Universal human rights: nonsense on stilts.

[Heyo]

Well, I never claimed that pursuing happiness is a right.

@wellwisher did and I asked him for the citation. By jumping in you made his argument yours. (And didn't do him or yourself a favour.)

The Bill Of Rights does strive towards that though.

In a less enthusiastic way than the revolutionary Declaration of Independence, though.

We do have a right to life in our constitution. But it has a different flaw, it isn't even a constitution, it is still only the "Grundgesetz". When given the opportunity to make it into a constitution, our politicians also didn't follow through with the original enthusiasm from the dismantling of the GDR.

 

[Revoltingest]

@wellwisher did and I asked him for the citation. By jumping in you made his argument yours. (And didn't do him or yourself a favour.)

Just trying to be helpful....do you a favor (not a "favour").

 

[Heyo]

Just trying to be helpful....do you a favor (not a "favour").

My spellchecker is set to "English" not to "Americaneese".

 

[Revoltingest]

My spellchecker is set to "English" not to "Americaneese".

Cor, blimey!
Best fix that ASAP.

BTW, I use a British word processor at work.
Even it has the option to use Ameristanian spelling.

 

[sun rise]

It's interesting that atheists are arguing there are no essential rights. Believers would argue differently whether they be the deists of the Founders or members of various different religions today.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The concept of universal human rights is nonsense.

A right can be given by a law-making body.
The absence of a law against something means that it is a right until a law against it is introduced.

That is all a right amounts to. Everything else described as 'my right' is a want.

As more specific rights are introduced in legislation, you will get a point where Right A and Right B clash, so one of them will have to give way to the other, making it not 'universal'.

I throw down the gauntlet to anyone willing to defend the idea of universal human rights as being anything other than wishful thinking.

The concept of universal human rights or inherent rights comes from the Christian concept of all humans being made in the image of God and that confers dignity. So they are seen as coming from God, and no man or government has the authority to grant or take them away. It's the basis for modern Western democracy and America, specifically, was founded on such ideals. In that node of government, the government has its powers limited and it's to be kept on a leash, as liberty is the prime ideal.

Obviously if you throw God out, you're going to have a hard time arguing for the idea of inherent rights or dignity. You certainly can't base those things in nature.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The concept of universal human rights is nonsense.

A right can be given by a law-making body.
The absence of a law against something means that it is a right until a law against it is introduced.

That is all a right amounts to. Everything else described as 'my right' is a want.

As more specific rights are introduced in legislation, you will get a point where Right A and Right B clash, so one of them will have to give way to the other, making it not 'universal'.

I throw down the gauntlet to anyone willing to defend the idea of universal human rights as being anything other than wishful thinking.

I agree if you mean that there are no rights except for those enumerated and enforced by man, which is why I object to the phrase God-given rights. They weren't (or still aren't) rights until human beings say they are, if right means more than a moral imperative.

Also, people insisting that they have rights that no law or law enforcement agency recognizes as we see frequently when people are being arrested insisting on those non-existent rights. Remember the medical exemptions that people were claiming gave them the right to enter premises requiring masks without one? If nobody will enforce your "right," it's only a wish.

But some things called universal human rights, such as freedom from torture fit your definition and mine: man has enumerated and will enforce them, so I also wouldn't use the word nonsense with reference to the concept.

 

[Bird123]

The concept of universal human rights is nonsense.

A right can be given by a law-making body.
The absence of a law against something means that it is a right until a law against it is introduced.

That is all a right amounts to. Everything else described as 'my right' is a want.

As more specific rights are introduced in legislation, you will get a point where Right A and Right B clash, so one of them will have to give way to the other, making it not 'universal'.

I throw down the gauntlet to anyone willing to defend the idea of universal human rights as being anything other than wishful thinking.

Universal human rights are rights God grants everyone. When people talk of universal human rights they attempt to copy God's actions.

Those who value the petty thing of control of others create lessons for themselves. They will learn when it comes to their turn to understand why God grants the rights God grants. Our actions will return, in time, to teach us what we do not know.

Life is the education of God's children. When one understands all sides, Intelligence will make the best choices. Fast forward and after enough lessons, will anyone be making rules and laws in an attempt to control others?? Of course not. All there will be are the Universal rights God grants all His children. After all, it is the most intelligent choice to make.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Brickjectivity]

It doesn't follow that just because some or many things are required to live and raise children that those things must be rights. Unless you are merely defining rights this way, which I have no reason to agree with said definition.

We are talking about negative natural rights. It is the context of the OP. We aren't talking about privilege, and we aren't talking about positive rights.

The OP is talking about the category of rights called negative natural rights. If I am wrong about that, then please forgive and confine what I'm talking about to those. Governments can grant privileges and positive rights and unnatural negative rights, too; but governments can't grant natural negative rights. A human breathes by itself. Breath is not something legislated into existence. It is not granted. If you need help to breath, then that is different. Government might grant that right. That is a positive right -- something someone must do for you. But if the government thinks it can grant you the right to breath, then it has merely destroyed the entire meaning of 'Right'. It makes no sense then to say that it is granting any right: for it has denied the existence of rights. It makes more sense to claim a government might grant the privilege to breath. I'd disagree, but it would at least make sense. It makes no sense to say it grants the right to breath. To say a government grants the 'Right' to breath would just be government level hypocrasy. Just say it grants the privilege to breath. That's wrong but not hypocritical.

 

[Koldo]

We are talking about negative natural rights. It is the context of the OP. We aren't talking about privilege, and we aren't talking about positive rights.

The OP is talking about the category of rights called negative natural rights. If I am wrong about that, then please forgive and confine what I'm talking about to those. Governments can grant privileges and positive rights and unnatural negative rights, too; but governments can't grant natural negative rights. A human breathes by itself. Breath is not something legislated into existence. It is not granted. If you need help to breath, then that is different. Government might grant that right. That is a positive right -- something someone must do for you. But if the government thinks it can grant you the right to breath, then it has merely destroyed the entire meaning of 'Right'. It makes no sense then to say that it is granting any right: for it has denied the existence of rights. It makes more sense to claim a government might grant the privilege to breath. I'd disagree, but it would at least make sense. It makes no sense to say it grants the right to breath. To say a government grants the 'Right' to breath would just be government level hypocrasy. Just say it grants the privilege to breath. That's wrong but not hypocritical.

I take the OP as being opposed to the claim that natural rights exist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I take the OP as being opposed to the claim that natural rights exist.

Some rights are granted by government, so there is some truth to the OP. It just makes too broad a claim. If there's something that shouldn't be done to people, then that's what a negative natural right is. Governments are built upon such rights and cannot grant them, just like they cannot grant you to be the height that you have already grown to be.

The UN concept is that government *can* grant any right. To that degree I am sympathetic with the OP that the UN has made a mess and has poorly defined rights. The UN rights do trample upon one another, and it has declared to be natural rights which are not natural. Some of the rights are not obvious at all. They are contrived, so they are not universal, not natural negative rights.

 

[Koldo]

It just makes too broad a claim. If there's something that shouldn't be done to people, then that's what a negative natural right is. Governments are built upon such rights and cannot grant them, just like they cannot grant you to be the height that you have already grown to be.

How would you substantiate the claim that a natural right exists though?

 

[The Hammer]

I throw down the gauntlet to anyone willing to defend the idea of universal human rights as being anything other than wishful thinking.

Water

 

[David Young]

Water is a necessity for staying alive. How does calling it a universal human right change anything?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Rights and Responsibilities are the two sides of the same coin.
You can not have one without the other.

 

[David Young]

Wrong.
You can definitely have rights without responsibilities.
Just take a look at children, asylum-seekers, people with 'mental-health issues', winos, junkies etc.

 

[Brickjectivity]

How would you substantiate the claim that a natural right exists though?

I think there is no substantiating, just acknowledging they exist or not. A government either recognizes that they exist or it doesn't. It just cannot grant them, because they are natural. If a government says it is granting them it is double speak, because it is both acknowledging they exist and denying it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Wrong.
You can definitely have rights without responsibilities.
Just take a look at children, asylum-seekers, people with 'mental-health issues', winos, junkies etc.

Rights are things that you can exercise.
The people you mention do have responsibilities but are often actioned on these peoples behalf or forgone. In much the same ways such people rarely claim any rights.
Asylum seekers, are subject to the all the laws of the respective country.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think there is no substantiating, just acknowledging they exist or not. A government either recognizes that they exist or it doesn't. It just cannot grant them, because they are natural. If a government says it is granting them it is double speak, because it is both acknowledging they exist and denying it.

There are no natural rights.
Each country ratifies such rights as its government approves in Law.
As yet there is no supreme world Government.

For example, The USA does not ratify all aspects of the Genevan convention. especially in regard to weapons of war.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are no natural rights.
Each country ratifies such rights as its government approves in Law.
As yet there is no supreme world Government.

For example, The USA does not ratify all aspects of the Genevan convention. especially in regard to weapons of war.

I'm not arguing that they definitely exist. I'm saying that a negative natural right cannot, by definition, be granted by a government. It is double speak. If a government recognizes that a right is natural, then it cannot grant that right. Its a side issue.

The main issue is that the OP generalizes too much and says that because governments can grant rights that universal human rights are nonsense. Human rights remain a necessity for a government to recognize. If it doesn't there is just chaos or oppression. No one is allowed to do anything like in N Korea, so the people are just property. The fact that there are misunderstandings about rights or that there can be a competition between individuals over whose rights are recognized does not vanquish the need for rights or recognizing rights.