I am with you on this one. Generally, I think that the less the government can stay out of my life the better. I wish they would stop trying to help us. Political correctness is being used as a political tool to gain control over populations. I think an important thing to keep in mind is that rights are not granted by the state but are God ordained. The forefathers wrote in declaration of independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Key words being Creator and created. I have also learned that freedom and morality are directly proportional. A free and open society can only flourish if it is a moral society. If you watch television or listen to music the content is gradually getting worse and worse. This may be a bit of a reach but I believe this is a design by Hollywood to turn people into slaves.

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

There are a number contradictions in human rights particularly between economic and social rights with civil and political rights. Consider, freedom of speech and hate speech, the latter or volksverhetzung is criminal in Germany. There are a plethora of inconsistencies that reinforce disparities but any such tensions in human rights nevertheless prevail under the banner of justice and human dignity; there are 'rights' and there are 'wants' and we do not immediately possess the former if it in anyway contradicts justice and human dignity. Hence why preambles often reiterate 'rights' and responsibilities.

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

People are born into the world with:

1) Natural rights/privileges and natural duties/obligations which are universal and inalienable, arising from natural law (the moral claim that the human condition forms the basis of an absolute equality between all people).

2) A need for well-being which can only be met, or denied, by other people (i.e., society).

3) Legal rights/privileges granted, and legal duties/obligations required, by the human authority having jurisdiction over their place of birth.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a codified example of the principle of natural rights.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Thirty articles are listed; which ones should be eliminated to provide debt relief for governments?

Thirty articles are listed; which ones should be eliminated to provide debt relief for governments? — Galuchat

Here are the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, edited by me to be shorter. Hey, rickyK95 and buddies, I agree with Galuchat - tell us which ones should be excluded instead of whining about "political correctness."

1. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
2. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
3. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
4. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
5. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
6. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights.
7. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
8. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
9. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
10. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.
11. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
12. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
13. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
14. Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
15. Men and women have the right to marry and to found a family. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
16. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
17. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
18. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
19. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
20. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
21. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
22. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
23. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
24. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.
25. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
26. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.
27. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community.
28. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
29. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
30. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

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

There is some tendency to invoke human rights indiscriminately by individuals who believe they have been treated unfairly. As a legal concept, however, all rights are subject to reasonable limits. In Canada, where I'm from, there is a part of our Federal Constitution known as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions within the Charter place limits on governmental authority where that authority is used to unreasonably interfere with individual liberties. The key word is "unreasonably". In actuality, governments restrict the liberties of the people all the time. Legal relief is only available in clear cases where the governmental restrictions cannot be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (that's the way it is expressed in the Charter).

It would be worthwhile to read over the Wikipedia article on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The article includes some objections which have been made--for instance, that some Moslems believe the UDHR is incompatible with Sharia law, and...

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

As one might expect, the document is the work of a committee, and numerous additions to explicate the list of "Four Freedoms" which the Allies in WWII had agreed to:

Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom from fear
Freedom from want

The UDHR is 30 planks long -- it could probably be 10 times 30, and not cover every angle. I would prefer a shorter list, closer to the Four Freedoms, and of course, if it doesn't have legal force, then it is only a document for moral education.

I do have some level of skepticism as to where one should draw the limits on this ever expanding list — rickyk95

What does that mean?

One is skeptical about a proposition. For instance, some people are skeptical about the proposition 'Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969'.

But you say you are skeptical about 'where one should draw the limits on this ever expanding list'. That quoted phrase is a question, not a proposition. One cannot be skeptical of a question.

It's like saying 'I'm skeptical about what the name of next week's lottery winner will be'.

A right is a justified claim.

Many of the things that I hear stated that people have a right to make very little sense.

Medical care is a universal human right, some people say. An adequate diet is a universal human right, some people say. Marriage is a right, the Supreme Court of the United States said in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Those sound like entitlements, not rights.

If medical care is an individual's right then that means that a product--training for doctors; facilities; equipment; medications--must be produced. If nobody wants to train to be a medical doctor, peoples' rights are being violated? That does not make any sense. If somebody files a lawsuit and the judiciary decides that that person's right to medical care is being denied, would the government then force people to train to be medical doctors?

If the supply of food does not meet the nutritional requirements of everybody, would governments take over food production? ("The production of beef will now end. To increase the amount of essential nutrients available, we are replacing beef production with rice production").

It makes sense to say that being in an exclusive consensual relationship with the person of your choice is a fundamental right, or having a consensual sexual relationship with people of your choice is a fundamental right. But marriage is a right? That means that every society must have something official called "marriage" available to people. It means that governments could not decide to stop sanctioning marriages. It is like saying that a formal education ending in a diploma being awarded is a right. If no institution that provides a formal education and awards diplomas existed--if only informal education existed--would governments be required to create such institutions? That makes no sense.

It is one thing to say that certain intangible things like freedoms, liberties, etc. are rights. But saying that a product/service like medical care or nutrients is a right, or that the availability of a cultural innovation like marriage is a right, makes no sense. And upholding such rights for everybody seems materially and politically implausible.

makes sense, thanks for that (english is my second language)

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?

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. A college education is a right? Does that mean that societies that had no such thing as "college" were violating people's rights? The places today where there is no such thing as "college", should governments force the creation of "colleges"?

A more extreme example would be to say that agricultural products are a human right. Does that mean that hunter-gatherer societies that did not have agriculture and therefore did not have agricultural products were violating people's rights?

I compared saying that marriage is a right to saying that being formally educated and awarded a credential to list on a resume and hang on your office wall is a right. Formal educational institutions awarding credentials is a recent cultural innovation. There are other ways, such as informal education, to meet people's needs.

Marriage is a cultural innovation. It makes no sense to me to say that it is a right. It makes sense to say that the freedom to marry is a right. But saying that marriage is a right means that society has the duty to create and make available to all members something recognized as a "marriage". In other words, the state of Kansas saying that it is no longer sanctioning marriages would be like the state of Kansas saying that it is no longer protecting free speech. That is an absurd comparison. If marriage is a right, if the state of Kansas stopped sanctioning marriages, and if no church or other private entity in Kansas was sanctioning marriages, would the federal government have the duty to intervene and sanction marriages in Kansas? How would it be violating anybody's rights to say, "If you, individual citizen, want there to be something called 'marriage' and want to enter it, create it yourself"?

OK, but can you tell us what it is that you were trying to say?

For instance, are you saying that there should be more formally recognised human rights? If so which ones would you like to add?

Or are you saying that there are too many, and that some of the rights in the UN list should not be there? If so, which ones?

To say that a cultural innovation is a right is absurd. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Why? Rights are themselves cultural innovations. Take property rights for example. They predate the declaration, but the abolition of slavery extended them universally to all humans. But the notion of property simply is the notion of a right to own stuff, and it is a cultural innovation. You have the right to own stuff, and I have the duty to refrain from taking it from you, and it is not absurd, but the basis of our culture.

But to declare that there are universal rights is not to enact them universally, it is to undertake the obligation to do so as far as one is able. So even the most 'primitive tribe undertakes to educate their children as to what berries are good to eat, and how to make a bow and arrow, or whatever technology is available. The right to education is part of the right to fully participate in society - why is that absurd?

The concept of a right is a tool for addressing wrongdoing. It doesn't have much value beyond that.

You'll explain the basis of rights according to your theory of morality.

A natural human right is a moral claim to social equaity which applies across all human cultures, hence; is universal and inalienable.

Rights can be thought of as tools, which are recognized or not by the societies where we find our self located.

The concept of a right is a tool for addressing wrongdoing

A tool that can do this is in itself pretty awesome, it enables societies to function based on mutually agreed upon principles or laws.

You'll explain the basis of rights according to your theory of morality.

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.

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.

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

I've been reading about ancient Sumeria. I think if we wanted to explain to them what rights are, 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.

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

Imagine a society where the only individual is the king. Nobody else has rights. Then the aristocrats claim rights for themselves. Then the aristocracy dies out and it's mainly people with land or money who have 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..

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.

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

Or, given that:

1) Morality is a human universal.
Brown, Donald E. (1991). Human Universals. New York City: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-87722-841-8.
http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/BrownUniversalsDaedalus.pdf

2) The Declaration Toward a Global Ethic, an interfaith declaration identifying the Golden Rule as the "unconditional norm for all areas of life", was signed by more than 200 leaders from 40+ different faith traditions and spiritual communities in 1993.
Kung, Hans & Kuschel, Karl-Josef, Eds. (1993). Declaration Toward a Global Ethic. The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, SCM Press, London / Continuum, New York.
http://www.weltethos.org/1-pdf/10-stiftung/declaration/declaration_english.pdf

3) Similarities between the value systems and moral codes of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy form a consensus on morality which is likely to have an inherent (as opposed to cultural) basis.

Formulate natural human rights in terms of universal human morality.

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.

Theological justification of the divine right of kings, this is what Nietzsche's Genealogy concluded happened, priests gained power by explaining the rule of the kings to the masses, that their rights are gifts from a divine source.

Imagine a society where the only individual is the king. Nobody else has rights.

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.

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..

Are you talking about rights in the predicative sense of the word? Like that ball is red. 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.

As frames it:

Morality is a human universal.

, 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.

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.

I agree that what we consider moral has changed over the course of time and that there are very important points which can be only gleamed from a genealogy/history, I suspect that what has not changed is what is critical (which is another good reason why the history is so important methodologically)

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

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? :)

Later slater

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

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.

Social Equality: a condition in which all people within a social group have the same status in certain respects, such as:
1) Equal rights under law,
2) Equal treatment based on conduct,
3) Equal opportunity based on merit,
4) Equal burden based on ability, and
5) Equal distribution of benefits based on need,
6) All without regard to personal and social differences, and differences in circumstances.

Marriage is a right, the Supreme Court of the United States said in Obergefell v. Hodges. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What the court said is that there is a right to equal treatment before the law in regards to marriage. That's different from a right to marriage. Equal treatment before the law seems to be a pretty fundamental right to me.

I think the case can be made that the most fundamental of all rights is the right to own private property. It is the basis of all the other rights and powers. Rich people have more power because they have more property. Poor people own little or no property.

Property rights are granted ultimately by governments. Since they are, the government has the authority to put limitations and conditions on those rights. Because granting property rights gives access to wealth, and wealth gives access to better food, housing, medical care, education, etc., it is not unreasonable for government to require that the beneficiaries of property rights share some of those benefits with people who do not own much property.

To me, this seems completely consistent with "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The alternative - I'm not suggesting confiscation of property, only the end of government recognition of property rights. Let people work it out for themselves. If they don't like it, give them the choice to share some of the benefits they receive for the fundamental benefit of government protection.

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? :)

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. Could the Nazis take away the rights of the Jews, in principal?

I am looking for the concept of right, a priori.

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.

I agree with there are similarities, and I think there must be a way to fit it all together, but I don't know the way.

I think there must be certain aspects of humans that are species traits, that comprise what it means for a right to be a human right, and I think you have touched on one the key ingredients, the "need for fairness". I think that justice must be a key. Without rules there can be no freedom, freedom loses its meaning if there are no rules, as does any conception of human rights. To be free to act and imagine is to be human, it is our key species trait.

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

They had rights. In a lot of cases their rights were violated.

Could the Nazis take away the rights of the Jews, in principal? — Cavacava

Nazis could violate the rights of Jews.

I am looking for the concept of right, a priori. — 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?

Enkidu would be an interesting angle on the basis of rights. Are you familiar with the epic of Gilgamesh?

The little I recalled had to do with the Flood. I looked it up and read a little about Enkidu, 1st thought that came to mind is that this must be a Neanderthal that is being described. His 'natural' status was undone by a woman, 6 days of lovemaking and even the animals didn't want anything to do with him :s

:) In some versions the story starts with the people being grieved by the actions of their king, Gilgamesh. He has sex with all the women and he forces the men to work. We might say he was violating their rights. The people call out to the gods for help and they send create Enkidu as a solution. Enkidu, once he is introduced to civilization, sees the harsh actions of Gilgamesh and challenges him to fight.

The implication seems to be that exploitation accompanies city life. An injection of the wisdom of an untamed heart is the beginning of justice.

A right is a justified claim. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No it isn't.