Universal Morality/Human Rights

[Rival]

Is there a universal morality that transcends nations/cultures etc. that can be enforced by an international body?

For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares everyone has these, but I ask:

- From where?

- Accorded by whom?

- Enforced by who or what?

And what if a nation disagrees? If a nation democratically elects or socially acknowledges a leader/emperor etc. and this government applies laws that go against any of these human rights, what gives an international body the right to intervene and, more importantly, on what basis can universal morals and rights be said to exist? Are they not just a creation of the more powerful nations and bodies at the time they're created? Or is there some suggestion of a higher, non-temporal, non-contextual, non-situational set of values that exist for all time? If so, how are these proven and what gives anyone the right to impose them on non-compliant nations and cultures?

 

[Stevicus]

Is there a universal morality that transcends nations/cultures etc. that can be enforced by an international body?

For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares everyone has these, but I ask:

- From where?

- Accorded by whom?

- Enforced by who or what?

And what if a nation disagrees? If a nation democratically elects or socially acknowledges a leader/emperor etc. and this government applies laws that go against any of these human rights, what gives an international body the right to intervene and, more importantly, on what basis can universal morals and rights be said to exist? Are they not just a creation of the more powerful nations and bodies at the time they're created? Or is there some suggestion of a higher, non-temporal, non-contextual, non-situational set of values that exist for all time? If so, how are these proven and what gives anyone the right to impose them on non-compliant nations and cultures?

I see the UDHR as more of the result of historical trial-and-error and perhaps rooted in a desire to engender greater political harmony and stability - for practical reasons as much as anything else. There have been variations and different interpretations of the basic concept, such as the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam:

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, it's a far different matter as to whether governments truly follow any of these precepts, even if they sign a document claiming that they agree with it.

I don't know if there's anything universal about it or if it comes from a higher power. I think it probably came about from a world which was tired of war and tyranny and was hoping to come up with something better. Maybe they shouldn't have called it "universal," but I guess they had high hopes.

 

[icehorse]

I think that a small set of axioms are required before any universal conclusions can be made. And sadly, I think that even the most basic axioms would be argued. For example, in the OP you assumed that democracy is "good". (BTW, I agree.) But a theocratic leader might not agree, and so his population's opinion wouldn't matter to him.

I've always liked the idea that in an ideal world people could try different approaches to morality, and the population could just "vote with their feet", i.e., be free to leave systems that they didn't like. But even that requires the axiom that it's "good" to allow freedom of movement.

So the pure moral relativist can knock down any approach this way by finding underlying axioms. That said, I believe we can find axioms that the overwhelming majority of people agree on, and build universal morality from those axioms. The relativists can pound sand

 

[Rival]

For example, in the OP you assumed that democracy is "good". (BTW, I agree.)

I didn't, I mentioned an accepted emperor as well

I'm a monarchist. I don't really believe in democracy.

 

[Rival]

I think that a small set of axioms are required before any universal conclusions can be made. And sadly, I think that even the most basic axioms would be argued. For example, in the OP you assumed that democracy is "good". (BTW, I agree.) But a theocratic leader might not agree, and so his population's opinion wouldn't matter to him.

I've always liked the idea that in an ideal world people could try different approaches to morality, and the population could just "vote with their feet", i.e., be free to leave systems that they didn't like. But even that requires the axiom that it's "good" to allow freedom of movement.

So the pure moral relativist can knock down any approach this way by finding underlying axioms. That said, I believe we can find axioms that the overwhelming majority of people agree on, and build universal morality from those axioms. The relativists can pound sand

I would ask why people agree on those axioms and even if they agree, what does this mean? Can such axioms ever change?

 

[sun rise]

Is there a universal morality that transcends nations/cultures etc

I believe there is but also recognize that not every nation/culture realizes this. I find the same root morality in religions and in secular humanism as well. And that root is oneness and love. Not all proponents of any of these will agree with me. It's my personal view. One of my favorite examples of this comes from the atheist J. Michael Straczynski in a "Declaration of Principles" Babylon 5 speech which ends:

we must be kind to one another, because each voice enriches us and ennobles us, and each voice lost diminishes us. We are the voice of the Universe, the soul of creation, the fire that will light the way to a better future. We are one.

that can be enforced by an international body

Not today at least. No international body has the power (army) to enforce those rights nor the wisdom to do so properly.

From where?

God

- Accorded by whom?

The NT asserts the primacy of love. Buddhists call this compassion. The Quran speaks of the beneficient (AR-Rahmaan) and Merciful (Ar-Rahemm) Allah. Hindus speak of prem. For Jews, there is a prayer from Rabbe Nachman of Breslove "Let the good in me connect with the good in others, until all the world is transformed through the compelling power of love.”The internet tells me that a core Native American cultural value is "Kinship – In the most profound sense, we are all related. Humans are related both to each other and to all things."

- Enforced by who or what?

Karma. Biblical sowing and reaping. "What goes around, comes around".

 

[icehorse]

I didn't, I mentioned an accepted emperor as well

I'm a monarchist. I don't really believe in democracy.

Ah, well in the OP you said "if a nation democratically elects..." - so I took that to mean you assuming that democracy is "good".

 

[icehorse]

I would ask why people agree on those axioms and even if they agree, what does this mean? Can such axioms ever change?

Well to riff a bit from @sun rise - we might take as axiomatic that love is better than hate. That health is better than disease. I would say that most people would agree because that's how our DNA designed us?

 

[Rival]

Well to riff a bit from @sun rise - we might take as axiomatic that love is better than hate. That health is better than disease. I would say that most people would agree because that's how our DNA designed us?

Well, I wouldn't consider these the kinds of things we're dealing with really.

For instance, slavery is condemned, but if a nation said it's going to bring back chattel slavery would you suggest another nation could punish that slaver nation? Upon what basis? Doesn't the slaver nation have a right to its own legal processes? From whence comes this over-arching universal morality that allows us to condemn slaver nations or give us the right to 'correct' them? How can we prove slavery is evil without resorting to some notion of human rights that is at best a legal fiction and at worst meaningless philosophy?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Is there a universal morality that transcends nations/cultures etc. that can be enforced by an international body?

For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares everyone has these, but I ask:

- From where?

- Accorded by whom?

- Enforced by who or what?

And what if a nation disagrees? If a nation democratically elects or socially acknowledges a leader/emperor etc. and this government applies laws that go against any of these human rights, what gives an international body the right to intervene and, more importantly, on what basis can universal morals and rights be said to exist? Are they not just a creation of the more powerful nations and bodies at the time they're created? Or is there some suggestion of a higher, non-temporal, non-contextual, non-situational set of values that exist for all time? If so, how are these proven and what gives anyone the right to impose them on non-compliant nations and cultures?

I'm not sure there are any such or how they might be made to work, but I think there are certainly some basic core ones that could be implemented worldwide. Perhaps the only way for us to get closer as to such might be for religions to gradually lose their stranglehold on us - and where the rights of children might be eventually recognised not to have such thrust upon them - but I doubt it. Or we could point out the disasters like the Taliban, and similar, so as these to become less fashionable.

I bet many living under the Taliban wished there were some universal rights/morality to claim.

 

[icehorse]

Well, I wouldn't consider these the kinds of things we're dealing with really.

For instance, slavery is condemned, but if a nation said it's going to bring back chattel slavery would you suggest another nation could punish that slaver nation? Upon what basis? Doesn't the slaver nation have a right to its own legal processes? From whence comes this over-arching universal morality that allows us to condemn slaver nations or give us the right to 'correct' them? How can we prove slavery is evil without resorting to some notion of human rights that is at best a legal fiction and at worst meaningless philosophy?

In answer to your sentence that I bolded: I think that when you tackle the question of universal morality, you have to build from the ground up. So in order to consider questions like slavery, you have to have some principles to stand on. I think the way to approach this is to find some truly fundamental baselines that every healthy person agrees with, and build from there. I don't think you can successfully jump into a question like slavery if you don't have some foundational tools to work with.

 

[HonestJoe]

Is there a universal morality that transcends nations/cultures etc. that can be enforced by an international body?

I'd suggest the very reason that there isn't a singular universal morality is why we create formal agreements of common understanding on moral principles, running from local regulations though national law and international agreements. Individuals and groups may well sign up to these agreements even if they're not entirely and unconditionally consistent with their individual moral principles, but a close enough compromise to make it worth accepting for the benefits of everyone else having to accept similar compromises.

The authority to define and enforce such agreements really just extended from the authority to define and enforce any other formal social contract, and in most places, that is granted by the population one way or another. The people who determine and enforce the speed limit on your street are essentially the same ones who determine and enforce your human rights.

And what if a nation disagrees? If a nation democratically elects or socially acknowledges a leader/emperor etc. and this government applies laws that go against any of these human rights, what gives an international body the right to intervene and, more importantly, on what basis can universal morals and rights be said to exist?

From one point of view, the international bodies don't really exist, they're just representatives for the collective will of the member nations/organisations (who in turn are just representatives of their electorates/citizenship).

Any action an intentional body takes is really just action taken by member nations. Those nations could each take unilateral action on the basis of their own laws and moral principles instead. The international agreements are just about trying to maintain a level of consistency and predictability in most situations, which is generally better for everyone.

 

[Rival]

In answer to your sentence that I bolded: I think that when you tackle the question of universal morality, you have to build from the ground up. So in order to consider questions like slavery, you have to have some principles to stand on. I think the way to approach this is to find some truly fundamental baselines that every healthy person agrees with, and build from there. I don't think you can successfully jump into a question like slavery if you don't have some foundational tools to work with.

But that is what I'm asking: where do any such principles come from? Those fundamental baselines you mention are not shared by any society I can discern and seem to be made up.

What I am asking is, if morality is a human invention and dependant on culture, time, etc. there are no human rights, no over-arching morals that everyone can agree to.

The whole of society is, in fact, 'made up' and theoretically, if there is no universal set of morals/a God etc., we can do whatever we like and no-one could tell us otherwise with any useful argument other than 'in this time and place we consider it wrong', which is not really helpful.

 

[icehorse]

But that is what I'm asking: where do any such principles come from? Those fundamental baselines you mention are not shared by any society I can discern and seem to be made up.

I think philosophy attempts to answer those questions. And most people don't spend much time talking about philosophy, so while I think these ideas DO underpin societies, they are seldom discussed. And again, we are biological creatures, and I think the realities of our biologies lead healthy individuals to almost universal morality. E.g., we need to live in groups to survive, and that leads us to ideas like the golden rule.

I think the above also speaks to the other ideas in your post?

 

[Rival]

I think philosophy attempts to answer those questions. And most people don't spend much time talking about philosophy, so while I think these ideas DO underpin societies, they are seldom discussed. And again, we are biological creatures, and I think the realities of our biologies lead healthy individuals to almost universal morality. E.g., we need to live in groups to survive, and that leads us to ideas like the golden rule.

I think the above also speaks to the other ideas in your post?

I agree. As a Theology student I have many an answer to these questions, but they all involve some form of Platonism or Theism. I was intrigued because in many of my threads I had people claiming that universals, such as numbers, do not exist outside of the human mind, yet when asked about ideas such as slavery, will immediately jump to the idea that slavery is inherently immoral, and will not argue these morals are relative and one society can deem slavery morally alright - suddenly, without warning, universals exist when they need them to.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Universal morality, no. Universal ethics, maybe. In that there can be a named ethical system with goals and approaches pre-defined. But even then I've no doubt there'd be details and applications which got argued over.

Which is good. I would not be a big fan of any sort of government or leadership where their ethics couldn't be challenged by their constituents. Or in general because I think impact is more important than intention, the consequence over the virtue.

 

[Rival]

Universal morality, no. Universal ethics, maybe. In that there can be a named ethical system with goals and approaches pre-defined. But even then I've no doubt there'd be details and applications which got argued over.

Which is good. I would not be a big fan of any sort of government or leadership where their ethics couldn't be challenged by their constituents. Or in general because I think impact is more important than intention, the consequence over the virtue.

If a state like the Nazi one showed up again, some people would feel justified in invading it on the basis of morality alone, on the assumption that there are universal moral rights every nation must abide, regardless of accepted legal rulings, or be attacked. This goes with the 'world police' notion some have. I understand your post to be against this?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If a state like the Nazi one showed up again, some people would feel justified in invading it on the basis of morality alone, on the assumption that there are universal moral rights every nation must abide, regardless of accepted legal rulings, or be attacked. This goes with the 'world police' notion some have. I understand your post to be against this?

Not necessarily. My answer will be variable depending on the circumstances.

There are a lot of what I would describe as incredibly immoral leaders that exist now. But the kind of danger they pose vs the kind of danger a war would pose is worth being discussed no matter how bad that leader is, and how big the nation against it is.

That doesn't mean I think non-involvememt is the answer. I specifically think the US should have gotten involved in WW2 a lot sooner. But that doesn't mean that I think every despot should have the US riding in to the 'rescue,' for from it. And I think that sort of belief the US has about itself as world police has had extremely deleterious effects.

 

[Rival]

Not necessarily. My answer will be variable depending on the circumstances.

There are a lot of what I would describe as incredibly immoral leaders that exist now. But the kind of danger they pose vs the kind of danger a war would pose is worth being discussed no matter how bad that leader is, and how big the nation against it is.

That doesn't mean I think non-involvememt is the answer. I specifically think the US should have gotten involved in WW2 a lot sooner. But that doesn't mean that I think every despot should have the US riding in to the 'rescue,' for from it. And I think that sort of belief the US has about itself as world police has had extremely deleterious effects.

What if the state posed no danger, had no intention of expanding? But it owns slaves and is horribly racist.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What if the state posed no danger, had no intention of expanding? But it owns slaves and is horribly racist.

Probably still not enough information for me tbh. Like, most of the nation the US fought posed very little danger and had little expansion, (the danger was mostly ignoring domestic issues in favor of spending on international military adventurism) but the consequence of a large superpower exercising de cart authority is vast. And even if I thought our intentions were genuinely and mostly good (and I don't) that hasn't change that we've destabilized regions and made them worse trying to 'better' them.

But again, I'm not a pacifist, but I also think easy answers are seldom reliable ones. Especially when there's layers of 'state intel' and 'national security.'

I've also definitely intervened in cases more locally where abuse was happening and I could get better information. (specifically, getting someone out of an abusive home where a parent definitely had the worst case of 'every man's home is his castle.')