Rights

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

the Declaration of the Rights of Man declared rights to be “natural, inalienable and sacred”. Modern liberals might be uncomfortable with pietistic references to the Creator and the sacred, but they generally still regard human rights as natural and inherent in the human person, not as something granted by the ruler.

I said granted by the society, not the ruler. Generally when dealing with rights, laws, commandments that are thought to be of a sacred and objective origin, you can substitute the word "society" for the word "God". Eg society says "thou shalt not kill each other, or eat pork". If society changes, so do the rules. The basic ones tend to remain though, those that are necessary for a society to function sucessfully. Or at least to be more successful than any neighbouring competitor societies.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, if the Nazi treatment of the Jews wasn’t immoral as a violation of natural rights, why was it immoral?

A tricky question, presumably because it was an affront to those very basic rules that are necessary for a society to develop and survive.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I said granted by the society, not the ruler.

I'm nor sure there's a distinction, when society has a ruler.

recedite wrote: »

A tricky question, presumably because it was an affront to those very basic rules that are necessary for a society to develop and survive.

I don't think we can say that,. There's plenty of historical examples of societies which succesfully perpetrated genocides, and went on to develop and survive quite well - cases where one population entirely replaced another.

Lucy8080

ahhhh....human rights!

I suspect most that advocate human rights are actually trying to be responsible to the best of their own understanding and ability.

Maybe the term "human rights" blinds them .

Mayhap they are for human responsibility....yet , find themselves imprisoned by the acceptance of a religion called "human rights".

It is difficult to break out of our self imposed religious positions.

Lucy8080

SeanW wrote: »

I'm with Pat Condell on this one:

"You have rights. Your beliefs do not."

This is becoming something of a cliche. A favourite of atheist ireland recently!

Maybe , someone needs to point to the fact that ..

" you have rights .Your beliefs do not." .....is also a statement of personal belief!

we love our beliefs.....especially when they make us feel slightly superior.

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

It is difficult to break out of our self imposed religious positions.

It's even more difficult to understand what on earth these late-night ramblings of yours mean, if they mean anything at all.

I, for one, haven't the faintest notion what you are trying to say, other than a general suspicion that you happen to disagree with something, but don't know what.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

It's even more difficult to understand what on earth these late-night ramblings of yours mean, if they mean anything at all.

I, for one, haven't the faintest notion what you are trying to say, other than a general suspicion that you happen to disagree with something, but don't know what.

I'd take it that she's just observing that the concept of "human rights" is baloney, along with "natural rights", to say nothing of "natural and imprescriptable rights". Taking a question from earlier in the thread to give context

Gbear wrote: »

Is there a fundamental line of argument that really sets out why valuing the individual is best?

I'd guess what she's saying is the habit persists in us to seek some fundamental line of argument to which we can appeal for guidance where there is a conflict of rights. However, outside of religion, there is no fundamental line of argument. There's only whatever strategies we find, individually, keep us secure. Not a new thought; there have been similar discussions on other threads. It's basically Nietzsche's argument.

Or maybe she's just havering. You be the judge.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm nor sure there's a distinction, when society has a ruler.

The allocation of rights needs to be agreed by the general population, not just the ruler, or an unstable situation will develop. Eg the white rulers of South Africa.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think we can say that,. There's plenty of historical examples of societies which succesfully perpetrated genocides, and went on to develop and survive quite well - cases where one population entirely replaced another.

Yes, it is easy for a society to label another society as "others" and therefore unworthy of rights. Most of us humans alive today are descended from both the most brutish and aggressive of the early peoples, and also the smartest of them, which creates a kind of inherent contradiction in our nature.
It seems the answer is to create a global society with agreed rights. The UN declaration of human rights is a start to that. (A global society can still accommodate different cultures)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

It seems the answer is to create a global society with agreed rights. The UN declaration of human rights is a start to that. (A global society can still accommodate different cultures)

Could such a body actually be effective in securing rights?

Think of it as a practical proposition. Consider how hard it is for quite stable and developed States in the EU to co-operate effectively in managing our common currency at a time of stress. How would your global society be effective, when it's trying to manage a far more diverse situation?

Take an example. How would your global society deal with university students naming a pineapple after Mohammed?

recedite

I think so, its more a matter of agreeing rights, than securing them.

I'm actually surprised at how quick and effective the EU is at dealing with the crisis. Within a few short years, we have gone/are going from each country having their own individual budgets,and often reckless banking, to central oversight of annual budgets, constitutional debt brakes, and the ECB will be responsible for all future bank defaults. Big changes, not superficial changes.

The pineapple issue is not a big thing. Once a balance is struck and generally agreed between freedom of speech and incitement to hatred, such provocations will be pointless. Blasphemy laws will become redundant.

Rev Hellfire

You're all working on the assumption that such a body would agree with the rights western society believe should be universal.

Perhaps successfully lobbying by the Islamic world for example could see blasphemy laws greatly strengthened, not to mention things such as Capital punishment legitimatised.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You're all working on the assumption that such a body would agree with the rights western society believe should be universal.

You've exactly caught my concern.

Peregrinus

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps successfully lobbying by the Islamic world for example could see blasphemy laws greatly strengthened, not to mention things such as Capital punishment legitimatised.

Don't be silly. If capital punishment were legitimised under such a regime (which is quite likely) it would be due not so much to the influence of the Islamic world as to the influence of the US.

Lucy8080

robindch wrote: »

It's even more difficult to understand what on earth these late-night ramblings of yours mean, if they mean anything at all.

I, for one, haven't the faintest notion what you are trying to say, other than a general suspicion that you happen to disagree with something, but don't know what.

rob,,

You made your argument on the statement that " it is difficult to break out of our religious positions"!

Why would an atheist have a problem with such a statement....regardless of what time of day it was made?

I hope we are not turning into clockwatchers here!