It simply means that there is a moral duty on all people to respect that person's life.

Well, then...

We have basic human rights because we're able to complain if what we perceive to be our "rights" is infringed!

If you throw the "soul" and all the metaphysical explanations relating to it out the window, that's more or less what it comes down to.

I argue that all human rights are not absolute they are all conventions of man to create a civil society.

We'd still got the same conceptual confusion going on here:



First off: What do you mean by "absolute"?
Second: What does "conventions of man to create..." actually mean? Certainly you cannot mean that humanity crafts its conventions, for a convention is not something deliberated or considered.

What about "being a convention" makes them "not absolute"? This is the question that I think requires an answer or forces elucidation.

Why do we care about the absolute? Isn't our shared recognition of pain, suffering, loss, and grief recognized with sufficient ubiquity that we can claim human rights without an absolute justification?

I thought this was the definition of convention:
- General agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes

This seems highly considered and deliberated to me.

In this regard, I believe what he's meaning by "absolute" is "universal", or "equal all across the board". The reality is, no one actually has any "rights", they are a concept derived by man to keep order.

Ideally, sure, we shouldn't have to justify. Unfortunately, it's not this way in some parts of the world. I believe this is where the caring of "absolute" or "universal agreement" stems.

1. This blouse agrees with my sweater.
2. The copy agrees with the original.
3. His story agrees with mine.

Naturally, it would be silly to think we have "innate documents" or "innate letters." The concept of a "right" outside of a legal system has no meaning.

When you use "derived concept" do you mean "discovered" or do you mean "invented?" I think the original poster wants to say rights are "invented" or "expressed through," say, "a constitution or document.

But of course, if the concept of "rights" depends on human input, and we're fallible, it would seem every right we produce is fallible. The fallibility or inaccuracy or myopic nature of rights follows from the fallible, flawed and myopic nature of humanity. Is this the gist of the claim?

...

Suppose legal systems have the rigor and purity of mathematics. Would we run the same argument, say, that 2+2=4 isn't "absolute" given the sense you have just provided?

An absolute justification wouldn't stop a single instance of murder, rape, whatever. Even the Nazis knew what they were doing was wrong, as is abundantly clear in the historical record, though only a few of the really bad ones (Hans Frank and Rudolf Hoess come to mind) articulated it as such. Perpetrators of human rights violations aren't exactly weighing moral absolutes prospectively -- I mean as long as you've got sufficient freedom of action, you can always violate a right.

While morality is subjective, it's also not entirely random. Far from it, in fact. What percent of the human species do you think enjoys experiencing grief, loss, or severe physical pain? Almost none -- and might we ask if there's something really wrong with the people who do enjoy that?

...though we share fundamental feelings concerning certain situations, there are still some situations which are highly sensitive and controversial

The point is, do you think that people like this are equally likely to, say, have stable relationships? Stable jobs? Families? A sense of well-being and satisfaction?

I'm not saying that at all. I was merely attacking the notion that the definition of "convention" implies reflection, deliberation, volition. To say "it is a convention" does not necessarily imply that it was a contrived of human rationality.

And to my point: This absurd notion of convention, I feel, is what is being combined with the "fallibility of man" premise. The point I am trying to make is that our conventions are not at all at fault here; they cannot possibly be. Our conventions are not fallible because we are. Conventions cannot be fallible or infallible; thus, they cannot be contrary or in agreement with the notion of "absolute rights." The notion of convention, basically, is irrelevant to this topic.

Understood, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I appreciate your insight. Thanks, nerdfiles -- you have proven to be quite an asset to this community. Glad to have you aboard.

Understood, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I appreciate your insight. Thanks, nerdfiles -- you have proven to be quite an asset to this community. Glad to have you aboard.

I'm going to severely edit my post too actually, nerd, so I hope you read this:

I'm having a problem understanding this:



Here's the definition of convention I'm referring:
"A convention is a rule or a selection from among two or more alternatives, where the rule or alternative is agreed upon among participants; standards, norms"

Because the convention is an agreement, it cannot be fallible or infallible? If you say this, you are saying that no agreement, regardless of it's context, can be infallible or fallible? Our agreements are not fallible because we are... how is that?

Another example: "The brain believes, understands, interprets, is angered, loves, and sets goals." This is not correct or incorrect, right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate; it's simply meaningless.