Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

sovereignty and human rights

2»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by TheKingOfGlasgow
    Natural rights DO exist. Otherwise people just get shafted left right and centre.

    People do get shafted left, right and centre, or have you not seen this week's ration of pictures from Abu Ghraib?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the sole liber has quite the point about "natural" human rights. They are indeed human constructs, and far from natural. My favourite example is the "right to life". As one of R.A. Heinlein's characters pontificates in Starship Troopers, "What 'right to life' has a man drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries... What 'right to life' has a man who knows that he must die to save his children? If he chooses to save himself, is that his 'right'... and is it right? If two men are alone on an island and cannibalism is the only alternative to starvation, which one's 'right to life' takes precendence?" (Approximate quote; I don't have the book to hand.)

    kind of what i was trying to say, but better put...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I should say, of course, that the objection most frequently put to me about Heinlein's character's point is that you can't expect forces of nature (the Pacific Ocean) to respect laws etc... which, I think, only serves to underline the point that "human rights" are laws made up by humans for humans.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Welcome back Mack :)

    Concerning religion........

    If you consider rights as a set of moral laws, then they are very similar to those rules as propounded by religion.

    I think you are right in that many lose sight of the fatc that rights are a human construct not 'natural', this is the same as religion, the ten commandants were thought up by people and have been ascribed to God, similar to rights been ascribed to 'nature'


    very interesting........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're contradicting yourself. If you believe that rights exist because humans say so, how can you then say that natural rights do exist?!
    Nope, not contradicting myself. You believe humans impose rights on themselves, if they do, then they're instinctive, if it's instinctive, then it's natural.
    And how can you prove these 'natural rights' do exist?
    See above.
    What 'right to life' has a man drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries... What 'right to life' has a man who knows that he must die to save his children?
    These people are giving up their right to live. The man in the ocean is being denied his right to live, but that doesn't mean it is not natural.
    What's interesting to me is that we somehow forgot that we had thought them up and started declaring them to be immovable features of the universe, somehow intrinsic to our existence.
    Fair point. But things change, culture changes, society changes. In todays modern setting, housing is a necessity that has become a natural right, as is education, health care and so on. These might not necessarily been rights in 'days gone by', but they are now, at least in most people's eyes.
    only serves to underline the point that "human rights" are laws made up by humans for humans.
    What's wrong with this? Why bring nature into the equation?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No.

    Study Locke. Natural rights means that humans are born with rights that are granted by God. Locke stated that natural rights were rights to life, liberty and property (in other words the right to exist, the right to live that existence how you choose and the right to acquire things to sustain that existence).

    I don't believe Locke was right since I don't believe God (if he exists) gives any one any rights. Nor can anyone truly prove that humans are born with any rights.

    Human rights theories are simply an extension of natural rights theories.

    To state that rights are natural because humans say so is incorrect. That simply means that rights aren't inalienable NOR natural!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by TheKingOfGlasgow
    Nope, not contradicting myself. You believe humans impose rights on themselves, if they do, then they're instinctive, if it's instinctive, then it's natural.

    Fair point. We should be very careful with the term "natural". I wouldn't deny that human rights are natural, since I would characterize them as natural products of the natural process that is life on Earth, and human life in particular. I think that the word we're searching for is intrinsic: I deny that human rights are intrinsic to humans themselves as an immediate consequence of their existence as human beings. To me, human rights are only constructs of law and societal convention.

    See above.
    Originally posted by TheKingOfGlasgow
    These people are giving up their right to live. The man in the ocean is being denied his right to live, but that doesn't mean it is not natural.

    See above for my comment on the term "natural". What about the case of the two cannibals?
    Originally posted by TheKingOfGlasgow
    Fair point. But things change, culture changes, society changes. In todays modern setting, housing is a necessity that has become a natural right, as is education, health care and so on. These might not necessarily been rights in 'days gone by', but they are now, at least in most people's eyes.

    So, in your scheme of things, if X is a necessity for someone to live with a certain quality of life in a society with a certain degree of advancement, then X is a "human right"?

    Who decides what level of quality of life, and what amenities, are "necessary" and "human rights"? Surely we're back to the issue of law and society's conventions again?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    Study Locke. Natural rights means that humans are born with rights that are granted by God. Locke stated that natural rights were rights to life, liberty and property (in other words the right to exist, the right to live that existence how you choose and the right to acquire things to sustain that existence).

    That was Locke's definition, but I think that the term "natural" is a little too laden with other concepts to be of clear use here.
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    To state that rights are natural because humans say so is incorrect. That simply means that rights aren't inalienable NOR natural!

    I think that TheKingOfGlasgow's point was that since humans are part of nature, human rights are a natural phenomenon, whether they are intrinsic to human life or are simply human society's constructs.

    Now, here's a question: if I kill someone, have I taken away that person's right to life, or merely violated it? The very definition of the term "inalienable" means that the notion of an inalienable right to life is incompatible with the the first possibility.
Sign In or Register to comment.