- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
Can human rights in general be mutually compatible?
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?
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.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?
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.
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.
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'.
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.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?
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.
Heh, ok, apparently so does the US President, as he is known to drop that term when quoting the American Declaration.FlexGunship said:Wow, what a great distinction! I disagree with the reference to a creator,
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.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.
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.
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?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.
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 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.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.
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?"Why should rights be implicit?" Because any other foundation can't provide the requisite stability.
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: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.
Because contingency guarantees exceptions.mheslep said:So again, why should rights be implicit?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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]
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!
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:Does storing women in cloth bags encourage a healthy existence?
FlexGunship said:Do people flourish under the dictate of lex talionis or the Native American "blood law"?
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:Does repressing criticism of ruling parties help hold the society together on the individual level?
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.FlexGunship said:Can a healthy society be formed in which ritual suicide is an integral part?
FlexGunship said:What about a culture in which the desire to seek out love and affection is frowned upon?
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.
FlexGunship said:Please try to find the nuance in my argument.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
nismaratwork said:THAT would be your starting point for formulating a universal PLAN to instill humans with rights by our own will.
Char. Limit said:Erm... just wanted to say, "at first"?
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!".
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.nismaratwork said:Flex: OK, but where is that right coming from? Who decided that was a fundamental right through scientific research?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.