Are Human Rights Universal?

[Thanda]

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.

With regards to freedom of expression, everyone can say what they want to say by nature. Even in the most oppressive society you can think of everyone can say what they want to say, naturally. Other people can also, by nature, decide how they wish to react to what someone says. Once a person speaks he has exercised whatever right he has - he is done. Now the reaction he will get will be decided by the whoever heard him. They will be exercising whatever natural rights they have to react however they please. Neither is better than the other. Each did whatever they felt like doing.

The question of which human actions should be protected from the natural reactions of other human beings is then a question of opinion. And hence throughout human history there have always been right to a lessor or greater extent and even today some things that once were rights and no longer rights and things that once weren't are. I have no doubt that we will, as a human race, go back and forth on our opinion of what actions or states of being should be considered rights.

But if you want to argue that there are rights which should be recognized regardless of human opinion then you must appeal to an objective truth or morality that doesn't necessarily take human thoughts and feelings into account.

And lastly there are clearly some rights in the bill of rights that are clearly subjective and that are clearly not natural. The right to education for example. We may like people to get an education but clearly this is a right which can only exist if others are forced to do certain things - i.e. build schools and higher teachers and the teachers must come and teach everyday. This right is clearly not a right but an entitlement - an entitlement on the efforts and time of others.

 

[MARCELLO]

Human rights are only true for western culture to which I am proud of belonging ,yet I feel lucky for myself,though feel sorry for the rest. There is no human rights for the average in Africa and Asia. You can be counted as a human in case you are well off in these areas. The child labour in Asia is incredible. The rape of girls inside the family in Africa just make your mouth open wide.

The gap between west and east culture is getting wider and wider . Whilst western culture is getting advanced eastern culture gets more conservative each day.

There is no universal human rights,I am sorry. There are only humans in the west. In the east, they are treated like insects and the gap is widening and widening....

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

FWIW, I approve of your take on human rights.
If more people like you were in charge, the world would be a better place (per my values).
I just don't think it's "true"....just desirable.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes. But sadly, they're not universally recognized.

 

[YmirGF]

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?

Ideally, yes, Human rights as outlined in the UN Declaration are universal, however, how each country enforces those rights remains spotty, at best. For example, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation felt a need to redefine the UN Declaration in an Islam friendly declaration euphemistically called the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam".

What this shows is that the member states who signed on to the odious "Cairo Declaration" are not crazy about our sense of human rights. So, in order for human rights to be truly universal, all countries would have to adopt them without restriction and then vigorously enforce them. I don't see that happening any time soon... sadly...

 

[Nous]

A problem is that there's no universal agreement about which rights are cromulent.

Actually, just as with criminal laws across diverse cultures, there seems to be a great deal of agreement across diverse cultures about the rights of individuals that governments should respect. There was enough agreement in the UN General Assembly to pass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And we've no agreement on premises to deduce universal rights.

I think there general agreement on the premise, namely: That others should be treated by governments as oneself wants to be treated.

 

[Nous]

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.

Let's say a police officer comes upon a scene where there are several people dead or dying from gun shot wounds, and he sees a person pointing a gun at someone else. Are you saying that that officer does not have a right to yell, "Stop!" and does not have a right to take action if the shooter doesn't stop shooting? (The law recognizes the officer's right to both instruct the shooter to stop and to take action if he doesn't.)

 

[Augustus]

I don't think you can say they are universal as they are clearly a product of their time and their environment. 1000 years ago, few people would have agreed with the UNDHR, even today billions don't.

Even if you accept that moral behaviour is important, there is also the question of whether the purpose is to protect each individual's fundamental rights, or to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

[I posted the following example in another thread, but it is relevant here]

What about in this situation: I've been elected leader of a developing country with a lot of social problems and corruption. I only care about the welfare of my people. The parliament and judiciary are corrupt to the core and will do everything to prevent my reforms.

I decide that I need to bypass all democratic processes, so I gain the loyalty of the Army by quadrupling the wages of the lower ranks, and purging the old corrupt leaders. I round up all of the corrupt power elite in the country and execute them and confiscate their property which is used to help the poor (I factually know they are guilty, but would be hard to prove it. Anyway, I've arrested all the judiciary and the elite still potentially hold enough sway to corrupt any replacements).

I then rule the country as a benign dictatorship, not tolerating dissent against the government but allowing freedom of speech in all other areas. I create remarkable growth, the rule of law for the population, equal opportunities for all and a solid welfare state. My government is known for it's honesty and devotion to making society better and has a higher level of public support than almost any democracy does.

I don't want to transition to democracy as things are going so well. I hand the country over to my daughter as I know she has the same values as me.

In this I violate numerous of the most fundamental 'universal rights', but provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Why is it wrong?

 

[Thanda]

Let's say a police officer comes upon a scene where there are several people dead or dying from gun shot wounds, and he sees a person pointing a gun at someone else. Are you saying that that officer does not have a right to yell, "Stop!" and does not have a right to take action if the shooter doesn't stop shooting? (The law recognizes the officer's right to both instruct the shooter to stop and to take action if he doesn't.)

The officer has a natural right to do whatever he wants to do. We are born with the ability to do a lot of the things that go through our minds. What I am saying is that no has a natural right if the only way that right can be accomplished is by having someone else do something or not do something. No one is entitled to the efforts and time of another human being.

 

[fantome profane]

The officer has a natural right to do whatever he wants to do. We are born with the ability to do a lot of the things that go through our minds. What I am saying is that no has a natural right if the only way that right can be accomplished is by having someone else do something or not do something. No one is entitled to the efforts and time of another human being.

So give me an example of something that you think is a right that can't be interfered with by another human. Free speech can be censored, an oppressive regime can even cut out your tongue. It seems the only thing that could qualify as a right under your scheme is thought, as long as that thought is not expressed because the expression requires someone else to not oppress it.

But I am saying that the right exists regardless of whether on not someone oppresses it. That is why human rights must be universal, if they are not universal they are not human rights.

 

[Thanda]

I don't think you can say they are universal as they are clearly a product of their time and their environment. 1000 years ago, few people would have agreed with the UNDHR, even today billions don't.

Even if you accept that moral behaviour is important, there is also the question of whether the purpose is to protect each individual's fundamental rights, or to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

[I posted the following example in another thread, but it is relevant here]

What about in this situation: I've been elected leader of a developing country with a lot of social problems and corruption. I only care about the welfare of my people. The parliament and judiciary are corrupt to the core and will do everything to prevent my reforms.

I decide that I need to bypass all democratic processes, so I gain the loyalty of the Army by quadrupling the wages of the lower ranks, and purging the old corrupt leaders. I round up all of the corrupt power elite in the country and execute them and confiscate their property which is used to help the poor (I factually know they are guilty, but would be hard to prove it. Anyway, I've arrested all the judiciary and the elite still potentially hold enough sway to corrupt any replacements).

I then rule the country as a benign dictatorship, not tolerating dissent against the government but allowing freedom of speech in all other areas. I create remarkable growth, the rule of law for the population, equal opportunities for all and a solid welfare state. My government is known for it's honesty and devotion to making society better and has a higher level of public support than almost any democracy does.

I don't want to transition to democracy as things are going so well. I hand the country over to my daughter as I know she has the same values as me.

In this I violate numerous of the most fundamental 'universal rights', but provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Why is it wrong?

It would not be wrong. There is nothing (other than the Bill of Rights) that says democracy is the only viable or good form of government in all circumstances. As we have recently seen this very Bill of Rights has been used as cloak by nations that have sought to overthrow unfriendly governments by labeling them dictatorial, undemocratic and violators of human rights.

 

[Thanda]

So give me an example of something that you think is a right that can't be interfered with by another human. Free speech can be censored, an oppressive regime can even cut out your tongue. It seems the only thing that could qualify as a right under you scheme is thought, as long as that thought is not expressed because the expression requires someone else to not oppress it.

But I am saying that the right exists regardless of whether on not someone oppresses it. That is why human rights must be universal, if they are not universal they are not human rights.

Naturally speaking, everyone has a right to do whatever they can do. If you have legs that work properly then you have a right to run. If you are involved in a car accident and lose the use of your legs then you no longer have the right to run - because you can't do it through your own ability.

All I'm saying is that the only right humans are really born with is the right to do whatever lies in their power. Regardless of whether what they wish to do is good or bad they have the right to do it because they can, naturally speaking.

When we then talk about protecting certain rights - i.e. forbidding certain reactions to certain actions - we have moved beyond the realm of natural right and have now entered the realm of morality or at least opinion. This is why the rights protected by governments throughout history, have varied and even today they continue to evolve.

 

[fantome profane]

Naturally speaking, everyone has a right to do whatever they can do. If you have legs that work properly then you have a right to run. If you are involved in a car accident and lose the use of your legs then you no longer have the right to run - because you can't do it through your own ability.

All I'm saying is that the only right humans are really born with is the right to do whatever lies in their power. Regardless of whether what they wish to do is good or bad they have the right to do it because they can, naturally speaking.

When we then talk about protecting certain rights - i.e. forbidding certain reactions to certain actions - we have moved beyond the realm of natural right and have now entered the realm of morality or at least opinion. This is why the rights protected by governments throughout history, have varied and even today they continue to evolve.

But I am born with the ability to break you legs, does that mean I have the right to break your legs? So much for your right to run. Apparently your right to run is dependent on me not doing something (breaking you legs), so by your definition is not a right.

 

[freethinker44]

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?

Are you asking if they should be or if they are in practice?
Are they universal? The answer is obviously no, clearly there are places with varying restrictions on human rights.
Should they be universal? Yes, I believe so.

 

[Thanda]

But I am born with the ability to break you legs, does that mean I have the right to break your legs? So much for your right to run. Apparently your right to run is dependent on me not doing something (breaking you legs), so by you definition is not a right.

As I said, it is a right for as long as I can use my legs. As soon as I am unable to use them - through an accident or your act of violence - then it ceases to be a right. Of course I have the right to protect my right to run by shooting you before you beak my legs

 

[fantome profane]

As I said, it is a right for as long as I can use my legs. As soon as I am unable to use them - through an accident or your act of violence - then it ceases to be a right. Of course I have the right to protect my right to run by shooting you before you beak my legs

So it is a right until it isn't a right. Is it possible for your rights to ever be violated? Or do they just disappear like smoke when someone attacks you? So what you are saying is that I really do have the right to break your legs.

I think you are using the word right in an absolutely bizarre way. You use the word right in a way that is synonymous with the word ability. So anything that I have the ability to do is my right to do. I have the ability to break a window and take someones property, therefore I have the right to break a window and take their property. And if I get away with it then they no longer have a right to their property. Bizarre.

But I think you have demonstrated my point for me. If human rights are not universal then they cease to have any meaning at all. Rights must be universal or there is no such thing. Rights don't disappear when someone violates or oppresses them. They still exist. A blogger in the middle east has the same right to free expression that we in the west do, but there the right to free expression is often violated. If the right did not exist it could not be violated, but it does exist, and it does not evaporate when someone decides to oppress it.

 

[Thanda]

So it is a right until it isn't a right. Is it possible for your rights to ever be violated? Or do they just disappear like smoke when someone attacks you? So what you are saying is that I really do have the right to break your legs.

I think you are using the word right in an absolutely bizarre way. You use the word right in a way that is synonymous with the word ability. So anything that I have the ability to do is my right to do. I have the ability to break a window and take someones property, therefore I have the right to break a window and take their property. And if I get away with it then they no longer have a right to their property. Bizarre.

But I think you have demonstrated my point for me. If human rights are not universal then they cease to have any meaning at all. Rights must be universal or there is no such thing. Rights don't disappear when someone violates or oppresses them. They still exist.

My point is rights (such as those found in the UNBR) don't exist naturally. They are constructed and agreed upon by a group of people. Indeed one could say that the rights and responsibilities which each person holds in any society arise from the social contract that exists in that society. In the modern world much of that social contract is found in the constitutions of various countries. But some of that "contract" is not written down but is passed down by tradition. E.g. through these contracts in certain societies women obtain a "right" for a man to open the door for them, let them in a building first etc. Also through these contracts some men inherit a "right" to have their dinner cooked by their wives. These agreements are arrived at according to the morality or opinion of the society in question. As that society changes their list "rights" will also likely change. Now let me ask you: You have stated that a right isn't a right unless it is universal - so is a right still a right if over say a one thousand year period it isn't always considered a right?

I must say I also struggle with your use of the word "universal". What exactly do you mean by that. Do you mean the right must be universal as in everyone (or most) within a particular society agree or did you mean the whole world must agree?

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, just as with criminal laws across diverse cultures, there seems to be a great deal of agreement across diverse cultures about the rights of individuals that governments should respect. There was enough agreement in the UN General Assembly to pass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I think there general agreement on the premise, namely: That others should be treated by governments as oneself wants to be treated.

The UN is one body.
The Muslim world, for example, is a bunch of others, with some very different values.
The right to religious freedom is not universal.

 

[fantome profane]

Now let me ask you: You have stated that a right isn't a right unless it is universal - so is a right still a right if over say a one thousand year period it isn't always considered a right?

I must say I also struggle with your use of the word "universal". What exactly do you mean by that. Do you mean the right must be universal as in everyone (or most) within a particular society agree or did you mean the whole world must agree?

Very good questions. First in this context when I use the word universal I mean common to the vast majority of the human race, virtually all. Allowing for only very rare exceptions (true psychopaths, true masochists, suicidal people or other mental illnesses). To use the example Revoltingest used, people don't want their necks stomped on. That is universal. There are no societies, no countries, no jurisdictions where that is going to be different, there was no time in the past when people wanted their necks stomped on, and there is not going to be a time in the future when people want their necks stomped on.

Please understand I never said that everyone, or even the majority had to agree on these rights. What I am saying is that these rights are based on these things that are universal to humanity. You have the right not to have your neck stomped on. And this is not because everyone agrees that you have the right not to have your neck stomped on, it is because no one wants their neck stomped on.

These universal rights I am talking about are intrinsic to the condition of being human and don't change. But our attempts to codify them could in fact change, and have changed. This is because our rights don't come from legal documents, as I said they are intrinsic to being human. The legal documents could be wrong about somethings. But the rights existed before any of these documents, and exist regardless of what these documents say or don't say. The universal rights I am talking about exist and have always existed from the beginning of humanity and will exist till humans no longer exist. Our imperfect human understanding of them may change, but the rights exist.

It is really like what you said, the right exists and is truly not dependent on what any person does or does not do. It is not dependent on a document, it is not dependent on a jurisdiction, it is not dependent on a time period, it is not dependent on race or gender. As soon as humans evolved the ability to think and express those thoughts they gained the intrinsic right to freedom of expression. And that right existed regardless of whether or not it was recognized. And that right would still exist as long as people had that ability, even if that right was oppressed for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. It is universal because no one wants to be censored when they have something to say, and that is universal.

 

[Thanda]

Very good questions. First in this context when I use the word universal I mean common to the vast majority of the human race, virtually all. Allowing for only very rare exceptions (true psychopaths, true masochists, suicidal people or other mental illnesses). To use the example Revoltingest used, people don't want their necks stomped on. That is universal. There are no societies, no countries, no jurisdictions where that is going to be different, there was no time in the past when people wanted their necks stomped on, and there is not going to be a time in the future when people want their necks stomped on.

Please understand I never said that everyone, or even the majority had to agree on these rights. What I am saying is that these rights are based on these things that are universal to humanity. You have the right not to have your neck stomped on. And this is not because everyone agrees that you have the right not to have your neck stomped on, it is because no one wants their neck stomped on.

These universal rights I am talking about are intrinsic to the condition of being human and don't change. But our attempts to codify them could in fact change, and have changed. This is because our rights don't come from legal documents, as I said they are intrinsic to being human. The legal documents could be wrong about somethings. But the rights existed before any of these documents, and exist regardless of what these documents say or don't say. The universal rights I am talking about exist and have always existed from the beginning of humanity and will exist till humans no longer exist. Our imperfect human understanding of them may change, but the rights exist.

It is really like what you said, the right exists and is truly not dependent on what any person does or does not do. It is not dependent on a document, it is not dependent on a jurisdiction, it is not dependent on a time period, it is not dependent on race or gender. As soon as humans evolved the ability to think and express those thoughts they gained the intrinsic right to freedom of expression. And that right existed regardless of whether or not it was recognized. And that right would still exist as long as people had that ability, even if that right was oppressed for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. It is universal because no one wants to be censored when they have something to say, and that is universal.

Thanks for the explanation. I think we have to really think of what we mean by the word "right". As you have said rights at their most basic level arise out of our ability act. This is of course what I have been saying. And those actions on their own are neither good nor bad. But since as humans we need to live together it becomes necessary to decide what actions are acceptable in order to have a functioning and reasonably peaceful society.

The imperative of a peaceful and functioning society has important consequences for rights. While your concept of rights is heavily informed by a spirit of individualism, rights often arise out of a need for communal survival and progress. The rights of a society to survive and progress are no less important or basic than the right of any individual to survive and progress. And since the necessities of survival differ according to prevailing circumstances the rights which are recognized and protected by society of necessity will vary according to circumstance. So while everyone has as a natural right the freedom of expression, during wartime a soldier who expresses how hopeless the cause is and how everyone is surely going to die will find that his right is quickly suppressed for the sake of the right of the community.

So what is important is to realise that while rights arise naturally out of our ability act, there is no assumption that any of these rights are in fact right. Further there is no assumption that a government or society who suppresses any of these rights is necessarily wrong for doing so. It is all about the circumstances and whether or not they are just in either protecting a right or suppressing it.
And by my use of the word just it is clear that what informs the decision is not just circumstances but the morals, ethics and beliefs of a society. How important is having children? A society that thinks it very important may suppress so called reproductive rights and even same sex rights. If it is not considered important than it becomes difficult for the society to justify denying those rights.

So in conclusion rights are far more complex thing than whether someone likes to have a boot on their neck.