Are Human Rights Universal?

[psychoslice]

Of course not, just take a look at the world around you, do you see any universal rights ??.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think you can say they are universal as they are clearly a product of their time and their environment.

This might be like saying that the Theory of Evolution is "clearly a product and time of its environment". That is, suppose there is some objective basis for many, most, or all of the rights in the UNDHR. For instance, say Sam Harris is right and it is possible to arrive at a fairly objective set of human values. If that, or anything like it, were the case, then rights might be universal in much the same sense as the truth of the Theory of Evolution is universal. And that would be despite the fact that not everyone accepts the UNDHR, or accepts the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Thanda]

This might be like saying that the Theory of Evolution is "clearly a product and time of its environment". That is, suppose there is some objective basis for many, most, or all of the rights in the UNDHR. For instance, say Sam Harris is right and it is possible to arrive at a fairly objective set of human values. If that, or anything like it, were the case, then rights might be universal in much the same sense as the truth of the Theory of Evolution is universal. And that would be despite the fact that not everyone accepts the UNDHR, or accepts the Theory of Evolution.

There may be some objective basis but clearly we haven't found it yet. The UNDHR is clearly a product of it's time as one can clearly see, when reading, which country or countries lead its creation.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I find when most people talk about rights, they're actually referring to guidelines or ideals.

 

[Sunstone]

There may be some objective basis but clearly we haven't found it yet.

What do you think of Sam Harris' book, "The Moral Landscape".

 

[fantome profane]

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.

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.

I think you are over simplifying what I am trying to say. Yes I did say that the right to free expression started when we evolved the ability to think and express those thoughts. But obviously I don't think the a right to stomp on someone's neck came when we evolved the ability to do that, I have said the exact opposite that we have a right not to have our neck stomped on. So there must be something else going on here other than just the ability to act.

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.

Aha!, now we are getting somewhere. Somehow we need to make an assessment of good and bad. We need to live together in a peaceful society.

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.

Yes, what we are talking about are individual human rights. There has always been a tension between the rights of the individual and the good of the community and how we balance that. Not that these are always in conflict, sometimes they are, but more often the good of the individual and the good of society are in harmony. It may not seem that way because it is the conflicts that stand out.

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.

Yes many rights are suppressed during times of war, and that is one of the reasons that we prefer peace to war. This does not mean that it is good that individual rights are suppressed, it only means that under some very specific circumstances it is the lesser evil. We do not want our individual rights to be suppressed, and when they are we yearn, pray, and work towards a time when they will be restored.

And we need to be very careful when those in power start suppressing rights, we must make sure that the it is necessary and for the good of the society and not just the good of those in power.

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.

And I tried to clarify rights do not come simply from our ability to act, there is a little more to it than that, and you have actually identified some of that. Good and bad, the respect for the individual, the good of the community etc.

And I don't agree that there are good rights and bad rights. For me there are things that are universal human rights such as freedom of expression, and there are things that are not universal human rights such as breaking someone's legs. And if you can't tell the difference test it against some of the criteria you have identified, is it a moral action, is it good for the individual, is it good for the community. I maintain that freedom of expression is not only good for the individual it is also good for the community. For society to function we need freedom of expression. Compare that to someone breaking your legs. It is not good for society to have people going around breaking legs, it is certainly not good for you to have your legs broken, and it is not even particularly good for the leg breaker who must now worry about retribution while he lives in a society of broken legs.

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.

Yes in fact I maintain that it is wrong for the government to suppress universal human rights, there may be times when it is the lesser evil, but it is still an evil. Any example you can give me of a government suppressing human right is either just plain wrong, the lesser evil, or what they are suppressing is actually not a universal human right in the first place. I guarantee it will fit into one of those three categories. And it will be pretty simple to see which one.

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

To twist a quote by Einstien, things should be as complex as they need to be, but no more complex.

And someone else once said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Try that as a test for what is and what is not a universal human right.

This might not be quite as complex as you are trying to make it.

 

[Thanda]

What do you think of Sam Harris' book, "The Moral Landscape".

I've never heard of it. What is the theme?

 

[Thanda]

I think you are over simplifying what I am trying to say. Yes I did say that the right to free expression started when we evolved the ability to think and express those thoughts. But obviously I don't think the a right to stomp on someone's neck came when we evolved the ability to do that, I have said the exact opposite that we have a right not to have our neck stomped on. So there must be something else going on here other than just the ability to act.

I suppose that is where we must agree to disagree. According to me all actions are okay (neither good nor bad) until proven otherwise. Thus, at a basic level, there is theoretically nothing wrong with putting your foot on someones neck (those guys at WWE seem to enjoy it ).

Yes many rights are suppressed during times of war, and that is one of the reasons that we prefer peace to war. This does not mean that it is good that individual rights are suppressed, it only means that under some very specific circumstances it is the lesser evil. We do not want our individual rights to be suppressed, and when they are we yearn, pray, and work towards a time when they will be restored.

And we need to be very careful when those in power start suppressing rights, we must make sure that the it is necessary and for the good of the society and not just the good of those in power.

And I tried to clarify rights do not come simply from our ability to act, there is a little more to it than that, and you have actually identified some of that. Good and bad, the respect for the individual, the good of the community etc.

And I don't agree that there are good rights and bad rights. For me there are things that are universal human rights such as freedom of expression, and there are things that are not universal human rights such as breaking someone's legs. And if you can't tell the difference test it against some of the criteria you have identified, is it a moral action, is it good for the individual, is it good for the community. I maintain that freedom of expression is not only good for the individual it is also good for the community. For society to function we need freedom of expression. Compare that to someone breaking your legs. It is not good for society to have people going around breaking legs, it is certainly not good for you to have your legs broken, and it is not even particularly good for the leg breaker who must now worry about retribution while he lives in a society of broken legs.

While it is perfectly acceptable to speak of lessor evils one can also conceive of the world in light of good and bad. The best option in any situation is always good even if most of the time it is a bad option. For example killing is wrong most of the time. But when it is to defend your family it is perfectly good and righteous, not merely a lessor evil. Thus the inequality between actions is derived from how often each action is the best option over another action. And often when we say certain things are intrinsically / universally good (e.g. freedom of expression) what we really mean is that it is the best option most of the time.


While it is perfectly acceptable to speak of lessor evils one can also conceive of the world in light of good and bad. The best option in any situation is always good even if most of the time it is a bad option. For example killing is wrong most of the time. But when it is to defend your family it is perfectly good and righteous, not merely a lessor evil. Thus the inequality between actions is derived from how often each action is the best option over another action. And often when we say certain things are intrinsically / universally good (e.g. freedom of expression) what we really mean is that it is the best option most of the time.

Again, in my view there is no lessor evil. It is either good or bad. Governments that suppress "family planning" because of a demographic crisis (such as exists in Japan) for example is not (in my mind) committing a lessor evil. This is because all actions have an equal right to exist until circumstance makes that action harmful. And when it is harmful it ceases to be a right and instead becomes a vice.

So again let me summarize my thoughts. All actions, by the very fact that humans have the ability to effect them, are the right of every capable human being to do with the caveat that they will bear whatever consequence comes from whatever action they take. But this is policy is obviously not a recipe for a harmonious and prosperous society. So societies come together and agree which actions they will accept at which times. This then gives rise to laws which govern the rights and responsibilities of every individual in that society. In so doing a society not only sanctions some natural actions while suppressing others, they also create new rights that have no natural existence like the right to education (that is formal, institutionalised education). (Btw, I would be interested to know into which category you would put an artificial right like the right to formal education). The right to education is in fact a right given to individual because of the needs of society. In fact in most cases it is implemented as an obligation an individual has rather than a right.

 

[Nous]

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.

My response to this comment is exactly the same as Sunstone's. The fact that no one provided a formulation of General Relativity until the 20th century does not mean that its applicability is limited.

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.

[. . .]

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?

One problem with your scenario is that you are apparently imprisoning and confiscating the property of rightfully elected officials, and at the time that you are doing so, you have not shown that you (will) have a less corrupt administration or a better economic plan that would benefit more people than you harm.

In any case, you have asked a question that is often discussed in ethics classrooms, such as: If murder is immoral, would it have been immoral to murder Hitler? Similarly there is that standard gedankenexperiment about whether one should pull the switch that would result in a runaway train killing one person, in order to save the lives of 5 people who would be killed if one didn't pull the switch. One thing that such difficult scenarios highlight is that rights, like morals, are difficult to formulate as absolute rules. The US Constitution enumerates many rights, but the Court is forever noting that none of these rights are absolute or exceptionless. For that reason, we have courts to interpret such statements of rights, and laws that set out qualifications and exceptions to the broadly stated rights. E.g., it is illegal to intentionally kill another person, except in self-defense or defense of others.

 

[Nous]

The UN is one body.

The UN General Assembly is a body made up of many individuals who represent vast numbers of people of a variety of different cultures. Yet, the majority were able to reach agreement on an extensive set of enumerated human rights, and despite the enormous social and technological changes that have transpired during the intervening 70 years, it is hardly inadequate today. (Note that the right of same-sex couples to marry and found families was not included. Hopefully it would if this Declaration were being composed today.)

Criminal codes--especially the definitions of crimes against the person, which by their very nature and existence allude to basic human rights--are astoundingly similar among almost all nations on earth. Languages are socially or culturally relative; at least in the past, cuisines have been socially relative to a large degree, as have been music, architecture, religions. But the norms of unlawful behavior of one citizen toward another are nearly identical across diverse cultures.

The Golden Rule is also not socially or culturally relative. “The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a moral maxim or principle of altruism found in nearly every human culture and religion, suggesting it is related to a fundamental human nature. [1][2]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

I’m not at all persuaded that basic human rights are not universal merely because such rights are allegedly relative to cultures or we supposedly cannot figure out how to derive such rights. I think humans are doing quite well at deducing and articulating the fundamental rights of persons that should be respected by governments and others. (We are doing much less well at recognizing the rightful treatment of other animals.)

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

Apparently what you're saying here is that the right to believe as one chooses and to practice or to not practice a religion is merely not recognized in every culture. If the writers of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and other such foundational documents took the perspective that a right is a right only insofar as it is practiced in all cultures, the world would be a legally cramped place.

 

[Nous]

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.

So no police officer has a right to arrest anyone?

How would any legal system work under such restraints?

 

[Revoltingest]

Apparently what you're saying here is that the right to believe as one chooses and to practice or to not practice a religion is merely not recognized in every culture. If the writers of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and other such foundational documents took the perspective that a right is a right only insofar as it is practiced in all cultures, the world would be a legally cramped place.

I don't argue that a human right is one only if it's recognized everywhere.
Tis just that what is a "human right" will vary with time & place.
Personally, Americastan recognizes as many as do I.
Prolly most of us here would deny some rights I favor, eg.....
- No forced military servitude.
- The right to lease (prostitution) or sell parts of (kidney) one's body.
- The right to suicide, even assisted.
- No income tax over 25%
- Freedom from frivolous & vexatious prosecution & civil suits.
- The right to have my vote counted on the national level.
If most disagree with my additional rights, does that mean they aren't universal human rights?

 

[Sunstone]

I've never heard of it. What is the theme?

Establishing objective values that can be investigated scientifically.

 

[Nous]

Prolly most of us here would deny some rights I favor, eg.....
- No forced military servitude.
- The right to lease (prostitution) or sell parts of (kidney) one's body.
- The right to suicide, even assisted.
- No income tax over 25%
- Freedom from frivolous & vexatious prosecution & civil suits.
- The right to have my vote counted on the national level.
If most disagree with my additional rights, does that mean they aren't universal human rights?

That's a good question. I need time to ponder it (by which I mean I need to consult my ouija board).

 

[Thanda]

So no police officer has a right to arrest anyone?

How would any legal system work under such restraints?

What are you talking about. A police officer can do whatever he wants - naturally speaking.

 

[Thanda]

Establishing objective values that can be investigated scientifically.

That is obviously the ideal. However it must be understood that most likely you will not come up with just one set of rights that are good for every situation. You may end with different set of rights that will work under differing circumstances. E.g. while democracy has worked for a lot of countries and helped them progress, certain countries in the middle east have so many tribal, ethnic and religious tensions that they would never be able to agree on one constitution and they need a strongman sort of leader to keep them in check.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a good question. I need time to ponder it (by which I mean I need to consult my ouija board).

That's ridiculous!
Ouija boards have no scientific value.
I throw bones, & read the meaning.

 

[dust1n]

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

They don't exist for anyone innately, universally?

 

[icehorse]

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?

Of course they're not yet. But if we survive another couple thousand years I bet they will be. But as of today, they should be on moral, ethical, and survival of the species grounds.

 

[psychoslice]

Humans are a very dangerous breed, they are so over taken by their big ego's, they are a product of misery............but we don't have to be like that, the ball is in the court of each and everyone of us, its that simple.