Universal Morality/Human Rights

[Rival]

It seems that there are two questions on the table right now:

1 - Are there universal moral laws?
2 - If so, can they be imposed on others?

For #1, I'd say that - ignoring relativists - there are some universal axioms. And that from these axioms, sets of morals can be constructed. So I think we could have more than one set of morals that all follow the same axioms, and that would be okay.

For #2, I'd say one of our axioms would be freedom of movement is good, so people could just move to or away from different systems as they wish. I guess that means I don't think it would be a good idea to impose one set of morals on others - but I do think that if a set of morals is in opposition to universal axioms, we should be able to do something about that. E.g., if one country has slaves, perhaps the rest of us would put economic sanctions on that country?

But haven't you contradicted yourself by saying 'Yes there are universal axioms' and 'But if one country is doing x bad thing everyone else agrees is wrong...' which shows that there aren't universal axioms.

It seems they are 'universal' through imposition.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not sure I'd agree that "nations" are a good idea (or an unavoidable one)?

What do you see as a realistic and preferable alternative?

freedom of movement is good

What constitutes FoM?

What would make it an axiomatic principle?

Unlimited FoM Seems very much something the average person would oppose.

there are some universal axioms

What would these be in your opinion?

 

[icehorse]

But haven't you contradicted yourself by saying 'Yes there are universal axioms' and 'But if one country is doing x bad thing everyone else agrees is wrong...' which shows that there aren't universal axioms.

It seems they are 'universal' through imposition.

And @Augustus

Of course we're simplifying things in this discussion. So with that in mind, I would say that "good actors" throughout the world come to agree on a set of universal morality axioms. They are then all free to develop morals that are consistent with those axioms. For example, if we want to address economic systems, it could well be that there are morally "good" socialist systems and also morally "good" capitalist systems.

But we'd probably still have "bad actors" who build systems inconsistent with our universal moral axioms, and that's when freedom of movement and economic sanctions would come into the fray.

One of my assumptions is that - for the most part - people will seek personal well being. So if the socialist society isn't their cup of tea, they can try out the capitalist system.

An example of an axiom might be (emphasize "might"), the golden rule. One thing I want to add here is that I'm not claiming to have developed a set of axioms - but I think humanity could, if we had the will.

 

[osgart]

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 believe there are general principles of a universal morality grounded in virtues. At the crux of this morality is what a reasonable person would consider to be trustworthy and deserving. Virtues are positive values, and indispensable meanings such as honesty, patience, humility, and compassion among many others.

Morality can only be enforced on a case by case basis. All moralities have causes and effects that are either neutral, detrimental, or beneficial to the common good of all people.

To the common good of all people is a good start to a universal foundation to morality. Ultimately humans want to maximize their freedoms without infringing upon others, nor damaging others.

Morality is most effective when people ground themselves in their own recognition of what is acceptable, what is permissible, and what is rejectable. We need to see reality as it is, and not what we prefer it to be on a personal level.

The question to ask primarily is how myself would fully desire to live without doing damage to anyone else, I should never deny that to anyone else.

Most of morality is simple in experience as to knowing right from wrong, yet hard to put into words. Injustice is known by conceivability and experience and the same with justice.

It's up to well intentioned people to lead the way. Those of bad will only muddy the waters and make things complicated. I think each generation is a roll of the dice as to what will transpire morally from their power and influence.

Morality centers on not doing damage to other people, and it also centers on trustworthiness and deservingness. As long as we aim to enforce morality bearing all these considerations in mind we will err on the side of rightness. I for one am not resigned to human nature being incapable of good as do some fundamentalist religions.

Whomever leads the way, they should not go unimpeded and unchallenged.

The equal worth of all human beings should not be discarded because inclusion is far superior to exclusion in building a society. It is obvious that some contribute more to society than others but we must consider human nature and the hearts, minds, and wills of every person. A person is not valued solely by contribution, ability and intellect alone. The equal worth of people is rooted in their innocence of their intentions, and their blamelessness in damaging other people.

 

[Unfettered]

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?

The answer is actually very simple. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and all rights that may be identified as extensions of these, are the natural inheritance of every human being—without exception—and are inviolate by other humans, whether individually or collectively, except where a human seeks to or does violate another human being's rights.

Where the above assertion is not true, there is not to be found "civilization."

It really is that simple. A lot of folks get hung up on the origin of human rights, but that is a distraction. It is self-evident that they are real. If they aren't, there can be no civilization (speaking not of collectives of humans coexisting, but of humans coexisting in societies in whcih each human in the society enjoys all human rights equally, by default, and at all times).

 

[Rival]

The answer is actually very simple. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and all rights that may be identified as extensions of these, are the natural inheritance of every human being—without exception—and are inviolate by other humans, whether individually or collectively, except where a human seeks to or does violate another human being's rights.

Where the above assertion is not true, there is not to be found "civilization."

It really is that simple. A lot of folks get hung up on the origin of human rights, but that is a distraction. It is self-evident that they are real. If they aren't, there can be no civilization (speaking not of collectives of humans coexisting, but of humans coexisting in societies in whcih each human in the society enjoys all human rights equally, by default, and at all times).

Most ancient civilisations recognised no such thing.

 

[Augustus]

One of my assumptions is that - for the most part - people will seek personal well being. So if the socialist society isn't their cup of tea, they can try out the capitalist system.

Do you mean we would abolish nationalities and give people freedom to move anywhere?

I’d say the creation of systems (whatever form they would take) that people merely have a transactional relationship with cannot create the high levels of cohesion and social trust necessary for strong welfare states.

By transactional I mean attachment is based on tangible cost/benefit.

Open borders and strong welfare states are not compatible as studies have shown diversity to be negatively correlated with social trust.

In places with low social trust people find it “smart” to game the system as much as possible as it is assumed that is what everyone does.

Other studies have shown that if you make a relationship transactional, then people treat it as a commodity. Fining parents who picked their children up late from day care made more people do it as instead of appealing to their sense of responsibility, it became a cost/benefit decision.

 

[icehorse]

Do you mean we would abolish nationalities and give people freedom to move anywhere?

I’d say the creation of systems (whatever form they would take) that people merely have a transactional relationship with cannot create the high levels of cohesion and social trust necessary for strong welfare states.

By transactional I mean attachment is based on tangible cost/benefit.

Open borders and strong welfare states are not compatible as studies have shown diversity to be negatively correlated with social trust.

No doubt, getting the details correct would not be trivial. But I think you've made some assumptions here that we don't need to make. In addition, I think that even if people were allowed to move, they wouldn't do it willy-nilly. It seems that there will always be a lot of inertia to overcome to move your entire life from one place to another, no?

As for welfare states, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you? Are you saying that FoM must include a strong welfare state? If so, can you say more about how that works?

 

[Augustus]

No doubt, getting the details correct would not be trivial. But I think you've made some assumptions here that we don't need to make.

If FoM is an axiom, you must have some rough idea how you would perceive it working and adding value to the world.

How might it work?

It seems that there will always be a lot of inertia to overcome to move your entire life from one place to another, no?

FoM would remove a lot of the inertia.

People have always moved for a better life, and have moved to cities or richer countries.

People go to extraordinary lengths to do it illegally, imagine if it was easy and legal.

As for welfare states, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you? Are you saying that FoM must include a strong welfare state? If so, can you say more about how that works?

FoM is incompatible with strong welfare.

I’d say strong welfare should exist in an ideal society, and that anything that makes this harder to achieve is problematic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

There is no system of values the world can agree upon at this time. The best hope is that the nations of the world come together and agree on an ethical framework for governments and societies. The one that has the best hope of becoming universal is a utilitarian ethic for structuring free, democratic, tolerant societies.

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?

Rights only come from man if by rights we mean enumerated and enforced rights. The word is also used to refer to what things others want all to have but cannot guarantee at this time, like enough food or an education. We can call those rights, but they are obviously not the same in places where they are not enforced.

on what basis can universal morals and rights be said to exist?

They can't be said to exist.

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?

If the other nation were part of a collective of nations that agreed to banish chattel slavery, then a nation in violation of that agreement can be sanctioned for it. If Ukraine had been part of an organization that agreed to defend its member nations, then it would have had a legal right to a defense against the Russian incursion. As it is, they don't, even though most would agree that what Putin is doing to the Ukranian people is immoral.

where do any such principles come from?

The conscience if one has one, and from base reptilian and mammalian urges if he doesn't.

when asked about ideas such as slavery, will immediately jump to the idea that slavery is inherently immoral

That's not how I would word it. It offends my sensibilities. It causes a dysphoric response in me. I object and want to help prevent slavery if necessary. But that is a subjective intuition. I can explain how it benefits society and how it violates the Golden Rule, but that wouldn't matter to many. Slavery isn't immoral to them. Cheating them out of a "fair price" for their slave, however, would be.

I just watched Django last night, a movie about a Civil War era liberated slave looking for his slave wife. Lots of whipping and broken people in shackles. It felt wrong to me, but the slavers in the movie did what slave owners did to protect their investments, and many were depicted as enjoying the sadism and violence, which rings true as we look around us today. Nobody can claim to have objective truth in these matters, just moral intuitions that they find compelling to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[icehorse]

FoM would remove a lot of the inertia.

People have always moved for a better life, and have moved to cities or richer countries.

People go to extraordinary lengths to do it illegally, imagine if it was easy and legal.

I haven't thought a lot about implementation details. But if strong welfare is part of the equation (which probably seems right), then I guess some sort of paperwork would be involved?

But what you just said is kind of the point. People move if they think they can find a better life, even though moving is hard. So if one "country's" solution isn't working well, people could just move away. It would seem that over time, bad solutions would just fade away.

I'm off for a few days..

 

[Unfettered]

Most ancient civilisations recognised no such thing.

Understood. If they recognized the principle in actual practice, that's what applies most to the question, I would say. And to the extent that they did not practice the principle, to that extent we will find that they did not enjoy civilization. IE, some faction in the society was abused without civil recourse. Pick a society I guess. Let's look at one.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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?

Like money, the concept of rights only exists because we collectively agree that it does. It's a matter of belief. I do think there's practical methods to devise a system of ethics and we can certainly examine different ethical systems to judge how they effect society. But that's as objective as it gets.

 

[Augustus]

I haven't thought a lot about implementation details. But if strong welfare is part of the equation (which probably seems right), then I guess some sort of paperwork would be involved?

Strong welfare requires social support and a willingness to pay for it. This requires social trust and cohesion based around a common identity and sense of purpose.

Open borders reduces social trust, sense of identity and social cohesion and thus the solidarity necessary for strong welfare, especially if the perception is that "outsiders" just move there to mooch of the welfare.

Also successful places will have vast influxes of people and social services cannot cope. You can't plan infrastructure and budgets if your population can double in a decade.

FoM also enables more "havens for the rich", gated countries rather than gated communities.

For me the idea is utopian rather than realistic.

But what you just said is kind of the point. People move if they think they can find a better life, even though moving is hard. So if one "country's" solution isn't working well, people could just move away. It would seem that over time, bad solutions would just fade away.

Or you simply damage the good solutions, while making the struggling places even worse as those that remain are those too poor to move.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I don't think so.

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

Don't you mean that it declares people should have those?

- From where?

Thinking / reasoning humans.

- Accorded by whom?

Humans

- Enforced by who

Humans

or what?

Laws, designed and voted into effect by humans.

And what if a nation disagrees?

Plenty do. And they tend to be hellholes where oppression and misery reigns.

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,

Plenty nations on earth whipe their behinds with human rights. I'm not seeing them being invaded and forced to respect them.
However, that doesn't stop the more civilized nations on this planet to judge those nations for it and treat them accordingly. For example through trade embargo's etc. I think that's fair.

more importantly, on what basis can universal morals and rights be said to exist?

Reason.

Are they not just a creation of the more powerful nations and bodies at the time they're created?

Their creation is a result of looking at the world as well as history and reasoning about how to ensure people get to live in peace and harmony with one another, where individuals have freedom and can live secure prosperous lives in whatever way they see fit.

Or is there some suggestion of a higher, non-temporal, non-contextual, non-situational set of values that exist for all time?

I don't think so, no.
However, I do think that if we are going to agree on certain goals concerning well-being, freedom, health, safety, literacy, etc... and agree that those things are important, then we will oftenly and naturally reach similar conclusions and end up with things like universal human rights.

There are only so many paths we can objectively take to ensure a maximised potential of achieving those goals.

If so, how are these proven and what gives anyone the right to impose them on non-compliant nations and cultures?

I don't think anyone is trying to "impose" them.
At best, one is trying to motivate nations to respect them.

Again, plenty of nations don't and haven't even signed any declarations that they will be respecting those rights.
Those nations haven't been invaded to have these things "imposed" on them, do they?



As for how we "prove" that they work... well, just look around.
Look at how life looks like for average Joe in a country that respects them as opposed to a country that doesn't.
Which life seems most desirable to you?
Look at the more objective things like societal health indexes, infant mortality rates, amount of freedom people have, etc.

I think you'll find that the more a country respects things like human rights, the better these numbers and statistics tend to be.
And the opposite: the less they are respected, the worse life in those countries is. There will be a lot more overall suffering.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

What do you mean by "universal morality"? Do you mean a morality that everyone acknowledges? Of course not.

Do you mean a morality that exists independent of someone's subjective sense/understanding that they will be held to account for in some way? Whether divine punishment, karmic reincarnation or some other means? I believe so, but there are axioms necessary to reach that conclusion, just as there are to reach the conclusion that there is no such universal morality.

 

[Unfettered]

What do you mean by "universal morality"? Do you mean a morality that everyone acknowledges? Of course not.

Do you mean a morality that exists independent of someone's subjective sense/understanding that they will be held to account for in some way? Whether divine punishment, karmic reincarnation or some other means? I believe so, but it does there are axioms necessary to reach that conclusion, just as there are to reach the conclusion that there is no such universal morality.

Excellent post.

 

[Bthoth]

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

There are many ideas but the benchmarks have not been made clear on even what 'life' is.

Some believe life is of the perspective of human.

The topic on a universal morality is a great venue to pan out but it must include the scientific scope to even have grounding in reality.

 

[icehorse]

For me the idea is utopian rather than realistic.

Or you simply damage the good solutions, while making the struggling places even worse as those that remain are those too poor to move.

Well you're making a lot of assumptions here. I was not claiming that the only necessary action was to allow FoM - of course other adjustments to the system would be necessary.

The other point here is that - if we're to survive - we have to accomplish things that have never succeeded before. So if we rely too much on historical precedence, we're doomed.

 

[Rival]

What do you mean by "universal morality"? Do you mean a morality that everyone acknowledges? Of course not.

Do you mean a morality that exists independent of someone's subjective sense/understanding that they will be held to account for in some way? Whether divine punishment, karmic reincarnation or some other means? I believe so, but there are axioms necessary to reach that conclusion, just as there are to reach the conclusion that there is no such universal morality.

If the UDHR is true, on what basis can its list of rights be substantiated?