Ought there to be Universal Human Rights?

[Sunstone]

Ought there to be universal human rights? Why or why not?

Put differently, can it be legitimately argued that some rights apply to everyone, even people who do not live in societies that recognize those rights?

If so, then why?

If not, then why not?

For instance, do I have a moral right (on the grounds of there being an universal right to free expression) to say to the King of Saudi Arabia that he has no moral authority on which basis to flog atheists for expressing their atheism? Why or why not?

 

[Laika]

Ought there to be universal human rights? Why or why not?

Put differently, can it be legitimately argued that some rights apply to everyone, even people who do not live in societies that recognize those rights?

If so, then why?

If not, then why not?

For instance, do I have a moral right (on the grounds of there being an universal right to free expression) to say to the King of Saudi Arabia that he has no moral authority on which basis to flog atheists for expressing their atheism? Why or why not?

the peculiar thing about human rights is they are very value-laden and reflect Christian and Liberal norms about what it means to be "human" based on common intellectual ancestry to the concept of "natural rights". The change from "human rights" to "natural rights" was something that happened in the 20th century (at the latest with the UN declaration of human rights). the importance is not simply terminology, but in that liberal conceptions of "natural" rights had been carried on the back of European wars and colonisation through-out the globe thus making them effectively "universal".

The example you give of a human right to free expression, such as speaking against persecution of apostates in Saudi Arabia, necessarily implies a secular source of rights that takes precedence to the Qur'an and Hadiths as a source of Islamic Law. Being an apostate is a "crime against god" and so in Islamic law takes precedence over individual rights reflecting european traditions of humanism. it is only when that humanist tradition is asserted as objectively true that it holds so the concept of human rights is very vulnerable to attack from relativistic arguments.

As much as I want to agree with the idea, I have to say "no". Ultimately human rights are an illusion and that it particularly relevant when it comes to applying the concept of "universal human rights" where such concepts have no force in law. there is a dangerous side effect in that those who defend liberty take the concept of human rights as an intrinsic expression of their humanity. They fail to grasp that whilst we are born free, that in no way guarentees means we will stay that way. it also fails to recognise both the struggles historically and in the present that people had to make inorder to get those rights or that re-gaining rights lost in the present will necessarily force such sacrifices from future generations. the price of liberty is vigilence but that is compounded when the weapon we use against those enemies is denying their liberty- another area in which proclaiming rights as "human" fails as the concept of liberty is devalued as a rheothical flourish appealing to the fast dimming memory of the concept and the idealised past whilst we bomb countries in its name. Nor is Anarchy a condition of liberty, as our rights are dependent on the existence of a state and on the rule of law to enforce legal protections for rights against the hobbesian war of "all against all" in which "life is brutish and short".

An apostate under Islamic law will- in practice- still be an apostate because as chairman Mao put it; "political power comes out of the barrel of a gun". Appeals to natural justice sound nice but won't effect their release from prison or the over-turning of such legal systems. that will depend on the use of force. The only rights we have and can keep are the ones which we have the power to sustain or obtain. there is nothing natural or intrinsically human about them; there existence is up to us.

 

[Walter Russell]

Ought there to be universal human rights? Why or why not?

Put differently, can it be legitimately argued that some rights apply to everyone, even people who do not live in societies that recognize those rights?

If so, then why?

If not, then why not?

For instance, do I have a moral right (on the grounds of there being an universal right to free expression) to say to the King of Saudi Arabia that he has no moral authority on which basis to flog atheists for expressing their atheism? Why or why not?

Human rights can't be separated from human creation.
The basic right is that as long as your not hurting others your free to live as you choose.

The question is how do we get those rights to be respected. As of now, governments don't respect them, some religions don't respect them and some individuals don't respect them.

Due to the desire for power and control, no government or religion will ever be able to achieve this.

As impossible as it seems today, the only way our rights will truly ever be respected is when we as individuals accept our own responsibility to govern ourselves in a manner which respects others.
If this is ever achieved, there will no longer be a need for government.

This would be internal monarchy with external anarchy.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Ought there to be universal human rights? Why or why not?

Put differently, can it be legitimately argued that some rights apply to everyone, even people who do not live in societies that recognize those rights?

Yes, I think there can, and this is how rights are understood. One can argue for certain moral rights that apply to all agents (whether it be humans, animals, or whatever specific target) regardless of whether they are a citizen of a society or not. What this would mean, is that all agents (not just the law) has a moral obligation to protect these rights. These are called natural rights. Actually one of the purposes of the state is to protect these "natural rights"

For instance, do I have a moral right (on the grounds of there being an universal right to free expression) to say to the King of Saudi Arabia that he has no moral authority on which basis to flog atheists for expressing their atheism? Why or why not?

Yes, if you argue that freedom of expression is a universal right, then you could morally condemn the King of Saudi Arabia as immoral. Now as to what those rights curtail (and where certain rights override each other), that is a matter of debate. The dilemma in your example is whether the right of expression overrides the right of a state to govern its citizens (as represented by the King of Saudi Arabia). A state's duty is to maintain the well-being of citizens (or in this case, lets say humans) and if the free-speech of an individual may harm a greater right of another (or of a greater number) than that can be an argument against free speech itself.

Personally, there are two rights I would argue as fundamental for humans. The right to life, and the right not to have our desires frustrated. The former however always trumps the latter.

 

[DawudTalut]

Ought there to be universal human rights? Why or why not?.....

Peace be on you.
God exits that is why there has to be universal human right.
As Quran says:
[1:2] All praise to Allah, Lord of all worlds / peoples.

 

[Nous]

Ought there to be universal human rights? Why or why not?

Put differently, can it be legitimately argued that some rights apply to everyone, even people who do not live in societies that recognize those rights?

If so, then why?

If not, then why not?

For instance, do I have a moral right (on the grounds of there being an universal right to free expression) to say to the King of Saudi Arabia that he has no moral authority on which basis to flog atheists for expressing their atheism? Why or why not?

It isn’t a question of whether there ought or ought not to be universal human rights. It is a question of whether there are such rights. And the answer is that there are such universal human rights. The UN has said so, and has even enumerated at least some of them: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Employing the language of “rights” is just a way to express the fact that people are under a moral or legal obligation to refrain from perpetrating certain acts upon others or (less often) to perform certain acts on behalf of others. The fact of the existence of rights should be no more troubling or confounding than the existence of prime numbers.

 

[Nous]

Personally, there are two rights I would argue as fundamental for humans. The right to life, and the right not to have our desires frustrated.

I'm glad you agree that the law should not frustrate my desire to possess my neighbor's Mercedes.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I'm glad you agree that the law should not frustrate my desire to possess my neighbor's Mercedes.

Well, it is a Mercedes.

Perhaps I should've have worded it better . By the right not to have desires frustrated, I meant the right not to be forced against our will (forced to do that which we would not consent to) nor our actions or property be used as a mere means to another's ends. The rights of consent (autonomy, property etc) all stem from this basic principle. Your lust for another's Mercedes is not itself a wrong desire, but if you take the Mercedes without the consent of your neighbor, you are in fact violating her right of consent. If she gives you permission to take the car, then there is nothing wrong. Apart from protecting our lives, society functions to regulate interactions such that we are able to fulfill our desires in a way where they do not contradict or clash with others.

 

[Augustus]

It can be legitimately argued that there should be UHR, but only in the sense that it can legitimately be argued that Jesus died for your sins, Muhammed is the seal of the prophets, or the evils of the worlds escaped from Pandora's box. They were just invented out of thin air, based on tradition and relating to a particular view of a particular sector of a particular society.

If human rights are objectively universal, then this means that history is purposeful and in some way teleological. It should, hopefully, progress to a final system where the rule of the righteous comes to span the globe: the 'end of history' where universal human rights are respected in Western style liberal democracies.

However, there is no such teleology, or such a thing as a collective 'humanity', unless there was some kind of creator though who made everything with a plan.

We do have a vague human 'nature', but that this reflects the UNHDR is really quite ludicrous.

It still amazes me how many 'sceptical rationalists atheists', the type who mock religious people for being total morons who believe in 'sky daddies' and 'fairy tales', genuinely believe that our disparate societies of glorified monkeys have a complex system of universal rights that some Europeans literally made up, yet reflect some kind of objective universal truth. A universal truth that just happens to be exactly the same as the view of the modern Western 'sceptical rationalist atheists'.

"And then I discovered that the universal system of human values that has existed for all of eternity just happened to match my own. Which was nice."

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Yes, it is good to have a system of universal rights by which one can compare and contrast different systems of morality and judge their value. These rights are constructed by humans tho.

 

[YmirGF]

It is an ideal that should be worked towards rather than bullying those in opposition into silence.

 

[morphesium]

As the world gets more civilized, there would be more pressure for universal human rights.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ought there to be universal human rights? Why or why not?

Put differently, can it be legitimately argued that some rights apply to everyone, even people who do not live in societies that recognize those rights?

If so, then why?

Yes. Because human morality, including human rights, are ultimately a consequence of human neurology and reason, not of cultural conditioning.

Which is not to say that there are not might challenges involved.

(...)

For instance, do I have a moral right (on the grounds of there being an universal right to free expression) to say to the King of Saudi Arabia that he has no moral authority on which basis to flog atheists for expressing their atheism? Why or why not?

Yes, you do. But that does not mean that you will necessarily be afforded the protection and assurances that would be deserved.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is self evident that human rights should be universal, if we recognise that every one is equal.

However human right come at a cost to those favoured by specil privilidge.
An absolute monach keeps all rights to him self.
An autocracy limits them to those that are recognised by their faith.
all human societies limit rights by their laws and regulations.

Power is maintained by restricting others rights.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Morals do not exist but are created out of universal perception so is the concept of right and wrong.
No action is purely Good or purely bad. But we can try to make sure that with each action suffering is reduced in humans, animals,birds, insects and the environment.
So, laws should not based on religion but on rational thinking and with compassion towards all living beings.

 

[Father Heathen]

For a right to be meaningful it must be universal.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, the only "rights" that exist are the ones that humans create and wish to fought to establish and uphold. So if peoples around the world wish to have similar civil liberties and protections under the law, they will have to form movements and struggle to establish and then protect those things.

Sure, you can say that the Saudi king has no inherent authority to enforce anything because his authority only exists in the minds of humans and people can decide not to recognize it if they want.

 

[idav]

Ought there to be universal human rights? Why or why not?

Put differently, can it be legitimately argued that some rights apply to everyone, even people who do not live in societies that recognize those rights?

If so, then why?

If not, then why not?

For instance, do I have a moral right (on the grounds of there being an universal right to free expression) to say to the King of Saudi Arabia that he has no moral authority on which basis to flog atheists for expressing their atheism? Why or why not?

I don't mind the right to life rule but it has to selfishly be applied to mostly sentient beings for practicality. Logically and arguably we are biological machines that don't always work to full optimization. Wrong can be constituted on the bases of how life ought to be based on full knowledge of science medicine and sociology. Goes with the Hippocratic oath, the reasoning being that science has given Doctors so much knowledge, they are acknowledging the fact and saying they will only use it for "good".

 

[idav]

Human rights can't be separated from human creation.
The basic right is that as long as your not hurting others your free to live as you choose.

The question is how do we get those rights to be respected. As of now, governments don't respect them, some religions don't respect them and some individuals don't respect them.

Due to the desire for power and control, no government or religion will ever be able to achieve this.

As impossible as it seems today, the only way our rights will truly ever be respected is when we as individuals accept our own responsibility to govern ourselves in a manner which respects others.
If this is ever achieved, there will no longer be a need for government.

This would be internal monarchy with external anarchy.

People are going to be inherently selfish as long as the mentality is 'humans are the greatest thing since dinosaurs'.

 

[Aštra’el]

The "rights" people presume they have are all an illusion.... but if everyone realized this there would be chaos. It would seem that upholding widespread delusion is a fundamental aspect of maintaining order. Until all are One, such may always be the case.

I do not perceive this as a "good" or a "bad" thing, but, for the time being... perhaps a necessary thing.