Absolute Human Rights

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Absolute Human Rights

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 11:07 am
In an effort to eliminate confusion over my last thread I have created a new one which hopefully will be much clearer.


Note: This thread has nothing to do with souls or other intangible essences. I am not looking for responses that justify absolute human rights with the argument for a soul. This thread and everything discussed in this thread is under the assumption that there is no existence of a soul or intangible essence.




I'm looking for someone to justify how humans have 'a right to their lives' in an absolute sense. I argue that all human rights are not absolute they are all conventions of man to create a civil society.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:54 pm
@click here,
And again I agree that there are none. If your right to life were absolute, it would have to exist even if you were the only human on the face of the planet. I don't think the bears trying to eat you would give a s**t, in the woods or elsewhere.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:26 pm
@click here,
The embedded understandings and conventions of communication and justification imply that no aggression is justified.

By attempting to justify one's action, one necessarily accepts that those affected can be convinced of the correctness of the action. This means that you assume both the necessity of free agency of all those affected, and preclude your ability to use coercion. Therefore, no justification can ever be offered for any action that violates the free agency of any other person.

And you simply MUST understand what rights are. Rights are not relationships between material things. They are conceptual relationships between people. When someone owns a house, it is not a link between the person and house, but between all people related to the house.

Saying that one has an absolute right to life does not mean that one has absolute protection of one's life. It simply means that there is a moral duty on all people to respect that person's life.
 
click here
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:38 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
It simply means that there is a moral duty on all people to respect that person's life.


Where does this 'moral duty' come from? Where does the right to demand this 'moral duty' come from? Why should this 'moral duty' be followed? Why is it wrong if the 'moral duty' is not followed?
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 03:13 pm
@click here,
As I said on the previous thread:
Quote:
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.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 04:27 pm
@click here,
We'd still got the same conceptual confusion going on here:

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


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.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 04:42 pm
@click here,
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?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 04:55 pm
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles wrote:
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.


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. Why do some countries have many "rights", others have some "rights", while even others have nearly no "rights" at all? Because it's deliberated by man, an agreement of government.

Aedes wrote:

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?


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.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 05:05 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;48498 wrote:
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.


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

Surely 1-3 do not imply deliberation or consideration on behalf of the blouse, the copy, or the story, especially if it's happenstance that I choose this blouse rather than that or we're two witnesses that have never met.

I can run the same points about the term "acceptance." Nothing about "agreement" or "acceptance" necessarily implies "volition" and explicit thought, reflection, etc. So that definition simply does us no good.

Quote:
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.


Now we've got some legwork here. Good. So my question is: 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."

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.

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?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 05:14 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;48498 wrote:
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.
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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 05:50 pm
@Aedes,
nerdfiles wrote:
1. This blouse agrees with my sweater.
2. The copy agrees with the original.
3. His story agrees with mine.


We are speaking about complex, ethical agreements that don't necessarily have "right" or "wrong" answers. No, "agreement" does not necessarily imply critical thought or reflection. However, I'd argue, deliberation must be present on some level in order for an agreement to be made on these sensitive issues. Are you saying the agreement of a document like the Bill of Rights is on the same level as "His story agrees with mine"?

nerdfiles wrote:
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.


Precisely, and this articulation of thought was the intent of my writing. It may seem redundant, but you'd be surprised what I've encountered.

nerdfiles wrote:

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.


Invented, not discovered. To say these "rights" were discovered would be implying the documents were "innate". Silliness.

nerdfiles wrote:
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?


This is a very good point, however, it was not the gist of my claim. It may have been the gist of the OP's claim, though, I'm not entirely sure; I just tried to clarify the best I could concerning what I thought his point was.

With that said, I'll still take a stab. Will ethical agreements ever be perfect? Absolutely not, morality is subjective (not to mention the very notion of 'perfect'), and though we share fundamental feelings concerning certain situations, there are still some situations which are highly sensitive and controversial. As for the question regarding mathematics, yes, we could still see contention. Suppose even though it was understood there was "universal understanding" (purity, perhaps) behind the system, there could then be those that question the system iself. That is, it could be argued that mathematics is an objective method for understanding the world around us [There's a whole thread concerning this if you'd like to take a look]. Some argue that absolutely no understanding of the world is completely objective, or discovered, but rather interpreted through our subjective consciousness [there's also other threads regarding this -- ask for me links if interested]

Aedes wrote:
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.


You're absolutely correct. Even if we all agreed upon a "universal understanding" that nerd suggested, it would not stop crime. Regardless what ethical foundation we apply, it does not change the fact we still have freedom of action. That was not the point of my post, however, but merely the understanding that the ethical foundations are deliberated by man -- not innate. Again, it may sound redundant, but I wanted to clarify.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 05:59 pm
@click here,
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?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:04 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
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?


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


I never meant to imply it's completely random -- of course it's not! However, there are some ethical issues that are controversial.

And, are you asking me that question? I'd actually like to see your response to that question. Those that actually enjoy grief, loss, or severe pain, do you feel there is something wrong with them?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:13 pm
@click here,
I was asking the question rhetorically.

Let's consider for a moment people who have deeply abnormal moral views (by abnormal I mean far different than the majority of people). Take someone who enjoys watching children suffer and experience pain to the point where they'll actually harm people to experience it.

Granted, this is probably not really a moral issue, but some sort of visceral satisfaction of an impulse. But that's probably immaterial.

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'd imagine that people whose moral compass points WAY in the wrong direction are probably people who have some sort of incipient (if not overt) pathology. And this means that while they're part of the whole 'vector' of human morality, they're such extreme outliers that I don't think it's fair to neutrally call their point of view just some other perspective.

People often have a sense of when they're doing something deeply wrong. Part of the reason why Nazi Germany invented gas chambers was to shield their soldiers from the dirty work of shooting people. Remember that the first major extermination action of the Holocaust was NOT in camps, but rather SS death squads (the einsatzgruppen) in the occupied USSR. They killed over a million people by shooting. And the einsatzgruppen soldiers were overcome by alcoholism, depression, and in many cases suicide. Even if their brain told them that this was what they were supposed to do, that it was justified, something deeper within them knew that they were doing something horrible that they could barely live with.


By the way, ethical issues that are truly controversial seldom rise to the level of human rights.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:21 pm
@click here,
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 contrivance of human rationality. Essentially, what I'm getting at is that our poster must be careful when he says "convention." It's unsafe to use any term related to or similar to "man-made convention."

That's like employing "God," as if we can intelligibly talk about how God decided, one merry day, to write out the enumerable infinity of moral imperatives which are, ironically, etched onto our "hearts" rather than on something more...tangible.

Sure, "rights" are brought about through writing and expression, likely proposed at conventions and public meetings, but it's not at all the case that "man" decided to sit down an write out all the conventions of the social, the moral, the ethical, the scientific, the religious, the academic, etc etc etc.

A convention is a manifestation found within complex human interaction and discourse. The convention itself is not something that someone plans or decides upon. It's a matter-of-fact that some things are conventional while others are not (perhaps outmoded).

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.

[SEVERELY EDITED.]

My apologies.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:25 pm
@click here,
Aedes,

To be honest, I cannot really make the judgment call as I'm not versed enough in the human psyche. They may very well be 'extreme outliers' as you say, but it would take intense analysis for me to come to a conclusion I felt satisfied with.

I will touch on this, however:

Quote:
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?
Many pedophiles I've read of have stable jobs and families. I think a good portion of these rapists are secretive and put on a 'normal' demeanor, and I know that, more often than not, it comes as a surprise to many. This leads me to believe they are still able to derive a well-being and satisfaction from life. Are they equally likely to hold stable lives? I cannot answer that, but I do know it's possible.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:26 pm
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles wrote:
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.


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:

Quote:

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.


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?
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:33 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;48522 wrote:
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.


Thank you.

I added more. I'm rather anal about checking and re-checking my posts. Perhaps in high traffic threads, I should simply restate my claims in an additional post.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 08:34 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;48522 wrote:
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?


I see. What I am arguing is that "fallibility" is not a proper predicate to apply to a convention.

Like if you say "That dog's bark was slippery." I cannot say this declaration is true or false, correct or incorrect, right or wrong, but only figurative, at best, or meaningless.

It's not that conventions are fallible or infallible. They're not the kind of thing that can be predicated as such. Any statement that fits the concept of "convention" with the concept of "fallibility" is misleading, at best, but is at its core conceptually confused. It might "make sense" intuitively, but on serious reflection, you'll see that you're only entertaining a pseudo-concept, and thus a pseudo-problem.

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.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 09:06 pm
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles;48535 wrote:
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.
I don't agree that that is meaningless, even from a literal point of view. Entertain the possibility that we can scientifically demonstrate that "to love" or "to become angered" is a physiologic function of the brain. Thus, the statement "the brain is angered" is no less accurate than the statement "the hand grasps" or "the heart contracts".

Sure, all kinds of caveats can be interposed, like arguing that "to love" is a conscious experience, whereas what goes on in the brain is nothing more than a facilitative physiology. But the problem here is not the statement, but rather the rather generic subtexts of the concept "to love".
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Absolute Human Rights
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 12/11/2024 at 04:03:22