Does liberalism value human rights over ethics?

[Tambourine]

Human rights exist in practice to a certain extent in the western world (though less so under trump’s leading of the US).

We know for a fact that speech is not free, that people are being brutalized by police and militaries, and that there exist entire categories of people who have fewer rights than others solely due to the circumstances of their birth.

Are you argueing that as long as a privileged, relatively wealthy minority remains relatively free, universal human rights exist in practice?

Some people are (or appear to be) of the opinion that as we are outbread by people with no respect for human rights, they (who don’t respect rights) will eventually take over here in the west and any human rights we currently enjoy in practice will disappear.

As far as I can tell, these people have already taken over in the US, and in many other countries around the world. Trump does not appear to have any respect for human rights, does he?

What puzzles me however is your mentioning of "outbreeding", as if fascism and a disregard for other people's rights was genetic in nature. What led you to such a belief?

 

[danieldemol]

What puzzles me however is your mentioning of "outbreeding", as if fascism and a disregard for other people's rights was genetic in nature. What led you to such a belief?

I do not believe fascism and disregard for other people’s rights is genetic in nature, what I believe is that it can be passed on through a combination of reproduction and indoctrination.

 

[night912]

Human rights (in the modern sense) and Western liberalism are really evolutions of the Christian ethical traditions that emerged gradually throughout the Middle Ages and early modern period (of course there were other additional influences too). Would be helpful if more Western liberals understood the intellectual traditions behind why 'universal' human rights emerged when and where they did though. If people get complacent about the innateness, stability and permanence of their belief systems, they could be in for a big surprise.

I think that's the biggest problem we are facing and not enough people are seeing it to have an impact to realize that it's an issue we should look into more. It's the ones such as yourself that are blinding the eyes of people. You present the idea that people needs more understanding about particular things, but you yourself does not understand it, but speak as if you did all the while you are using it to bolster your own beliefs. Knowing its history is important but the knowledge must be accurate and be as complete as possible. It's true that christianity had an impact on on modern human rights and liberalism, but it predates christianity. To paint a picture showing that christianity as being the origin and making it appear as if it had the most significant impact on modern human rights is disgusting and disrespectful to its history. You mentioned that there were some "other" things that had influenced in the evolution of human rights and yet deliberately omitted that information, but those "other" things were the ones that had the most significant impact on it. In fact, the history surrounding the creation of the USA and its civil war played the most significant part and paved the way to how we recognize today as modern human rights. Instead of pointing fingers at others and telling them to learn more of its history, try taking your own advice and do some actual research of its history. That way you will have some true and accurate knowledge about it. And if you already know the history, at least be honest about when providing information to others about it. The mindset of making your beliefs shine above all others, should not even cross the your mind when it comes to defending, improving and upholding the values of human rights. The American forefathers faced this exact issue in the early years of their country's development. They pushed it aside because they could not let go of their beliefs regarding human rights. It was not until during the years of the civil war, that America was able to let go of the past that had made an impact on the human rights.

The problem with 'universal' values which belies their monotheistic roots is the perceived duty to proselytise these values. It's better to focus on the human rights than the universal. People are better off ensuring their values survive in their own societies rather than seeking to ensure that other people in very different societies subscribe to their value system. Create the kind of society you want to live in and let the people of other nations take responsibility for their own societies.

What good is it to hold on to the titles of the values if you don't/cannot live by those values. Human rights are meaningless if it's only given to some humans and not to all humans.

 

[Augustus]

To paint a picture showing that christianity as being the origin and making it appear as if it had the most significant impact on modern human rights is disgusting and disrespectful to its history.

Nope, it's pretty easy to trace the evolution of the ideas which became Western Liberalism, and which in turn were the driving force behind the modern concept of human rights.

You can start with why "all men are created equal", why the fundamental unit of society is the individual, why history is 'progressive' etc.

n fact, the history surrounding the creation of the USA and its civil war played the most significant part and paved the way to how we recognize today as modern human rights.

The USA: famously unaffected by Christianity

What good is it to hold on to the titles of the values if you don't/cannot live by those values. Human rights are meaningless if it's only given to some humans and not to all humans.

How would you go about enforcing human rights in China and Russia?

 

[night912]

Nope, it's pretty easy to trace the evolution of the ideas which became Western Liberalism, and which in turn were the driving force behind the modern concept of human rights.

You can start with why "all men are created equal", why the fundamental unit of society is the individual, why history is 'progressive' etc.

If you say it's so easy, how come you do not know that the origin goes back further than Christianity.

The USA: famously unaffected by Christianity

Hahaha. Thanks for proving how irrational your mindset is. Too irrational that you went into defense mode and defended christianity with that statement. The reason is because after I presented my points, you couldn't defend what you argue about human rights then apparently you must of had delusions about christianity being under attack or something. Why else would you need to defend your religion in response to my comment. I'll repost it.

I said,

In fact, the history surrounding the creation of the USA and its civil war played the most significant part and paved the way to how we recognize today as modern human rights.

And you responded with this.....

The USA: famously unaffected by Christianity

How would you go about enforcing human rights in China and Russia?

People in China and Russia are not humans? Are people in the USA living in a different city not humans? Are people living in poor communities not humans? Are people of different skin color different from you not humans?

You've just showed your true self so there's no need to go further with this discussion. No point in discussing human rights with someone who don't see other people as being humans because of them being different from you. So going to ignore you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Does (western) liberalism value human rights over ethics?

My initial thoughts on this is that it is a contradiction in terms. Human rights are rights because they pertain to the ethical treatment of humans.

By comparison allegedly “revealed” religions tend to value these alleged revelations over ethics and human rights (at least as far as traditional Islamic sects such as the ahl e hadeeth are concerned).

Please discuss.

Can you give an example of a human right that conflicts with 3thical consideration? I can think of a couple of human rights that conflict with certain moral beliefs, no ethical ones, though.

 

[Augustus]

People in China and Russia are not humans? Are people in the USA living in a different city not humans? Are people living in poor communities not humans? Are people of different skin color different from you not humans?

You've just showed your true self so there's no need to go further with this discussion. No point in discussing human rights with someone who don't see other people as being humans because of them being different from you. So going to ignore you.

Jesus wept

If your reading comprehension is so bad that you think this has anything to do with what I said, I'm very happy you won't be responding to any of my posts.