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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
well, did you read the article? let me quote.......
"Formally, what happens when a right is declared? The standard answer is: it creates a moral duty to respect it. But that is not all that happens. A right, once its existence is recognised, effectively divides all possible human actions into three categories: actions which respect that right, violations of the right, and actions which are neutral with respect to that right. Declaring a right is a declaration of a desired course of action, not necessarily action by the holders of the right. Implicitly, the declaration of a right promotes and legitimises actions to enforce that right. The 'right not to be tortured' is at first sight a classic claim right of torture victims. It appears to create an entitlement for the victim, the entitlement that the torture stops. But the present political reality is that it is interpreted as an entitlement to prevent torture. This entitlement is claimed to legitimise a wide variety of acts, usually hostile acts by one state against another state. In other words, although the 'right not to be tortured' appears to be a concession by states to individuals, in reality it is a power claim by states. It is the creation of an entitlement to make war and impose sanctions."
"Within states, the declaration of a right is an act comparable to law-giving, in the way that kings gave law. It is essentially a command or decree: do this, don't do that. Implicitly, the law is intended for enforcement, and is assumed to create an entitlement to enforce it. So declarations of rights are 'rule', in the political science sense."
"In the last 200 years 'popular sovereignty' replaced 'divine right' - all nation states now claim to derive their legitimacy from the people. But unnoticed by political scientists, the proliferation of rights has created a parallel system of political legitimacy. Governments can appeal to human rights to justify their actions - without necessarily claiming to act in the name of the people. Rights doctrines have not yet displaced popular sovereignty as political legitimation, but over a generation or more, they might."
this is why rights should only be given with consent and not assumed, as this assumption creates an entitlement to act to enforce that right..........even if the holder of that right doesn't want this action, that doesn't matter he doesn't have a say what his rights are........how does that make any sense?.......rights need to be claimed, not declared...........this would avoid all the bullshit going on now from appearing legitimate.
do you honestly think that people did not know wrong from right before the UDHR.....?
when i talked about america getting fucked over i was more referring to the american population not having their lads killed in war over bogus info.........american troops would have to have been pulled out the moment no WMDs were found........and the leaders responsible dragged before a tribunal.
that simply isn't true.
"Formally, what happens when a right is declared? The standard answer is: it creates a moral duty to respect it. But that is not all that happens. A right, once its existence is recognised, effectively divides all possible human actions into three categories: actions which respect that right, violations of the right, and actions which are neutral with respect to that right. Declaring a right is a declaration of a desired course of action, not necessarily action by the holders of the right. Implicitly, the declaration of a right promotes and legitimises actions to enforce that right." All completely logical. But where's the word force or war? What you're arguing about is the concept of just war, the issues around when and why it's justifiable to go to war or to interfere into other countries' political and social business.
If you want to throw some documents around that the government use to try and justify their actions, pick up any legal document and I almost guarantee America will have twisted or ignored it in some way. Take Guantanamo Bay - the American politicians totally sidestepped the Geneva Convention, saying that Camp Delta "emulated the ideology of the Geneva Convention". What a load of crap - it doesn't, it's just a piece of paper they can use to justify themselves.
However, the intention and ideology of the GC AND the declaration of HR are, IMHO, something humanity HAS to strive for - if we all take the attitude that if people misuse something good then it's a bad thing, we may as well all walk into the sea with rocks in our pockets because even a cotton wool ball's been used for wrongdoing at some point.
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense either. You're arguing that people know right from wrong even without the UDHR, but you're also saying that without it America wouldn't have been able to stay in Iraq to 'free the Iraqi people'. Slight contradiction, no? The UDHR didn't legitimise the troops staying in the country, what made it ok was the 'freeing' of the Iraqis. And if we all knew that was a good thing before the declaration, Bush would have had exactly the same grounds to jusitfy his actions on.
I apoligise, I can't find a reference to anything saying that now, although I do seem to vividly remember reading an article about how the UN will not justify/allow a war based on humanitarian reasons alone. I withdraw my comment however, as without evidence it is invalid. Sorry
i'm sorry but speaking a language and writing one are two entirely different things, people had no knowledge what an alphabet was before it was invented........your analogies are getting tiresome.
have you even been reading the thread?.......the declaration of a right CREATES the entitlement to defend that right, which can be interpreted in anyway like america has done........so rights should not be assumed without consent, as they can then be acted upon.
i agree the intention behind it may be good, but forcing people to accept their rights, forever and ever, without any room for revision, is dangerous..........why is it universally binding if everyone did not have a say?........this is flawed logic.........of course we should look out for each other, we just don't need a piece of paper to say 'make it so'..........like you said, the UDHR hasn't really made a difference because america has guantanamo bay, contravening the very rules they cite to invade iraq...........so human rights are not absolute and are selective, human nature will never allow for a completely neutral application of the principles, we are not robots..........therefore it doesn't work.
It is possible to have a war without the UNs blessing I believe.
One way that the rights thing is used, is in whipping up the population of the country going to war.
Anyone remember how the US right developed a keen belief in the need to liberate Afghani women, and then forgot all about them after the war dropped out of the public eye?
:eek2:
They never managed to get quite so riled about the position of Saudi women for some reason....