[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you are on to something there.

Not to say that this is universal. There are plenty of people who recognize human rights violations when they see them, but still feel obligated to do nothing. There are also others who are very concerned, and who are very active, but who would reject any use of force, even when they know that the benefits will vastly outweigh the negative.

But there is a subset who seem to think that the idea of rights is entirely relative and not universal. I think you are right. That point of view would make it easier to look the other way.

I recognise crimes when I see them. They are contraventions of the law. I wouldn't recognise an 'intrinsic human right' if I fell over one (but there again, that is hardly a surprise, as they don't exist). I am aware that other societies do not hold humans in the same esteem that I do (e.g. the US, a society that kills people when and if it sees fit) I am also aware of societies in which the desire to meddle in the affairs of others overrides the desire to mind their own business (and societies that have an inability to see when one becomes the other). You would, quite rightly, tell me that the death penalty in Texas is none of my business, but you seem, contrariwise, to hold the opinion that the death penalty in Iraq is somehow your business. Similarly abortion is OK for you, but the burqa is not. I think that Uday and Qusay may have been of the opinion that they were exercising their 'rights' to 'free speech' and the 'pursuit of happiness' (not that I agree with that, but they probably would have considered themselves blameless)

That is not to say that I think that 'rights' are relative. Rights under the law (ie granted by a society) should be guaranteed by the law, and contravention of same ahould be punishable under that law. They should be equally applicable to all to whom that law applies - not all laws apply to all people (e.g. If you have a law that says blind people are not allowed to drive, that should only apply to blind people), but the exceptions should be laid down. I noted in an earlier thread that your american Constitution holds certain things to be self-evident, but you yourself noted that the Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners (see Camp X-Ray discussions for your stance on this topic)

I agree that societies could club together and agree some basic standards that should apply, and then transgressions of these basic standards could be considered crimes. We could even call this a 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' (or, in certain crcumstances 'the Geneva Conventions') if we so wish. The signatories to such a document could then set up an independent body to punish transgressions of the rules embodied in such a document.

That does not make 'rights' 'intrinsic'. It does not make 'rights' 'inalienable'. And it certainly does not make me any more likely to turn a blind eye to crime than someone who irrationally believes that he was somehow born with some 'intrinsic rights'.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are also others who are very concerned, and who are very active, but who would reject any use of force, even when they know that the benefits will vastly outweigh the negative.

And I would add that there are also others who are very concerned and who are active, who do not necessarily reject any use of force, but feel that the the benefits of adherence to the Rule of Law vastly outweigh any benefits to be gained by forsaking the Rule of Law.

If one must become one's opponent to defeat them, then one is truly only defeating one's self.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
I recognise crimes when I see them. They are contraventions of the law. I wouldn't recognise an 'intrinsic human right' if I fell over one (but there again, that is hardly a surprise, as they don't exist). I am aware that other societies do not hold humans in the same esteem that I do (e.g. the US, a society that kills people when and if it sees fit) I am also aware of societies in which the desire to meddle in the affairs of others overrides the desire to mind their own business (and societies that have an inability to see when one becomes the other). You would, quite rightly, tell me that the death penalty in Texas is none of my business, but you seem, contrariwise, to hold the opinion that the death penalty in Iraq is somehow your business. Similarly abortion is OK for you, but the burqa is not. I think that Uday and Qusay may have been of the opinion that they were exercising their 'rights' to 'free speech' and the 'pursuit of happiness' (not that I agree with that, but they probably would have considered themselves blameless)

That is not to say that I think that 'rights' are relative. Rights under the law (ie granted by a society) should be guaranteed by the law, and contravention of same ahould be punishable under that law. They should be equally applicable to all to whom that law applies - not all laws apply to all people (e.g. If you have a law that says blind people are not allowed to drive, that should only apply to blind people), but the exceptions should be laid down. I noted in an earlier thread that your american Constitution holds certain things to be self-evident, but you yourself noted that the Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners (see Camp X-Ray discussions for your stance on this topic)

I agree that societies could club together and agree some basic standards that should apply, and then transgressions of these basic standards could be considered crimes. We could even call this a 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' (or, in certain crcumstances 'the Geneva Conventions') if we so wish. The signatories to such a document could then set up an independent body to punish transgressions of the rules embodied in such a document.

That does not make 'rights' 'intrinsic'. It does not make 'rights' 'inalienable'. And it certainly does not make me any more likely to turn a blind eye to crime than someone who irrationally believes that he was somehow born with some 'intrinsic rights'.

If you don't mind me making the observation, you are basically espousing the position on human rights that was taken by the old Soviet Union. You will probably take offence at that, but it is true. Their position was that human rights were whatever the state said they were. No more, no less. That seems to be what you are saying.

In any case, this is a debate 40 years too late. There are treaties that cover this that are considered universally binding. Since you said you would recognize such treaties as defining human rights, those rights are therefore universal. For example, see the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

By the way, on Camp X Ray: the fact that the US Constitution may not apply all over the world doesn't mean that there is no such thing as international human rights law that does apply. On this, you are more Catholic than the Pope.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
And I would add that there are also others who are very concerned and who are active, who do not necessarily reject any use of force, but feel that the the benefits of adherence to the Rule of Law vastly outweigh any benefits to be gained by forsaking the Rule of Law.

If one must become one's opponent to defeat them, then one is truly only defeating one's self.

It's a reasonable point of view and perfectly arguable (though also debatable).

However, there does seem to be another point of view floating out there as Crash described.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you don't mind me making the observation, you are basically espousing the position on human rights that was taken by the old Soviet Union. You will probably take offence at that, but it is true. Their position was that human rights were whatever the state said they were. No more, no less. That seems to be what you are saying.

In any case, this is a debate 40 years too late. There are treaties that cover this that are considered universally binding. Since you said you would recognize such treaties as defining human rights, those rights are therefore universal. For example, see the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

By the way, on Camp X Ray: the fact that the US Constitution may not apply all over the world doesn't mean that there is no such thing as international human rights law that does apply. On this, you are more Catholic than the Pope.

I guess you are incapable of debating someone unless you can also label them.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you don't mind me making the observation, you are basically espousing the position on human rights that was taken by the old Soviet Union. You will probably take offence at that, but it is true. Their position was that human rights were whatever the state said they were. No more, no less. That seems to be what you are saying.

In any case, this is a debate 40 years too late. There are treaties that cover this that are considered universally binding. Since you said you would recognize such treaties as defining human rights, those rights are therefore universal. For example, see the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

By the way, on Camp X Ray: the fact that the US Constitution may not apply all over the world doesn't mean that there is no such thing as international human rights law that does apply. On this, you are more Catholic than the Pope.

Observe away, my good man.

'Universal' does not imply 'intrinsic' or 'inalienable'. I explained, at great length, how I thought a 'Universal Right' could be formulated and agreed, and so you note that I espouse the position of the old Soviet Union.

I also note that you have stopped your nonsense about 'relativity' and such, and how that makes you a better person because you are prepared to kill innocent Iraqis to enforce their mythical intrinsic rights, but decline to defend your (Crash's) position that these rights are somehow inherent in humans.

My position would be that I take exactly the same position on rights as most people - the law granteth, the law taketh away. This obtains in the US as much as anywhere else, and I am surprised (but not offended) that you consider this situation to be more like the Soviet Union than the current 'West'.

You characterise me as following the Soviet philosophy because "[The Soviet Union's] position was that human rights were whatever the state said they were. No more, no less. That seems to be what you are saying. " which is, as ususal, incorrect. I said 'society', not 'the state'. Change 'the state' to 'society' in your statement, and it is an exact representation of the US's position.

Why do you choose to misquote me, when it is obvious that that is what you are doing?

Is it because you wish to categorise me as a Communist? What good does that do? Does that somehow make you feel better?

Or is it because once you have me in a box labelled 'Communist' alongside the BBC and the others that you dismiss, you can ignore what I say as being from an intrinsically worthless source, regardless of the content?

I would prefer a debate about what we say, not what we 'say that the other person means', but you seem uncomfortable with that. OK - your call.

[insha]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Lincoln is now truly revered as one of our greatest presidents. If that's the impression you have of Bush (that he merits a comparison with Lincoln) then he obviously is doing something right.

I disagree with your logic. Only Whites truly revere Lincoln; ask any black, whom was around during the Civil Rights movement and you will "truly" know how flawed your logic is.

EDIT: Spelling.

[slow moe]

Not since the South's reconstruction in the 1870's has there been this much hate for Republicans.

I guess it appears we're not through rewriting history after all. Hmm, oh well. The South was truely glorious. Yup, time to go dig out my old Confederate flag and gun racks and go round up a few votes for the good Dr. Dean. YeeHaw!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Not since the South's reconstruction in the 1870's has there been this much hate for Republicans.

Proof?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Proof?

psst - he's trying to argue on YOUR side.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Observe away, my good man.

'Universal' does not imply 'intrinsic' or 'inalienable'. I explained, at great length, how I thought a 'Universal Right' could be formulated and agreed, and so you note that I espouse the position of the old Soviet Union.

I also note that you have stopped your nonsense about 'relativity' and such, and how that makes you a better person because you are prepared to kill innocent Iraqis to enforce their mythical intrinsic rights, but decline to defend your (Crash's) position that these rights are somehow inherent in humans.

My position would be that I take exactly the same position on rights as most people - the law granteth, the law taketh away. This obtains in the US as much as anywhere else, and I am surprised (but not offended) that you consider this situation to be more like the Soviet Union than the current 'West'.

You characterise me as following the Soviet philosophy because "[The Soviet Union's] position was that human rights were whatever the state said they were. No more, no less. That seems to be what you are saying. " which is, as ususal, incorrect. I said 'society', not 'the state'. Change 'the state' to 'society' in your statement, and it is an exact representation of the US's position.

Why do you choose to misquote me, when it is obvious that that is what you are doing?

Is it because you wish to categorise me as a Communist? What good does that do? Does that somehow make you feel better?

Or is it because once you have me in a box labelled 'Communist' alongside the BBC and the others that you dismiss, you can ignore what I say as being from an intrinsically worthless source, regardless of the content?

I would prefer a debate about what we say, not what we 'say that the other person means', but you seem uncomfortable with that. OK - your call.

Whoah! Easy there boy. I did not say you were a communist. I said your argument paralelled that used by the Soviet Union when they argued that human rights were limited to those the state decides to give its citizens. I point that out mainly to emphasize that this is not some new argument. It's been debated, and decided, and the question has been settled now for at least 40 years.

The consensus worldwide is that human rights are inherent. They are not granted by the state. Nor are they granted by society. And while there are treaties that enshrine them, those treaties explicitly state that the rights they enshrine are inherent. The treaties do not claim that the treaty created the rights.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Whoah! Easy there boy. I did not say you were a communist. I said your argument paralelled that used by the Soviet Union when they argued that human rights were limited to those the state decides to give its citizens. I point that out mainly to emphasize that this is not some new argument. It's been debated, and decided, and the question has been settled now for at least 40 years.

The consensus worldwide is that human rights are inherent. They are not granted by the state. Nor are they granted by society. And while there are treaties that enshrine them, those treaties explicitly state that the rights they enshrine are inherent. The treaties do not claim that the treaty created the rights.

yeah, god forbid someone should defend themselves against your pernicious labelling system. Too late to try to take the high road on this one, bub.

[kindbud]

4 pages later and nobody has the correct answer.


Folks, 'human rights' are the things that you desire for your children - while in your absence.

thank you and good day.

[BRussell]

roger_ramjet's question seems to me to lead to the more general one: Can people be moral without believing in God? Obviously there are plenty of religious people who are immoral scum, and plenty of non-believers who are very moral. But I'd be willing to believe there's a correlation between the two, at least a small one. The problem I think is that religiosity sometimes has an authoritarian component which it's hard for me to believe is correlated with morality. But when one's religious beliefs are not of that authoritarian kind, I'd bet there's a pretty strong correlation with morality.

But hopefully belief in a creator is not based on the consequence of that belief, but rather the truth of the belief. Is it better to believe in a creator, in order to have a moral driving force, even if it's very possible that creator doesn't really exist? That's a Marxist idea too.

You could ask the same question about this rights debate - is it better to believe that human rights are universal, even if by any reasonable standard, they certainly are not? Probably. Huh. :scratches head:

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yeah, god forbid someone should defend themselves against your pernicious labelling system. Too late to try to take the high road on this one, bub.

my apologies. I've been ordered by Demonhood to stop attacking Simey.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...this is not some new argument. It's been debated, and decided, and the question has been settled now for at least 40 years...

Good news! The debate is over!

I would like access to those that decided the debate, because I have some other questions that have troubled philosophers for a while, and your secret 'deciders' should be able to solve them in no time:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?

There are more, but they can start on these two.

On the other hand, stupid as it may appear, I would like to point out that declaring something does not make it true. Even if you are a really important person like the President. (I refer you to King Canute and his 'experiment' with the tide)

The question of whether humans are intrinsically different to animals, or whether they have a soul, or whether they have intrinsic 'rights' has troubled philosophers for millenia, it is not something that you can 'solve' by declaring an end to the debate.

I am reminded of the legislature (Tennessee? Athens? I'll try and find a link) that declared that pi would be equal to 3, because relying on an indeterminable number in calculations was stupid. That is what happens when politicians (or lawyers) interfere in the natural sciences.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's been debated, and decided, and the question has been settled now for at least 40 years.

The consensus worldwide is that human rights are inherent. They are not granted by the state. Nor are they granted by society. And while there are treaties that enshrine them, those treaties explicitly state that the rights they enshrine are inherent. The treaties do not claim that the treaty created the rights.

Most states have reached consensus on this. States are not philosophers or scientists. Treates and declarations are made because they are politically expedient. No amount of treaties or any consensus can change the truth of a situation...unless of course that 'truth' is relative...

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Shall we discuss what else was preached from the pulpits in Southern White Churches?

Help me here. Where did I say anything about southern white churches?

Why can't human minds be the ultimate source of great Ideas?

Who said they sometimes aren't? But the fact remains the world of Locke and Jefferson and MLK had room for the existence of a Creator. Like it or not, that idea shaped their thinking.

What's wrong with saying that our "rights" are what we agree them to be?

If rights are nothing more than the consequence of a negotiation among individuals what moral claim can you make to them? Jefferson didn't write "endowed by our Creator" because he had some kind of theocentric obsession. He was positing the fundamental dignity of man.

(I can't really write anymore than this today. Perhaps more tomorrow.)

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The consensus worldwide is that human rights are inherent. They are not granted by the state. Nor are they granted by society. And while there are treaties that enshrine them, those treaties explicitly state that the rights they enshrine are inherent. The treaties do not claim that the treaty created the rights.

You used the word "consensus." That's all some of us are arguing - that the consensus is what counts, not the noble and flowery language. It doesn't matter whether one calls such rights inherent, or inalienable, or God-given, or endowed by a Creator, or endowed by a committee, or acquired through brute force, or inherent, or whatever - what ultimately counts is that enough people believe that they're inalienable that they're willing to protect them by force and/or law.

I think all here agree that they should be inalienable, so in that sense, we can say that yes, they're inalienable. But it's not because Mother Nature made them inalienable - it's because humans arrived at a consensus that they're inalienable.

Nor does it mean that we're indifferent to human rights. I more or less supported the overthrow of Saddam, and my reasons had more to do with human and political rights than with WMD. Our position doesn't diminish the importance of human rights, it just describes a cruel fact of life. Nature is utterly indifferent to our supposedly inherent rights.

Not that I mind a little flowery language here and there to stir the soul.

[christ]

Originally posted by christ:
...I am reminded of the legislature (Tennessee? Athens? I'll try and find a link) that declared that pi would be equal to 3, because relying on an indeterminable number in calculations was stupid. That is what happens when politicians (or lawyers) interfere in the natural sciences.

Here's the best I can do at short notice.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You can download ENTIRE BOOKS?

It's illegal, and unethical. It will also make him go crosseyed. I can't imagine wading through Rousseau on a computer screen.

Not illegal.

You can just use Sherlock and the Gutenberg project, look up Locke and pick the book you want.

Legal and convenient. You can use a printer to print it out if reading on screen bothers you.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by kindbud:
4 pages later and nobody has the correct answer.


Folks, 'human rights' are the things that you desire for your children - while in your absence.

thank you and good day.

I sure hope you don't actually believe this.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by Scientist:
I sure hope you don't actually believe this.

It's the best definition you'll find in this thread.

Yours wasn't any good.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You used the word "consensus." That's all some of us are arguing - that the consensus is what counts, not the noble and flowery language. It doesn't matter whether one calls such rights inherent, or inalienable, or God-given, or endowed by a Creator, or endowed by a committee, or acquired through brute force, or inherent, or whatever - what ultimately counts is that enough people believe that they're inalienable that they're willing to protect them by force and/or law.

I think all here agree that they should be inalienable, so in that sense, we can say that yes, they're inalienable. But it's not because Mother Nature made them inalienable - it's because humans arrived at a consensus that they're inalienable.

Nor does it mean that we're indifferent to human rights. I more or less supported the overthrow of Saddam, and my reasons had more to do with human and political rights than with WMD. Our position doesn't diminish the importance of human rights, it just describes a cruel fact of life. Nature is utterly indifferent to our supposedly inherent rights.

Not that I mind a little flowery language here and there to stir the soul.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BRussell:
roger_ramjet's question seems to me to lead to the more general one: Can people be moral without believing in God?

Not at all where I was going but certainly a worthwhile tangent to consider.

... Obviously there are plenty of religious people who are immoral scum, and plenty of non-believers who are very moral. But I'd be willing to believe there's a correlation between the two, at least a small one. The problem I think is that religiosity sometimes has an authoritarian component which it's hard for me to believe is correlated with morality. But when one's religious beliefs are not of that authoritarian kind, I'd bet there's a pretty strong correlation with morality.

But hopefully belief in a creator is not based on the consequence of that belief, but rather the truth of the belief. Is it better to believe in a creator, in order to have a moral driving force, even if it's very possible that creator doesn't really exist?

Believing in God in order to have a moral driving force is not to believe in God at all - not that one's faith shouldn't be morally instructive. It's just not the point of it.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by kindbud:


"4 pages later and nobody has the correct answer.


Folks, 'human rights' are the things that you desire for your children - while in your absence.

thank you and good day."

It's the best definition you'll find in this thread.

Yours wasn't any good.

Yours is a gross simplification of reality. There are several problems with your definition. I'll point out a few.

1) Everyone desires different things for their kids. It all depends on the parents culture, predisposition and experiences, etc.

2)People desire things for their children that noone here would consider rights. What if I want my child to conquor the world, or become a millionaire, or become the worlds leading expert on cognitive musicology?

There is a reason that this argument has gone on for so many pages. The concept of rights is impossible to adequately define because it means something different to every person using it. The range of philosophical and technical implications and meanings for the word is too deep for the minds of most casual thinkers to grasp. Personally I think the word is actually rather useless except for its use as a rather shallow way to gloss over deeper socio-political concepts.

My definition does an adequate job of explaining the concept in some situations. It is a fairly popular philosophical interpretation of the word and a similar notion was used by the "fathers" of your country.

[Saetre]

And we have a winner.

[kindbud]

"First of all, I'd like to thank the academy....and my producer..."

[Scientist]

I don't think he was talking about you. I'm the winner.