Are Human Rights Universal?

[Sunstone]

Are human rights, such as those put forth in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, universal in the sense that they at least in principle apply equally to all people, regardless of where they live, or what culture they live in, etc.? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: On what grounds, if any, can human rights reasonably be declared to be universal?

 

[fantome profane]

Personally I think my rights should be respected on the grounds that I want my rights respected. And I think that is pretty universal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope.
They vary with jurisdiction.

 

[fantome profane]

Nope.
They vary with jurisdiction.

So does that mean that we would be better off living in a jurisdiction that had little or no human rights? Because if you have no human rights there is less chance of your rights being violated. For example if human rights vary by jurisdiction, and you live somewhere where there is no freedom of speech, then you are lucky that your right to freedom of speech can never be violated, because it doesn't exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

So does that mean that we would be better off living in a jurisdiction that had little or no human rights?

I prefer locales which observe flavors of human rights I like.
Things are better here (Americastan) than in Syria.

Because if you have no human rights there is less chance of your rights being violated. For example if human rights vary by jurisdiction, and you live somewhere where there is no freedom of speech, then you are lucky that your right to freedom of speech can never be violated, because it doesn't exist.

Therein lies the problem, ie, that some humans want more rights than their culture/government allows.
When there's a boot on someone's neck, it's only a problem for the neck's owner, not the boot's wearer.

 

[fantome profane]

I prefer locales which observe flavors of human rights I like.
Things are better here (Americastan) than in Syria.

Therein lies the problem, ie, that some humans want more rights than their culture/government allows.
When there's a boot on someone's neck, it's only a problem for the neck's owner, not the boot's wearer.

And if I can ask a follow up question, if rights can vary from one jurisdiction to another, can rights also vary depending on race, ethnicity, gender etc?

 

[Revoltingest]

And if I can ask a follow up question, if rights can vary from one jurisdiction to another, can rights also vary depending on race, ethnicity, gender etc?

Sure.
Ask an atheist or homosexual living under an oppressive Islamic regime.
Messed up world, eh?

 

[fantome profane]

Sure.
Ask an atheist or homosexual living under an oppressive Islamic regime.
Messed up world, eh?

But that is what I don't understand. The way you explain it it is not possible for a homosexual living in an Islamic regime to have their rights violated. Is that correct?

When you say "messed up world" it seems that you are expressing the idea that it should be different, it seems that you are expressing some kind of "universal value" that doesn't vary based on jurisdiction.

 

[Revoltingest]

But that is what I don't understand. The way you explain it it is not possible for a homosexual living in an Islamic regime to have their rights violated. Is that correct?

More precisely, what we might call a violation, would be justice there.
Executing men for homosexual acts is perfectly acceptable there, objections of the accused notwithstanding.

When you say "messed up world" it seems that you are expressing the idea that it should be different, it seems that you are expressing some kind of "universal value" that doesn't vary base on jurisdiction.

Of course, I'd prefer that my personal views on human rights be universal
Most people would object though.
Moral relativism rears its ugly head.

 

[fantome profane]

More precisely, what we might call a violation, would be justice there.
Executing men for homosexual acts is perfectly acceptable there, objections of the accused notwithstanding.

Of course, I'd prefer that my personal views on human rights be universal
Most people would object though.
Moral relativism rears its ugly head.

I don't think you will find many people who want their rights to be violated. There are not many people who want to be killed because of who they love. There are not many people who want to be silenced when they have something important to say. There are not many people who want to be prevented from peacefully following their religion, or peaceful associated with others. From this perspective there seems to be something universal here. The person with the boot on their neck does not want a boot on their neck, and likewise the boot wearer does not want a boot on their neck. The people executing homosexuals do not themselves want to be executed.

I don't believe in moral relativism. There is morality and there is immorality.

 

[allfoak]

Are human rights, such as those put forth in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, universal in the sense that they at least in principle apply equally to all people, regardless of where they live, or what culture they live in, etc.? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: On what grounds, if any, can human rights reasonably be declared to be universal?

This question has a very simple answer, so simple that it is near impossible to talk about.
The answer governs every choice we make.

The answer:
If another human being is able to decide the rights of other human beings, they are not rights, they are privileges granted by those that have the power to do so.

3 rules:
1. Do not harm another human being.
2.Do not harm another human beings property.
3. Do not commit fraud.

If what we do does not violate any of these rules, then we are within our rights as a human being to do whatever we please.

This of course is the reason why there is so much debate over when life begins.
We understand basic human rights, yet it seems that many of us would rather act as if we do not.

Deciding when these rules have been broken and what should be done about it was once the place of the court system.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think you will find many people who want their rights to be violated. There are not many people who want to be killed because of who they love. There are not many people who want to be silenced when they have something important to say. There are not many people who want to be prevented from peacefully following their religion, or peaceful associated with others. From this perspective there seems to be something universal here. The person with the boot on their neck does not want a boot on their neck, and likewise the boot wearer does not want a boot on their neck. The people executing homosexuals do not themselves want to be executed.

A problem is that there's no universal agreement about which rights are cromulent.
And we've no agreement on premises to deduce universal rights.
So things will vary with time & location.

I'm not saying this is "true" or "righteous".....it's just what happens.

 

[fantome profane]

A problem is that there's no universal agreement about which rights are cromulent.
And we've no agreement on premises to deduce universal rights.
So things will vary with time & location.

I'm not saying this is "true" or "righteous".....it's just what happens.

I think we all agree that we don't want our necks stomped on. That is a universal agreement.


(and don't get s&m on me, you know what I am saying)

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we all agree that we don't want our necks stomped on. That is a universal agreement.

But when the majority demands boots on the necks of the minority, that defines human rights for them.

(and don't get s&m on me, you know what I am saying)

Drat!

 

[fantome profane]

But when the majority demands boots on the necks of the minority, that defines human rights for them.

No, it just means that the majority has the power to violate the rights of the minority. There have even been times when a minority has violated the rights of the majority. Those in power have always violated the rights of the powerless, but those rights still exist. Human rights are universal, they are an inherent part of being human. Those rights can be recognized and protected, or they can be denied and violated. That is what varies from one jurisdiction to another. Not the rights themselves, but how they are respected. When you say revoltingest things here on this message board your right to freedom of expression is protected, when an blogger in Saudi Arabia is whipped for what he blogs his right to freedom of expression is violated. But in both cases the basic right exists.

 

[Thanda]

Are human rights, such as those put forth in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, universal in the sense that they apply equally to all people, regardless of where they live, or what culture they live in, etc.? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: On what grounds, if any, can human rights reasonably be declared to be universal?

I don't think so. For example it was clearly written by people who believed capitalism and democracy (vs say communism or Monarchies) are the way to go.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it just means that the majority has the power to violate the rights of the minority. There have even been times when a minority has violated the rights of the majority. Those in power have always violated the rights of the powerless, but those rights still exist. Human rights are universal, they are an inherent part of being human. Those rights can be recognized and protected, or they can be denied and violated. That is what varies from one jurisdiction to another. Not the rights themselves, but how they are respected. When you say revoltingest things here on this message board your right to freedom of expression is protected, when an blogger in Saudi Arabia is whipped for what he blogs his right to freedom of expression is violated. But in both cases the basic right exists.

You might say that universal basic human rights exist,
but what logical or empirical basis is there for the claim?
The might-makes-right approach is observable, ie, empirical.

 

[Thanda]

No, it just means that the majority has the power to violate the rights of the minority. There have even been times when a minority has violated the rights of the majority. Those in power have always violated the rights of the powerless, but those rights still exist. Human rights are universal, they are an inherent part of being human. Those rights can be recognized and protected, or they can be denied and violated. That is what varies from one jurisdiction to another. Not the rights themselves, but how they are respected. When you say revoltingest things here on this message board your right to freedom of expression is protected, when an blogger in Saudi Arabia is whipped for what he blogs his right to freedom of expression is violated. But in both cases the basic right exists.

Are you saying a right exists so long as people universally do not like something to be done to them? If so, this is problematic. People (universally) wouldn't like to be punished for cheating in their tests at school. What people universally want does not make it a human right.

I am of the opinion (like the other poster here) that something is not a right if it requires action or inaction from another human being to be realized. No one has a right to decide what any other human being should or should not do and therefore he cannot claim to have a right that requires another human being to do something in order for it to be realized.

Any "right" that a person claims which requires action from another human being to be realised is in fact not a right but a privilege - and one that can be taken away whenever other human being deem fit.

 

[fantome profane]

You might say that universal basic human rights exist,
but what logical or empirical basis is there for the claim?
The might-makes-right approach is observable, ie, empirical.

You can observe the human condition, and that is my logical empirical basis for the claim that universal human rights exist. And as I said no one wants their neck stomped on. You can observe that. And you can test that (you shouldn't, but you can). Observable, empirical, testable, repeatable, logical evidence. What more do you want?

 

[fantome profane]

Are you saying a right exists so long as people universally do not like something to be done to them? If so, this is problematic. People (universally) wouldn't like to be punished for cheating in their tests at school. What people universally want does not make it a human right.

I am of the opinion (like the other poster here) that something is not a right if it requires action or inaction from another human being to be realized. No one has a right to decide what any other human being should or should not do and therefore he cannot claim to have a right that requires another human being to do something in order for it to be realized.

Any "right" that a person claims which requires action from another human being to be realised is in fact not a right but a privilege - and one that can be taken away whenever other human being deem fit.

For you example of cheating on a test, people universally want fair treatment, if one person is allowed to cheat then there is no fair treatment. We have a universal right to fair treatment. If one person was allowed to cheat that would not mean they had a right to cheat, it would mean they had an unfair privilege.

And as for requiring another human being from doing something, all that is required is preventing another human being from violating your rights. And that often does require someone to do something to protect your rights, because as revoltingest correctly points out those with power will often use that power to violate the rights of others. Do you have the right to freedom of expression? Yes, but if someone had the power they could prevent you from expressing ideas they don't like. But you have the right, no one has the right to censor your ideas. They may have the power, but not the right. We all know the difference between freedom of expression and oppressive censorship. And the difference is that the former is a universal human right, and the latter is a violation of that right.