Where do human rights come from?

[Smellincoffee]

As an American child I was told that everyone was born with natural rights, given by God. But in considering the Bible, I saw no protections of life, liberty, and property -- or the pursuit of happiness. The Hebrews visited as much death on their opponents as one would expect from any tribe of the time; those who dissented, speaking against their "God-appointed" leadership, were immediately killed or otherwise chastened. Freedom of religion was also absent, at least among the Hebrews -- though the Persians were slightly more tolerant.

I later took the view that we simply declared what rights we wanted, and organized governments like states to make them so. This is uncomfortably arbitrary, and my study of politics both modern and ancient indicates that as the state giveth, the state taketh away; certainly in America our declared rights have been hideously abused throughout the 20th and 21st century, regardless of which side you favor. I for one have a strong bias against the state because of this, and I don't like any concessions to its power, especially admitting that it is is the effective guardian of rights. I take rights too personally for the state to be involved.


I would like to believe in some sort of natural law / natural rights theory -- if people believed in "God-given rights", they might be more secure if only through some sort of psychological dread -- but ultimately I believe man is born wild and civilizes himself only through great effort. Our rights are ultimately declarations of will, as are the abuses of them. We will have to fight it out, I suppose, with every government, with every authority, until the end of time.

What do you think? Is there a good argument to be made for our having natural rights -- rights that are not bound to the benevolence of the state, nor to religious worldviews that lend themselves to being disagreed with?

 

[Shaihulud]

It came from humans, I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Tahuti]

Human rights doesn't exist whenever it does not overlap with morality: Morality exists independently of humanity and above it - call it divine if you want. Rights exist to reward duties and enable the best possible fulfillment of duties and never by itself (which is the fallacy behind conventional human rights thinking).

Ultimately, humans are not the final source why humans have to perform duties: We did not choose to having to fulfill basic needs such as nutrition ourselves, or the duties that stem from it. Thus, we are not in the position to choose for ourselves rights we think we deserve. Some people see their rights unfulfilled, though the source of rights is not humanity.

 

[Farm Boy]

Human rights come from human force. Human rights are removed by human force.

 

[BvBPL]

The problem with a natural law system of human rights is that it is inflexible. Natural rights are grant by dint of birth and should be available to all persons at all times by dint of their humanity. For example, let’s say you think that having internet access should be a human right. If you ascribe to a natural law system then you are left with the difficult task of describing why internet access is a natural right when the internet did not exist a hundred years ago. If the right comes from natural law then it should have existed for all time before the internet existed.

A logical getaway exists by saying that rights to the internet were nascent and unrealized until the creation of the internet. That’s fine to an extent, but it still hamstrings you from creating a full list of natural rights in the present because you are unaware of what presently nascent rights may come to fruition in the future.

Other philosphies of the origin of human rights exist, but are somewhat more difficult to explain than a natural rights philosphy. Natural rights is the simplest explaination, and there is some value in simplicity.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Human rights doesn't exist whenever it does not overlap with morality: Morality exists independently of humanity and above it - call it divine if you want.

Ok, lets call it divine.

Where does that leave us with defining morality?

Ultimately, humans are not the final source why humans have to perform duties: We did not choose to having to fulfill basic needs such as nutrition ourselves, or the duties that stem from it. Thus, we are not in the position to choose for ourselves rights we think we deserve. Some people see their rights unfulfilled, though the source of rights is not humanity.

I take it you mean that human rights are not up to us to decide, we're not the source.

What is the source, and what does that source dictate with regard to morality?

 

[warpus]

The rights we "have" are only rights as long as there is a system in place to prevent those rights from being taken away from us.

You don't have a right to property, if there is no police force and no law system in place to prevent others from taking your stuff.

You don't have freedom of speech, if there's people there who are able to silence you by threatening you with violence should you decide to speak up.

For rights you need a state to be in place, in some way or another. Rights are invented in human minds and implemented using human institutions and artefacts, like governments and constitutions.

A simple test to figure out if I'm making this crap up or not: Imagine a chaotic society in which there is no government, no police forces, no fire fighters.. just random people running around, doing whatever they want. What rights do you have in such a place? None, unless you form a social commune of some sort and decide that the members of your group hold certain rights, such as the right to not be murdered by others of the group.

 

[IglooDame]

Human rights come from human force. Human rights are removed by human force.

This.

I respect the religious beliefs of others, but I've yet to observe their Higher Power intervening to make sure my (or for that matter, their) Human Rights are not violated, so apparently I'm responsible for preserving them myself.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Human rights come from human force. Human rights are removed by human force.

Well the police / risk of counter-violence is not the only reason I haven't killed anyone yet.

Just saying that human rights also rest on sensibilities and understanding. Not just force

 

[Farm Boy]

Human rights aren't the same thing as your acting in your perceived self-interest or sensibilities, are they? Though they can and often do coincide?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I thought you / we talked about what creates human rights, not what they are?

Sure human rights wouldn't just pop up on account of self-interest or sensibilities, if that is what you mean. But force alone doesn't suffice either is what I am saying. Neither exists in a self-contained bubble.

 

[Synobun]

One day, someone had the bright idea that misery wasn't that great. This person convinced another of this opinion, and together they raised their children to hold the same view.

With a complete lack of human rights, you'll find that "happiness" is very, very singular and often comes through extreme acts. Many people reach the state of murderer, for example, through a long series of traumatic events or through active indoctrination from role models. You will also notice that many of our human rights movements that have been a success in the past two hundred years came mostly due to centralization of the movement's origins. If you can get a large percentage of a close-knit population to believe that something is unjust, you can also convince pockets of individuals in nearby communities and perhaps even far-flung communities now that they too can make their peers believe a change is needed.

At its very core, human rights wouldn't exist without someone, for whatever reason, believing that how things currently are isn't okay. From there it's an uphill struggle to make it happen.

 

[Farm Boy]

I thought you / we talked about what creates human rights, not what they are?

Sure human rights wouldn't just pop up on account of self-interest or sensibilities, if that is what you mean. But force alone doesn't suffice either is what I am saying. Neither exists in a self-contained bubble.

Force more broadly than the subcategory of violence then?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So you may as well just say humans instead of human force?

 

[Farm Boy]

So you may as well just say humans instead of human force?

No, I think broadly applied rights, rather than vastly different expectations of how people are treated even in base and important ways depending on who their friends are or who their family is, or who they're f-ing, takes constant targeted human effort(force) rather than simply humans doin' their thang.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Err, okay.

 

[Borachio]

Human rights come from our innate sense of what is fair, or just.

 

[Akka]

There seems to be a wild confusion between the theory and the factual.
That your rights aren't protected if there is no police doesn't mean per se that such rights don't exist - just that they aren't enforced. Just like the concept of justice doesn't disappear just because someone does something unjust somewhere.

I think that human rights are a derivative of the more general concept of justice, which itself stems more or less from the applied Golden Rule.

 

[Borachio]

^Yup. I agree.

Nicely put.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think that human rights are a derivative of the more general concept of justice

As are honor killings.