs! lol), and rules of law to be applied based on circumstance. The problem is that we're having the, "is the moon there when I can't see it?" QM debate, when the real position I'm taking in that scenario is: "There is no such thing as "moon", but we should agree on one!".

This feels dangerously like semantics.

Question: can a set of universal human rights exist?
Premise: human rights exist; they appear to be different (hence the question)
Proposed solution: if a universal set of human rights exist, then they must be a property of being human (i.e. not a property of culture)
Elaboration: for the first time in history, our species has the technology to explore the list of possible human rights
Supposition: rights could not possibly be based on actions or external sources since an action can fail to happen and a source could become invalid (could leave, be found not to exist, etc.)
 
  • #35
nismaratwork said:
Flex: OK, but where is that right coming from? Who decided that was a fundamental right through scientific research?
If you're referring to a natural right, such as the right to self defense, yes: it's the result of scientific research that defending oneself is possible naturally, in the complete absence of any rule constructed for that purpose. That power exists naturally, either as a result of Darwinism, cosmic luck, or "endowed by God", whichever one prefers.
 
<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