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
"Human Rights" is a political ideology imposed on the world...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I realise how bizarre this might seem at first, but let me explain.....
I read an interesting article recently, which suggests the doctrine of 'human rights' as we know it is not the result of us demanding it as such, but rather a political doctrine agreed upon and militarily enforced by the powerful nations after WWII, that sounded like a good idea in principle so we went along with it, in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948........
In reality none of us had very much say in what this declaration said, or ever gave our formal consent as an individual, indeed those born afterwards like myself have no say in challenging something that was agreed before our existence......we are not allowed to renounce these declared rights, and there is no room for revision........so our consent is not necessary for the rights to be declared, in essence we have to accept them, which directly contradicts the principle of moral autonomy.
Now, it follows that if have these 'rights', this declaration implicitly promotes and legitimises actions to enforce those rights, for example if we have a right not to be tortured, this is interpreted by america as a right to bomb torturers......noone really gives a crap about our rights, in reality they are turned off and on at will as it suits the political agenda of the government, this whole idea of spreading democracy and freedom is a complete farce, because we support regimes with abominable human rights records........
In summary, human rights are not intended to improve the conditions of the individual, but used to legitimise the actions of the people who declare them. Since it is the state that declares these rights, it is used to justify state policy, even if it's against the will of the people we can't really argue, so it's really a license for oppression.............this article explains it better than i ever could........what are your thoughts? Personally I think the notion of human rights is pretty grand, but the way it's used is despicable, and there is no need for it as such because we did just fine without it, i hope somebody's not gonna tell me that the holocaust would have been avoided if we'd had human rights........
I read an interesting article recently, which suggests the doctrine of 'human rights' as we know it is not the result of us demanding it as such, but rather a political doctrine agreed upon and militarily enforced by the powerful nations after WWII, that sounded like a good idea in principle so we went along with it, in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948........
In reality none of us had very much say in what this declaration said, or ever gave our formal consent as an individual, indeed those born afterwards like myself have no say in challenging something that was agreed before our existence......we are not allowed to renounce these declared rights, and there is no room for revision........so our consent is not necessary for the rights to be declared, in essence we have to accept them, which directly contradicts the principle of moral autonomy.
Now, it follows that if have these 'rights', this declaration implicitly promotes and legitimises actions to enforce those rights, for example if we have a right not to be tortured, this is interpreted by america as a right to bomb torturers......noone really gives a crap about our rights, in reality they are turned off and on at will as it suits the political agenda of the government, this whole idea of spreading democracy and freedom is a complete farce, because we support regimes with abominable human rights records........
In summary, human rights are not intended to improve the conditions of the individual, but used to legitimise the actions of the people who declare them. Since it is the state that declares these rights, it is used to justify state policy, even if it's against the will of the people we can't really argue, so it's really a license for oppression.............this article explains it better than i ever could........what are your thoughts? Personally I think the notion of human rights is pretty grand, but the way it's used is despicable, and there is no need for it as such because we did just fine without it, i hope somebody's not gonna tell me that the holocaust would have been avoided if we'd had human rights........
0
Comments
The state says you have "rights" and by this they mean that they won't punish you if you use abilities that you already have. They say, for example, that "you have the right to free speech", but of course even in the most totalitarian society you are able to say what the hell you like. The "state" just imposes harsh conditions on you AFTERWARDS in the hope they can bully you into being a robot.
It's clever languaging to make you think they are giving you something you already have. If states were really interested in thi stuff, they would disband all their armies, open the prisons and give us all our money back. Not frigging likely is it?
What? Why would that have anything to do with Human Rights? What on Earth are you talking about?
I obviously am, please explain to such a simpleton as I how emptying the prisons will help improve the general lot of the population.
And as for this whole 'tax is theft' thing, please dont bother. Either you pay tax and lump it or you can piss off to somewhere where you dont have to pay it.
In order for a society to function it must place certain restrictions on its members because not all of them will be responsible enough to self-impose them.
So, yes, they are giving you something that you have as a human being as an abstract entity, but not as a human being as part of a functioning society. I would assume that you are the latter otherwise you're going to have a hard time explaining how you built and run that computer.
But every bloody thread is about that, about how everything from tax to baked beans is an invention of the imperalist pig dogs who want to suppress the common man.
im not aware that we have a right to freech speech
we have freedom of speech, meaning we are free to do it
and america bombs lots of people anyway, it has nothing to do with the human rights declaration
so are you happy saying that you wouldnt want it?
it has everything to do with it, this is how they have legitimised the war in iraq, the bombing of yugoslavia.........the war on terrorism has morphed into a war on tyranny, the very implication being that the rights of these poor people are being suppressed, and it's our duty to go spread freedom and democracy around the world...........can you not see this?.......
i can see where you are coming from, its a bit of an odd angle, but i can understand
but what has human rights declaration got to do with revenge
Sounds like a noble cause to me. I'm not sure about bombing people, but would it have been morally acceptable to ignore what went on in the Balkans?
yeah that's exactly it, it sounds like a noble cause..........why is it any less morally acceptable than allowing the atrocities to go on anywhere else? human rights is switched on an off as an emotional plea to the citizens of a country, to persuade them it is right and just for the government to go gallavanting around.........if you look at what we actually did in the balkans it's pretty appalling, it had little to do with human rights, and more to do with indiscriminate bombing of infrastructure, killing many civilians in the process...........all because they have rights. genocide has been and is ignored elsewhere around the globe, but because the media don't highlight it, it's not brought to our attention, because our govt doesn't want to do anything about it.........
Of course any agreement can be twisted to conform with a certain world view but you seem to be saying the very principals themselves are in some way responsible.
Surely there is a difference between the principal and the reality. Oh and why would you want to be tortured? How does this arguement work when people in Guantanamo use it's prinipals to object to what the US is doing?
Surely without the issue of human rights there would less control of the actions of powerful nations? Isn't only because of this kind of document that powerful nations feel some need to justify their behaviour - wouldn't they otherwise just take what they wanted and explain it as 'might makes right'?
yes me and you can see this, but a war has to be justified or it's just an illegal occupation, hence the desperation of bush and co to setup elections etc, it looks good but its all a farce.
Why would anyone object to the ideology of human rights?
Surely our most basic human right is the right to life? So for any country to attack another is infringing on their right to live? But it's not a perfect world. If you feel passionatly about this subject, as i do i suggest giving to Amnesty International once a month from your wages. After all what will talking about it do? The world runs on money not speech.
the principles indirectly are responsible, because they provide the legitimacy for states to achieve ulterior motives, they are just a political invention...........and your post exactly proves my point, where is the u.s. when it comes to guantanamo? they don't give a shit, the media over there doesn't criticise it because they tell the people it's being done to protect them, so our human rights come before theirs? the whole process is sheer hypocrisy..........read the article and it might be clearer.
Only if you have such things as the Declaration of Human Rights and laws, otherwise you don't need any justification. You're putting the cart before the horse...
Just because someone's abusing the principal doesn't mean it is a bad thing.
Regardless of what happened after 1948, what came before is a staggering, terrifying example of what can happen when people fail to see each other as human, or see them as people without the same rights.
exactly
i think you misunderstand me, i am not against humans being treated fairly, merely against this declaration by somone sitting in an office that applies to every person on the planet, where I have given no consent........
and if i had some wages i might consider it.......
but its two different areas
So its mearly the fact you werent asked first?
the principles don't work because they are not adhered to in a constant fashion, so what's the point of having them if they protect some but not others?.......and yes i should have the right to renounce my rights, that is moral autonomy........
turn it around, what do you think the world would say if castro was holding americans in cuba, who he thought were responsible for a terrorist attack? there would be international outrage.........
human rights are okay as long as ours come first.......that is how it works.
I work 6 hours a week because i'm a student. I really can't afford much, but i've still set up a dd for £2 a month. Every little helps!
Logically contadictory. You want to give your consent to be given the right to give consent.
lol, no i want the right to say what my rights are as an individual, i should be able to claim my rights instead of having them declared to me.........
Absolutely, but that's a reason to work towards a better solution not question the principal of universality; which is what the linked article does.
From a list? Or any that you want?
Presumably freedom of expression would be one...the right to claim your rights if you will.
you have to question the principality because it a) challenges the right to moral autonomy, and b) overrides the idea of popular sovereignty as set out in the UN charter, giving any nation the right to invade any other in the name of human rights........
i can't see how i am any better protected as an individual because it says so, if i meet some dude down a dark alley and he wants to attack me, my 'human rights' won't protect me, if the government want to withhold my rights they label me a terrorist and hold me without evidence........it does nothing for the individual and furthers the state's agenda.......