With that said however, I do have some level of skepticism as to where one should draw the limits on this ever expanding list, and the logistical, economic, and practical problems involved. Any thoughts? — rickyk95
Nowadays, the concept of human rights has gained such a righteous connotation that it seems to be the case that in order to gain the upper hand in any discussion about whether some need (whether basic or not) should be granted or not by the state, is to invest it with the label of "human rights". — rickyk95
Thirty articles are listed; which ones should be eliminated to provide debt relief for governments? — Galuchat
With that said however, I do have some level of skepticism as to where one should draw the limits on this ever expanding list, and the logistical, economic, and practical problems involved. Any thoughts? — rickyk95
The American Anthropological Association criticized the UDHR while it was in its drafting process. The AAA warned that the document would be defining universal rights from a Western paradigm which would be unfair to countries outside of that scope. They further argued that the West's history of colonialism and Evangelicalism made them a problematic moral representative for the rest of the world.
They proposed three notes for consideration with underlying themes of cultural relativism:
"1. The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences",
"2. Respect for differences between cultures is validated by the scientific fact that no technique of qualitatively evaluating cultures has been discovered", and
"3. Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole. — Wikipedia
What does that mean?I do have some level of skepticism as to where one should draw the limits on this ever expanding list — rickyk95
I really liked your arguments. I followed you and agreed with you up to the doctors example, but if asked "if no instituion provides formal education should the government create them?" Something tells me that the answer is affirmative. . I cant quite explain why my intuition tells me that. Could you further justify your claim that the government should not? — rickyk95
To say that a cultural innovation is a right is absurd. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
A tool that can do this is in itself pretty awesome, it enables societies to function based on mutually agreed upon principles or laws.The concept of a right is a tool for addressing wrongdoing
Yes, the explanation seems to be based on moral theory, utilitarian, deontology, or whatever but our concepts of rights point towards (hope towards) an ontological descriptive basis. I agree that we are socially constructed, but in that construction the same shapes seem to fit together in similar ways regardless of location.You'll explain the basis of rights according to your theory of morality.
A tool that can do this is in itself pretty awesome, it enables societies to function based on mutually agreed upon principles or laws. — Cavacava
The anti-relativism (or maybe moral superiority?) that's amply displayed in the UN's list of rights suggests to me that a certain characterization(s) of what is meant to be human ought to be included in our understanding of what a right is. — Cavacava
The anti-relativism (or maybe moral superiority?) that's amply displayed in the UN's list of rights suggests to me that a certain characterization(s) of what is meant to be human ought to be included in our understanding of what a right is. — Cavacava
we might tell them that one of their myths explains the king's right to rule. I don't know if they would understand what we mean, though.
Plato points out this may not change anything. If a society with individual rights is pragmatically superior to a society where no one except the king has any rights, the king must establish rights or his society will not function very well if at all.Imagine a society where the only individual is the king. Nobody else has rights.
Then white men who have no money claim rights and that claim is upheld. Then black people claim rights. Then women do. Then handicapped people do. Then..
, perhaps, but that does not tell us what it is about morality that makes it human. It seems to be like saying morality exists, and yes most will agree, it is saying there must be a right and a wrong, but on the application of these terms many disagree. What is morality in-itself, I think 'rights' are here.Morality is a human universal.
I think "human rights" is partly the product of a progression. But it some ways it goes back to the Roman conception of rights. Even a slave has a natural right to defy an evil government.
Sure what you have itemized is the case but it does not speak to rights in their existential sense, what is essential to be human. — Cavacava
It seems to be like saying morality exists, and yes most will agree, it is saying there must be a right and a wrong, but on the application of these terms many disagree. What is morality in-itself, I think 'rights' are here. — Cavacava
Marriage is a right, the Supreme Court of the United States said in Obergefell v. Hodges. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
To "violate a right" is to commit a certain kind of transgression. But I think it's true that if black people, for instance, are not considered to be human, then they won't be beneficiaries of rights. So some expansion of the concept of humanity is part of the root of "human rights." Is that what you mean?
But other kinds of entities can have rights. Patients in a hospital have rights. A group of people can have to right to have a revolution. Right? :)
Universal human morality consists of the similarities between the value systems and moral codes of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy. Natural human rights are specific moral claims to social equality based on a universal human need for fairness.
They had rights. In a lot of cases their rights were violated.Do you suppose that because some did not consider blacks human that these people did not have the rights that we assign to all humans. — Cavacava
Nazis could violate the rights of Jews.Could the Nazis take away the rights of the Jews, in principal? — Cavacava
Evocative statement. We look at definitions or the limits of imagination to find a priori knowledge. Can you imagine a human who effectively has no rights? Maybe a lone wildboy like Enkidu?I am looking for the concept of right, a priori. — Cavacava
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.