Do Human Rights Exist?

[SquareOne]

In another thread, an issue was raised about human rights.  A member of the forum stated that human rights are objective.  I disagreed, saying that they are subjective, because they only reflect current thinking.

 

Now, perhaps we misunderstood each other.  But, for me it raised a very important jurisprudential question - is there such a thing as "Natural Law", pre-existing before any human laws, universally applicable, conferring inalienable rights?  Or, are there no objective rights and wrongs in society, leaving us to construct our laws and rights according to the best of our ability?

 

I studied this issue as part of my undergraduate law degree.  I do not profess to have fabulously gained a detailed knowledge.  I have a limited grasp of a few key concepts.  But, I hope, it is enough to help frame a discussion.

 

My personal view is the following:

 

1) We cannot know for sure whether Natural Law exists or not.

2) Whilst acknowledging that I cannot know for sure, I do not have any evidence to believe there is a Natural Law.  Therefore we must decide as a society what inalienable rights human beings should have.

3) I may be wrong about points 1) and 2).

 

 

Why do I believe these things?  My personal belief is that since I have no evidence of any sort of god, or other supernatural force that has set a fixed, objective standard set of rules, then there can be no objective morality, and therefore no objective Natural Law.

 

If I believed in YHWH, I could point to the Ten Commandments, and say "these laws are fixed and unchanging, and represent Natural Law".  However, I do not believe in YHWH, so this is not available to me.

 

At the same time, I can read the Ten Commandments, and form a personal view that 'You must not murder' is so important, that it ought to be part of our human laws.  But if I said that the right not to be murdered was a universal human right, that would be my subjective opinion, and not an objective reality.  Even if everybody in the world agreed that there was a right not to be murdered, it would still be subjective, because it was our collective opinion, and not handed down from a true outside source.  (Of course, one does not need the Ten Commandments to form a view that one should not murder other people).

 

I would accept that some Natural Law theorists do not believe in God.  So if that is your position, and you do not believe in God, I respect that.  I would however hope to hear the reasons behind your beliefs.  Personally, I do not think it is an intellectually workable position, but I am very interested to hear your reasoning.

 

As a positivist, I believe that when we say that 1) Human beings have a right to life.  2) Human beings have a right not to be tortured. 3) Human beings have the right to practice religion.  etc etc  We are deciding as a human society how we should live, but we are not relying upon any form of objective morality.  The morality must come from our own conception of what is right and wrong.  There are no definite universal human rights though.

 

 

 

If you feel that I have got any definitions wrong above, please feel free to correct me.

 

I look forward to hearing your views, and engaging in a calm, civil discussion.

[Vigile]

"Natural law" is a fine-sounding term.  Generally speaking, we develop rights both as a practical matter and as a matter of ever-evolving social conscience. 

 

As a practical matter, I don't steal my neighbor's chickens and rape his daughters because I don't want to live in a world where my neighbors steal my chickens and rape my daughters.  As a matter of social conscience, both Hume and Rousseau had a lot to say on the matter of general will and social contract.  I personally think they were both pretty close, if not right on the mark.

 

If by natural law, you mean something magical, from the heavenlies that just is, then we probably don't have much to talk about as I'll have a hard time taking you seriously. 

 

All of that said, the idea of basic human rights is practical and healthy for a society even if their origins are mythological as taboo often serves as an excellent way to keep those who have power to harm you and others at bay. 

[Ravenstar]

"All of that said, the idea of basic human rights is practical and healthy for a society even if their origins are mythological as taboo often serves as an excellent way to keep those who have power to harm you and others at bay."

 

^^^ yes

 

Is it something outside of ourselves? Probably not, unless you think that survival instincts are 'outside'... No, but it is subjective, like 'breathing is good' is subjective. In our global society it is necessary.

[mymistake]

Ah that.

 

I think human rights are something people give to other people.  Somewhere in our DNA it lays out a brain so that this idea is very appealing to humans.  But our current concept of human rights will change over time.  The concept is the basic rights we owe to all people simply because they are people.  But this will be influenced by what is practical.  If circumstance and technology makes it easy to give more rights then more will be expected.  If the situation makes it impossible to keep certain rights then that will become the new normal.

 

Events are objective but rights are subjective.

[JadedAtheist]

The concept of morality is a whole lot easier to understand once you get we're all just animals. Most animals follow the golden rule when it comes to their own species, and we're no different in that regards; we simply flesh it out more and more as we go on as a species. 

[SquareOne]

Well - sounds like you all agree with me!  Huzzah!

 

Ravenstar said something interesting:

 

 

Probably not, unless you think that survival instincts are 'outside'

 

Ravenstar obviously isn't personally advocating that survival instincts provide an objective morality.  So please don't take from this that I am imputing the following theory to her.

 

One theoretically could make an argument along the lines of survival instinct:

 

This could cut a few ways.  Most obviously, that would be social Darwinism, where only the fittest and strongest are allowed to reproduce, and/or a situation of total war is pursued.  e.g. something along the lines of Nazism.

 

In my opinion, and I hope the opinion of everyone else, that would be a horrible and evil way to order society.

 

But, that does beg the question - why do we think that would be bad?

 

If survival of the fittest is the order of nature, why do we reject social Darwinism and total war?

 

I could answer the question myself in part - The Selfish Gene by Prof R. Dawkins is very good on this subject.  But I do want to keep the discussion flowing rather than running my own mouth

[Vigile]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effect_of_evolutionary_theory

 

Charles Darwin, in fact, considered "sympathy" to be one of the most important moral virtues — and that it was, indeed, a product of natural selection and a trait beneficial to social animals (including humans). Darwin further argued that the most "sympathetic" societies would consequently be the most "successful." He also stated that our sympathy should be extended to "all sentient beings":

 

I personally reject the implications of Social Darwinism as sold to us by the likes of Hitler and Ayn Rand.  Perhaps that's just me, but it appears that Darwin himself agrees with me. 

[SquareOne]

Yes, I think you're absolutely right there.

 

The fallacy of Nazism is that non-natural selection and total war is not actually how evolution works.

 

Balanced co-existence is closer to the mark.

 

The human understanding of the golden rule seems to be something we are genetically predisposed too as well - though, I may well be wrong on the genetic point.

[Ravenstar]

I haven't read anything about social Darwinism... but I do see a misunderstanding in people about the whole 'survival of the fittest' concept.

 

It isn't the strongest that survive, it's the most adaptable. The species that can adapt the best to it's environment (not necessarily the individual though).

 

If you look at extinctions it's the ones that are too specialized who die out (Pandas are a good example - though not extinct yet) but animals like say wolves, mice or goats, are highly adaptable and can live in a variety of habitats, adjusting their diet and habits to fit - can thrive. Large animals like the Irish Deer and the Mammoth couldn't adapt fast enough to survive the Ice Age. Their caloric needs were too high. We survived the Ice Age because we could adapt and either change our location, or devise other methods of adjusting to a change in our environment - the Neanderthals didn't fare so well. Were they less adaptable? Maybe.

 

Since we have expanded to over 7 billion on the planet, it's the most adaptable that are doing well (our niche is technology - shaping our environment) Those that haven't adapted - for whatever reason, aren't doing so well. Subsistence farming or hunter/gatherer lifestyles aren't very efficient means to support a large population. Neither is tribalism...

 

Human rights, respect for others of our species, is a way of adapting to a larger population, at least I think that's a workable hypothesis.

[Geezer]

Do human rights exist?

 

History would seem to indicate that “rights” are something the strong grant to the weak and that has always been so. In times of oppression the strong simply do not grant rights to the weak they enslave, abuse, and exploit them. Historically rights are something that is obtained by force. That is why a strong military is an essential element in the protection and guarantee of human rights. And something our younger generation is apparently unaware of but that is probably because they don't read history.

 

The government should always be feared because tyranny is only one election away. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.  

[SquareOne]

Human rights, respect for others of our species, is a way of adapting to a larger population, at least I think that's a workable hypothesis.

 

I agree.

 

 

Historically rights are something that is obtained by force. That is why a strong military is an essential element in the protection and guarantee of human rights.

 

I came to this conclusion when studying jurisprudence.  Ultimately, laws are only as strong as the power of the enforcer.  And a government is only as strong as its army.  Laws rely on bullets for legitimacy.

[Ravenstar]

sad... I hope we outgrow that someday

[Geezer]

sad... I hope we outgrow that someday

 

 

Unfortunately, human nature makes that unlikely. What do you think Canada would be like if the Islamist were in control of the government? And what do you think keeps something like that from happening? And now you know why so many Americans cling to their guns. We tend not to trust, much less depend, on the government to protect us. As former President Reagan said, "The government doesn't solve problems it is the problem." Sad, but true, in all too many cases.

[Ravenstar]

I don't trust my government (or any government) - have you SEEN Harper? egads!

 

 

 

I come from a family of veterans of WWII, the ones who were in Europe fighting with the British from the beginning. No, I'm well aware of how freedom is gotten and kept. My grandfather (my 'dad' - he raised me) volunteered at the start and served until the end, so I got to hear a lot of stories about the war.

 

still, I can hope.

[SquareOne]

I too look forward to a future without guns.

 

Heck, if we're really reaching for the stars, let's do away with laws as well.

 

Still, until that day comes, I'll have fun lawyering.

[hereticzero]

Human rights are only the rights a government is willing to give the people. You can be free but not have the liberty to live freely. You can have liberty but not the liberty to live as you choose. The govt. giveth and the govt. taketh away.

[Vigile]

Do human rights exist?

 

History would seem to indicate that “rights” are something the strong grant to the weak and that has always been so. In times of oppression the strong simply do not grant rights to the weak they enslave, abuse, and exploit them. Historically rights are something that is obtained by force. That is why a strong military is an essential element in the protection and guarantee of human rights. And something our younger generation is apparently unaware of but that is probably because they don't read history.

 

The government should always be feared because tyranny is only one election away. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.  

 

I I agree with the bolded part, but the part about a strong military doesn't follow.  In fact, militaries quite often serve as vehicles to take the rights of others away.  This has very much been the case with the strong US military.  Just ask the citizens of Panama, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and a long, long, long list of other countries that we have invaded in order to "Protect American Interests." 

 

We almost never have to fight back against the invading hoards -- despite what the newspapers and the White House press room might try and convince you of.  Tyranny historically has almost always come from one's own government, and thus a strong military has very often proven to be counterproductive to human rights.  This is very much the case with the US today. 

 

I read history. 

[JadedAtheist]

[Vigile]

Human rights are only the rights a government is willing to give the people. You can be free but not have the liberty to live freely. You can have liberty but not the liberty to live as you choose. The govt. giveth and the govt. taketh away.

 

Hume argues that it is the people who give power to the government, not the other way around.  I tend to agree with him.  The problem is, people are vulnerable to propaganda and so the tail wags the dog. 

[SquareOne]

Vigile

 

Vigile, a large group or army is a horde*, not a hoard.   (Not trying to be being smarmy, it's the second time I've seen the mistake though, so I thought I'd help you out there.  Hope you'll take the correction in in the good nature it is intended.)  A hoard is like stored treasure.

 

thus a strong military has very often proven to be counterproductive to human rights.

 

Naturally, naturally.  It was my argument that laws and authority extend from the barrels of rifles.  But, where a country has rights, they are only as strong as their government's power to protect them.

 

 

 

Burnedout

 

A good way to state it is that Rights are freedoms which existed prior to the existence of government as pertains to an individual.

 

Right... but you have just relied upon human sources, so I suppose you would have to admit that those views about rights are subjective.  Also, the judge in M v M in that quote referred to the Creator - do you believe in a creator?

[Geezer]

 

Do human rights exist?

 

History would seem to indicate that “rights” are something the strong grant to the weak and that has always been so. In times of oppression the strong simply do not grant rights to the weak they enslave, abuse, and exploit them. Historically rights are something that is obtained by force. That is why a strong military is an essential element in the protection and guarantee of human rights. And something our younger generation is apparently unaware of but that is probably because they don't read history.

 

The government should always be feared because tyranny is only one election away. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.  

 

I agree with the bolded part, but the part about a strong military doesn't follow.  In fact, militaries quite often serve as vehicles to take the rights of others away.  This has very much been the case with the strong US military.  Just ask the citizens of Panama, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and a long, long, long list of other countries that we have invaded in order to "Protect American Interests." 

 

We almost never have to fight back against the invading hoards -- despite what the newspapers and the White House press room might try and convince you of.  Tyranny historically has almost always come from one's own government, and thus a strong military has very often proven to be counterproductive to human rights.  This is very much the case with the US today. 

 

I read history. 

 

I think you're inadvertently confirming my points. The strong dominate the weak and that has been so from the beginning of time. And I believe your reference to a strong military only confirms my point. The U.S. military does impose its will, and U.S. policy, on other countries….why? Because they can. And it is U.S. foreign policy to put U.S. interest first. And if we don’t want some other country imposing their will on us then we better continue to have a strong military.

 

The authors of our constitution understood the power of a strong military and took steps to protect the citizenry from the military, such as the right of private citizens to bear arms, restricting the role of the military to foreign threats rather than domestic policing, etc. A some point a strong military is all that stands between freedom and servitude. The countries you referenced became subject to U.S. influence because they did not have the military strength to resist or defy U.S. actions.

 

The playground bully will always dominate the weak until an adult restrains them or someone kicks their ass. Ultimately, superior fire power is all that insures tranquility. It is what it is, but I agree that tyranny is always a possibility and the military is the vehicle that will ultimately bring about a sucessful coup. In fact a coup is virtually impossible without the aid of the military.

 

And in spite of the nonsensical argument that U.S. soldiers would never fire on U.S. citizens I seriously doubt that is true. Soldiers follow orders and the trials of the Nazi soldiers conclusively proved that. We live in a dangerous and politically unstable world.

[SquareOne]

I'm not sure that what was true of Nazi soldiers necessarily applies to other soldiers.

 

Mind you, Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland is evidence that British soldiers would shoot protesting British citizens as late as 1972.  However, I don't believe they were under orders.  Possibly the contrary.

[Vigile]

 

And if we don’t want some other country imposing their will on us then we better continue to have a strong military..

 

There is a vast difference between a military strong enough to protect against foreign invaders and a military strength so vast that it is used to carve out an empire.  The US has zero risk of invasion by those who would impose their will on us, especially in a nuclear era. 

 

Meanwhile, our strong government, including military and all its various forms, including CIA, NSA, etc... are in fact imposing their will on the American people and taking rights from us that have been promised by our constitution.  Case in point: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

 

[Vigile]

I'm not sure that what was true of Nazi soldiers necessarily applies to other soldiers.

 

Mind you, Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland is evidence that British soldiers would shoot protesting British citizens as late as 1972.  However, I don't believe they were under orders.  Possibly the contrary.

 

Why were they different?  Why were the Russian soldiers different? 

[SquareOne]

I'm not saying that they were different...

 

I'm saying that they were arguably similar.