Mriana Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 I started to wonder lately about the basic human rights. In politics, the Liberals currently consider an universal health-care to be a right, and if we don't give this universal health-care, we are somehow committing some evil thing on a larger scale. But my problem right now is, what makes one right and not another? Why is health-care something every humans has the right to get, but food, shelter, care, friends, transport, job... are not (yet). We have also many times been in discussions pointing out that morals are not absolute. The strong point has been that morals are subjective. So what about these human rights? Are those objective or subjective? Are they based on values and mores just like morals? Are human rights nothing but a fad or cultural shift? Can we even say that the right to pursuit happiness or liberty are solid rights? Are they some eternal truths beyond reproach? I just wonder. What's the opinion here? Food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and education are all basic human rights. I do not think they are either subjective or objective. They just are as a matter of survival for the human species and other animals, with maybe the exception of an education given that other animals are not quite as intelligent as humans. Humans cannot reach their full potential if they do not have these basic needs. Once these basic needs are fulfilled the human potential is quite great. If one does not have these basic needs then struggle just to survive and do not reach their full potential. There is no moral to it. It is a matter of survival and reaching one's full potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 I don't want you to get mad, but I observe that rights have always been bestowed by writ or consensus and don't exist in a vacuum. Even the Bible condoned the rights of slave owners, but today even the most backward Christian doesn't endorse slavery, so societal views are always in flux regarding rights and mores, religions notwithstanding. The society (eventually) of necessity modifies its religions to fit the times and conditions, not the other way around. Under the most recent relationship with God....aka Christ, you are dismissing Paul returning a slave to now be treated as a brother? 8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me. 12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask. 22 And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers. 23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers. 25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Additionally, the Bible suggests that obedience has a reason in the larger game plan......that eventually the slave owner might see the loyality in the obedient slave and change his mind about the relationship he has with the slave.......a love promotion tool if you will. I think it supports my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted September 16, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2011 Additionally, the Bible suggests that obedience has a reason in the larger game plan......that eventually the slave owner might see the loyality in the obedient slave and change his mind about the relationship he has with the slave.......a love promotion tool if you will. So far that hasn't happened. Slavery has to be abolished by law and against the wishes and interest of the slave owners. Quaint notion though, and a decent attempt to justify the Bible's endorsement of slavery. No cigar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Additionally, the Bible suggests that obedience has a reason in the larger game plan......that eventually the slave owner might see the loyality in the obedient slave and change his mind about the relationship he has with the slave.......a love promotion tool if you will. So far that hasn't happened. Slavery has to be abolished by law and against the wishes and interest of the slave owners. Quaint notion though, and a decent attempt to justify the Bible's endorsement of slavery. No cigar. What am I missing C? Seriously I must be misunderstanding your point. I am sure there are "slaves" somewhere in this world but the leading edge of humanity doesn't admit to and practice slavery. What am I not understanding about your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted September 16, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2011 What am I missing C? I don't know. You said the slave owner would eventually change his mind and I said that's not how any slavery ever ended, it was by force of law. Slavery is less common than it used to be, thus illustrating my earlier point that people as societies change their minds on issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 . . . I am sure there are "slaves" somewhere in this world but the leading edge of humanity doesn't admit to and practice slavery. . . Slavery is going on in this world. And of course Western people know about it. It's the seedy, slimy underbelly of civilization. Whoever gave the impression that "the leading edge of humanity doesn't admit to it?" I wouldn't consider the practitioners of slavery to be leading edge humanity, but the scum of the earth. The good news is that slavery is now considered to be wrong - a major shift from the biblical view which promotes it and tolerates it. The writer should have ordered the slave owner to release the slave, but he didn't. That was the epistle author's clever way of acceding to the overpowering prominence with the institution which he wasn't about to tackle in full rhetorical force. That's how preachers give in to power. They sweet talk the powerful for obvious reasons all the while weasel talking the oppressed so they look good to them. That's what the author was doing. I highly reccomend this TED talk by Kevin Bales at TED.com: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Why is health-care something every humans has the right to get, but food, shelter, care, friends, transport, job... are not (yet). It seems to me that developed modern societies should consider providing health care for all because the expense of paying for it is beyond the means of many who have jobs (that provide their families with food, shelter, etc). Without health, all the rest will fail to be provided by the breadwinner. So, it's a practical necessity to provide people with affordable healthcare. I don't think it should be a right unless having a job is considered a right. I think everyone should have the opportunity to work at a job that allows them to afford their own healthcare, without having to make a huge amount of money every year. So what about these human rights? Are those objective or subjective? Are they based on values and mores just like morals? Are human rights nothing but a fad or cultural shift? Can we even say that the right to pursuit happiness or liberty are solid rights? Are they some eternal truths beyond reproach? We humans should be moving towards a morality that is inclusive, and that sees all humans as one "family". No more divisions of tribes and races. Objective, absolute moral thinking has held us back because those promoting them really believe in and practice subjective, relative morals. If society provides each individual with the opportunity to contribute their talents, and a livable wage, healthcare wouldn't need to be a right (though maybe indirectly). So, I think the right to a JOB would come first. Individual creativity and productivity should be among the values of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Thanks for sharing oddbird. I'm a big TED fan and that was one of the best ones I'd seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Thanks for sharing oddbird. I'm a big TED fan and that was one of the best ones I'd seen. My pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 What fascinates me about this thread is that ya'll have gone on for three pages with End3 clearly not comprehending your posts... and I'm pretty sure that NOBODY ever fully comprehends End3's posts. It's like two separate but parallel conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 What fascinates me about this thread is that ya'll have gone on for three pages with End3 clearly not comprehending your posts... and I'm pretty sure that NOBODY ever fully comprehends End3's posts. It's like two separate but parallel conversations. Don't sugar coat it on my account RS.....I can take it. Btw, I am pretty sure I comprehended the opposing dialogue. I just don't subscribe to the concluding cause(s). There are a few here that gather what I am saying, they are just stubborn and keep arguing for their view.....much like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 What fascinates me about this thread is that ya'll have gone on for three pages with End3 clearly not comprehending your posts... and I'm pretty sure that NOBODY ever fully comprehends End3's posts. It's like two separate but parallel conversations. Don't sugar coat it on my account RS.....I can take it. Btw, I am pretty sure I comprehended the opposing dialogue. I just don't subscribe to the concluding cause(s). There are a few here that gather what I am saying, they are just stubborn and keep arguing for their view.....much like me. Yeah, End- matter of fact just yesterday I was at a party talking to this guy about dolphins. I pointed out that in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, dolphins were noted to be the SECOND most intelligent beings on the planet- with humans being the third. He said that was bullshit 'cause they haven't done anything with it... no dolphin-cities or the like. I said maybe so- but does that necessarily mean they're less intelligent... or is it just a function of their lack of hands? I mean seriously- what can you accomplish with a FLIPPER?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 On a more serious note RS, you may be correct. My evaluation of myself.....I think I see more patterns that the average person.....so when I describe things through this lens, not many folks see the analogous features I try to describe. I guess I might work on that for better communications sake. (did you understand that? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 No way End- I'd go for the first one. MUCH hotter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Related to OP: VERY specific Right as per uS BoR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I feel that altruism is the only thing that is going to keep the human species going. It doesn't have to be eternally true to be good for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts