Where do human rights come from?

[warpus]

But why should it have been codified if you didn't have that right before?

We did, at one point in the past, before it was taken away from us. Before that, at one point, we didn't. But then again at one point nobody did.

We wanted it codified because.. we wanted it. Other people around the world had it. We were jealous of their western ways.

Where did the impetus come for its codification if not the sense that you had the right but were being unjustly denied it?

See above.

I think your cheese analogy is faulty. You're comparing something concrete (cheese) with something abstract (justice).

Every analogy is faulty, since you're never comparing the exact same thing to itself. My analogy is good enough, because I'm focusing on the existence of something, which in my view can be demonstrated using the cheese example well enough.

 

[Borachio]

Nope. I don't understand.

I think it's perfectly possible to have a right but yet be denied it. Injustice does exist in the world.

Just because the Polish people were for a period denied free speech doesn't mean they didn't have the right to free speech.

I agree the system didn't allow them free speech. And only in that sense they didn't have it. But there... perhaps we're talking in circles about nothing.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all about this, imo.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

 

[warpus]

Nope. I don't understand.

I think it's perfectly possible to have a right but yet be denied it. Injustice does exist in the world.

But we didn't have the right, that's the thing. We didn't want the right and we wanted it.

Just because the Polish people were for a period denied free speech doesn't mean they didn't have the right to free speech.

I don't understand how you can say that we had something, when we didn't have it, but wanted it.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all about this, imo.

A human document, written by humans, in order to codify certain rights.

That's what I'm talking about, rights need to be codified in some way. Otherwise they just don't exist.

What rights did humans have 500,000 years ago? Did they have the freedom of religious assembly? Why or why not?

What about horses? Do they have freedom of movement? Why or why not?

 

[Borachio]

I don't understand how you can say that we had something, when we didn't have it, but wanted it.

Yeah. I know what you're saying.

But that's what an inalienable right is: it's a right which you still have even though someone effectively, and unjustly, denies it to you.

That's how injustice happens, isn't it?

If someone is unjustly killed, their right to life isn't removed from them as well as their life is it? Their right remains, but has been trampled on.

Otherwise, why ever prosecute someone for murder? No injustice has been done to them, if their right to life has been removed too.

 

[Berzerker]

natural human rights are valid claims of moral superiority and they predate the state and exist regardless of any enforcement mechanism

 

[warpus]

But that's what an inalienable right is: it's a right which you still have even though someone effectively, and unjustly, denies it to you.

There is no such thing as inalienable rights, is what my position is. If such a thing exists, where does it come from? Where is it written down that humans deserve such and such rights, and not others?

Is it maybe.. made up by humans? What other alternative is there?

No man, we wanted those rights, not because we thought we deserved them.. but because we wanted them.

Take nothing for granted. You deserve nothing.

 

[Borachio]

OK. That severely tramples on the notion of inalienable rights.

It's certainly a point of view you have there, Mr Warpus. I can't deny it.

(I don't think it's a valid one, though. Just in case people don't realize what I mean by having "a point of view".)

 

[warpus]

OK. That severely tramples on the notion of inalienable rights.

Inalienable implies that they come from somewhere.

Where do they come from?

My contention is that they come from human action. If you agree, then we don't really disagree.

If you feel that they come from the heavens, or wherever, then we most surely disagree.

 

[Borachio]

I thought "inalienable rights" meant they couldn't be taken away from you.

I see no reason to think they aren't a part of the human condition.

Where they come from is something of a mystery.

I think perhaps they're a bit like mathematics: something that the human mind discovers. Something that we discover about ourselves, that is.

Mathematical truths exist before they're discovered, don't they?

Or perhaps you've a constructivist model of reality?

 

[Oruc]

People make up human rights.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

Some rights are protected by a Higher Power. I tried to build a time machine to kill Hitler's father, but I was prevented from doing so for ... ineffable .. reasons.

People make up human rights.

This is where I am, though I think 'make up' should be combined with 'discover'. Rights come from extrapolation of our instincts coupled with a conception of a 'successful' society. People who talk about rights believe that 'society' would be gooder for any specific citizen if the rights were universal.

 

[Old Hippy]

There is no such thing as inalienable rights, is what my position is. If such a thing exists, where does it come from? Where is it written down that humans deserve such and such rights, and not others?

Is it maybe.. made up by humans? What other alternative is there?

No man, we wanted those rights, not because we thought we deserved them.. but because we wanted them.

Take nothing for granted. You deserve nothing.

one should ask themselves which right do I have that 'I' would not count as inalienable form ones own point of view, freedom of speech, right to life, freedom of conscious, right to own a gun, freedom from persuction based on sex, race, sexuality, the right to persecute others...

some are just personnel likes and dislikes, others people always agree on

which is why I don't think some higher power needs to give moral guidance for rights to exist, I would still say it is my right to think or exist anyway, and if its a right, it must be your right too...

 

[Tee Kay]

Where do human rights come from?

Allah

 

[Farm Boy]

Some rights are protected by a Higher Power. I tried to build a time machine to kill Hitler's father, but I was prevented from doing so for ... ineffable .. reasons.

I'm not certain if I should be annoyed or if I should cheer.

 

[Kozmos]

Human rights? From some kind of habitual or customary law which you could say is derived from some kind of natural law, cooperative societies do better than ones that do not. Even so, you should not believe you have any rights you cannot defend personally. Words on paper are great, but mean little in the end unless X numbers of human believe in them a 100%.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

We did not choose the fact that our species gets nutrition from consuming plants and animals, but we can always choose not to consume anything and suffer the inevitable consequences.

I could choose not to eat, but I prefer to remain alive. I could choose to starve my cats, but because I love them, I make sure they have food and water.

It is about reputation, true. But honor killings are about the justice of responding to grave dishonoring with drastic means.

Honor killings have nothing whatsoever to do with honor. They are nothing more than plain old murder, because a female dared to not obey some man.

 

[Berzerker]

People make up human rights.

did Nazis and slave owners have the right to kill and enslave others or did their victims have the right not to be killed and enslaved?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Honor killings have nothing whatsoever to do with honor. They are nothing more than plain old murder, because a female dared to not obey some man.

With all due respect I wasn't discussing personal sentiments.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

With all due respect I wasn't discussing personal sentiments.

Whose personal sentiments?

There is absolutely nothing honorable in killing a woman or teenage girl for resisting the command of her male relatives to wear certain clothes or saying they don't want to marry a man of the male relative's choice.

 

[Souron]

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?

There's a few categories of human rights, and the justification for each category is a little different. I enumerate three bellow. I don't have good names for them, but I list a few examples of each bellow.

1. Life, "Liberty", fair trial - These stem from basic fairness. All men are created equal enough to justify these basic civil liberties. It is the low bar of morality that justifies armed international intervention such as WWII. In other words it's a low enough moral standard that cultural differences cannot justify such villainy.
2. Food, Water, Housing. - These are the most basic needs people have, so it's easy to agree that every well behaved member of society should be granted these. However, the state is not necessarily the direct facilitator of these rights and furthermore there may be outside factors that contribute to deficiencies. So a violation of these can be a nebulous category. If you assume some level of good faith, it is difficult to justify international intervention based on these rights, but on a national level such a right could be codified in law. Not every codified obligation of the state rises to the level of a natural right.
3. Free speech, Property, Free press, Voting rights. - These rights are a consequence of our confidence in our political and economic systems and are necessary for those systems to thrive. Presuming a capitalist liberal democracy is the best form of government, it is possible to justify each of these in turn. However, without that imposing these rights on those that do not believe in that system is hard to justify.

There may be other things that have been called rights that have a different, probably more complex justification than the above.