Absolute Human Rights

@click here,

Quote:

If you agree that through 'evidence' humans seem to be able to have a 'moral sensibility' that transcends 'law', 'society' etc... how do you explain where its existence spawns from?

Let's not throw words around here, it's already made a mess as it is.

I've clarified I don't like to refer to it as a "moral sensibility", because, as we've noted, morality is a human construct. The sensibility I'm speaking of, as I just stated in my above post, is emotional sensibility. We *feel* certain ways about certain things, and many times the feelings are universal. Where does this stem from? Well, that's highly debatable, but it is there. And the fact that it's there was the point of my last paragraph.

If you feel this:

Quote:

Yes I do believe so, but many times I choose to argue from a different standpoint then my own views against someone elses and I choose simply to not state, "I don't acctually think this but someone that does could say this..."

And you know the other person feels, what are you debating? It appears as though you want the person to dig deep within themselves, questioning "Why, why, why!" in regards to their values. You understand this is a personal struggle for nearly everyone that critically thinks, right? Instead of playing devil's advocate, why don't you dig deep within your self, and seek your own answers?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

And you know the other person feels, what are you debating? It appears as though you want the person to dig deep within themselves, questioning "Why, why, why!" in regards to their values. You understand this is a personal struggle for nearly everyone that critically thinks, right? Instead of playing devil's advocate, why don't you dig deep within your self, and seek your own answers?

I have saught and am still seeking. Though I find that many people do not like their views conflicted with mine. They do not feel as though my views have any ground. So I assume an extreme system of their views and then begin to attack their presuppositions. It yields better results if you are closer to their opinions as they tend to listen to you a bit more. I know this from experience.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

An absolute obligation is an obligation that always applies, not one that is always enforced.

Assuming that the obligation is legitimate, if you loan me $1000, I have an obligation to pay you back regardless of whether you will ever be able to make me pay it.

I never said it had to be enforced for it to be an obligation.

As to your example you do not have an absolute obligation to pay me back. Man has created the idea that a loan should be paid back so you are abiding by that created obligation if you pay me back. So by definition a loan is an obligation but only in the sense that as a loan is a man made term so are the obligations that surround. You have no absolute obligation to ascribe to the laws created surrounding what a 'loan' is.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Good and bad is meaningless outside the realm of human understanding and interaction. On this we agree.

I simply must be convinced as to why I am concerned with anything outside of this realm.

I am confused what am I supposed to convince you of if you agree?

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I define 'moral duty' as the obligation to behave in a way that is morally right.

Yes and that which is 'morally right' is all an opinion it is not absolute!

@click here,

click here wrote:

I never said it had to be enforced for it to be an obligation.

As to your example you do not have an absolute obligation to pay me back. Man has created the idea that a loan should be paid back so you are abiding by that created obligation if you pay me back. So by definition a loan is an obligation but only in the sense that as a loan is a man made term so are the obligations that surround. You have no absolute obligation to ascribe to the laws created surrounding what a 'loan' is.

I only offered the example as an illustration.

The point is that an absolute right places an absolute obligation, in other words, if one has an absolute right, all others should (not must) respect that right.

This derives from morality. If there is any absolute moral code, then by the nature of morality, one should follow the code. So when we talk about absolute rights, we refer to absolute goods, an absolute moral code that one is bound, in servitude to the good itself, to follow. Quite simply, if one does not follow it, one is bad, if one follows it one is good.

Quote:

I am confused what am I supposed to convince you of if you agree?

If I say that rights are conceptually relationships between people that are built in to rules of human rationality and interaction, why should I be concerned that they don't exist outside the realm of human conception?

It is simply not necessary for rights to be physical laws or even materially real for them to be meaningful to those affected by them.

Quote:

Yes and that which is 'morally right' is all an opinion it is not absolute!

An opinion that, if we are to maintain what we accept as our fundamental nature, must bear justification.

Agents choose.
If an option is picked without justification it is random and not a choice.
Therefore, to possess agency, one must be able to provide justification.

We find more and more everyday that all humans share basic linguistic, rational, and moral traits and rules. Where these common, fundamental, and axiomatic rules exist, a common moral code can be built. From the nature of morality, rights, and human relations, these can be absolute human obligations, even if they do not breach the walls of human understanding.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I only offered the example as an illustration.

The point is that an absolute right places an absolute obligation, in other words, if one has an absolute right, all others should (not must) respect that right.

There are no absolute rights. Which means their can be no absolute obligations to non existant absolute rights.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

This derives from morality. If there is any absolute moral code, then by the nature of morality, one should follow the code. So when we talk about absolute rights, we refer to absolute goods, an absolute moral code that one is bound, in servitude to the good itself, to follow. Quite simply, if one does not follow it, one is bad, if one follows it one is good.

If I say that rights are conceptually relationships between people that are built in to rules of human rationality and interaction, why should I be concerned that they don't exist outside the realm of human conception?

There is no absolute standard that any action can be judged against. Any feelings of hatred to someone and their action are completely unjustified and demonstrably false.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

We find more and more everyday that all humans share basic linguistic, rational, and moral traits and rules. Where these common, fundamental, and axiomatic rules exist, a common moral code can be built. From the nature of morality, rights, and human relations, these can be absolute human obligations, even if they do not breach the walls of human understanding.

No they can not be absolute obligations. Are you a moral absolutist?

@click here,

click here wrote:

I have saught and am still seeking. Though I find that many people do not like their views conflicted with mine. They do not feel as though my views have any ground. So I assume an extreme system of their views and then begin to attack their presuppositions. It yields better results if you are closer to their opinions as they tend to listen to you a bit more. I know this from experience.

What is your question, then?

You've been making these threads, but I really don't understand the specific question you're trying to understand? Can you boil all of this down for me, and help me help you?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

What is your question, then?

You've been making these threads, but I really don't understand the specific question you're trying to understand? Can you boil all of this down for me, and help me help you?

I'm trying to understand how someone (like Mr. FTP) can justify absolute human rights. It just doesn't make sense to me. He has yet to justfiy absolute human rights. All he has justified is man made rights, rights that can be interpreted from things that we observe in other people but he hasn't acctually justified any rights that are absolute in humans and absolutely are completely absolutely wrong if violated.

I want an example of a right that if violated is absolutely wrong in an absolutist sense.

@click here,

click here wrote:

I'm trying to understand how someone (like Mr. FTP) can justify absolute human rights. It just doesn't make sense to me. He has yet to justfiy absolute human rights. All he has justified is man made rights, rights that can be interpreted from things that we observe in other people but he hasn't acctually justified any rights that are absolute in humans and absolutely are completely absolutely wrong if violated.

I want an example of a right that if violated is absolutely wrong in an absolutist sense.

If one has the absolutist sense, it is absolutely wrong [to them]! Any example he could give you could make sense to him (depending on his viewpoint), and make no sense to you. You'd still be here scratching your head. It's all perspective, my friend.

@click here,

click here wrote:

No they can not be absolute obligations. Are you a moral absolutist?

I believe there is a natural essence to humanity. From this natural essence I think certain moral rules can be derived.

Quote:

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.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I believe there is a natural essence to humanity. From this natural essence I think certain moral rules can be derived.

So if something that is derived is violated then is it absolutely wrong?

If it is derived by man and violated then it only violated mans derivation.

@click here,

Are we talking about moral rights or legal rights?

If someone who is absolutist about morality (which is the general category) is at the same time non-absolutist about a particular sub-class of morality (moral rights), then of course you have a contradiction.

But are "absolute human rights" a moral position, legal position, or a social position, or a political position? And when your opponents person affirms that we have "absolute human rights" does that automatically mean that this person is talking about morality?

Determine that first.

Your example of X coercing Y to jump off a bridge can be interpreted as not involving "moral rights" at all. I could simply say that Y does not have to jump because he has the legal right to life or liberty in his person. In that case, I could say that is an absolute human (and legal) right, rather than an absolute human (and moral) right, so long as I separate law and morality neatly.

@nerdfiles,

Nerdfiles wrote:

Is it not, to be frank, simply queer, philosophically contrived and implausible to speak of a concept of rights at all being represented in the scenario thus given?

Though it's philosophically contrived, a concept of "rights" can still be represented (that may deviate from a widely used definition, if fortified with reason), and I don't feel this makes it queer or implausible. Perhaps a logician such as yourself would disagree, but I feel some analytical-contemplations, bordering illogicality, have their place in philosophy. We must remember philosophy encompasses every facet of our being, and the notion "philosophy" can encompass so many paths of thought. Taking this one step further, I feel an imagination is a beautiful thing and drives us further to other logical discoveries. It's only when this imagination is pawned off as "fact", or "science", or "absolutely true", do I find it to step it's boundaries.

Nerdfiles wrote:

What is this example supposed to elucidate about our understanding of "rights" and "morality"? If the person who rejects absolute morality says that Y has the absolute right to do otherwise from that which X wishes to have done to him, is this really an indication of inconsistency?

What I see elucidated concerning "rights" is the 'freeness' click is trying to articulate. The man jumping off the bridge could be viewed figuratively in regards to the coercion of man in any given society. Simply, there is no "absolute" reason for him to jump off the bridge (or obey a man-made law), but there is force driving him. If the person rejected absolute morality, I don't think they could accept absolute rights. In this case, the person would be inconsistent because they would be defying their absolute morality (the implication that deeds are inherently "good" or bad"), whilst contradicting themselves by saying, "Well, you still have a natural right not to jump! [knowing that they're defying the person's free agency and performing a "bad" deed]". It appears to me absolute morality is supposed to, in some way, *protect* the absolute rights. The "absolute rights" appear to build off the "absolute morality". This is where I feel the inconsistency lies.

Nerdfiles wrote:

is it that we have made a false start, in our philosophical meanderings, by thinking that the concept of rights necessarily has the sense I've presented, as objects the creation of which necessarily comes from law?

Perhaps we have made a false start, misconstruing the point represented entirely. Though the notion of "rights" involving law was the notion you and I shared throughout this, I do understand the "rights" being spoken here.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

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.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. A plethora of actions can violate free agency in some way, and of course they can be justified. Let us remember that violation of free agency does not necessarily imply a negative connotation, nor does it imply something complex. If someone was about to walk home and you influenced them to stay with a cookie, this could be considered a violation of free agency. If you want to speak of physical force, what if you hugged them, influencing them to stay? Could this not be deemed a violation of free agency? Though we understand that humans have free agency and we need to justify in order to *make sense* of our actions, why does this mean they shouldn't be allowed justification.

Also, what in the world does this mean?

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I believe there is a natural essence to humanity. From this natural essence I think certain moral rules can be derived.

Please be specific, not only in the "natural essence", but also the process from which moral rules are derived. I'm assuming you're speaking of something that transcends human thought, so please remember to be as specific as possible, including an example to support this claim.

@click here,

Quote:

What I see elucidated concerning "rights" is the 'freeness' click is trying to articulate. The man jumping off the bridge could be viewed figuratively in regards to the coercion of man in any given society. Simply, there is no "absolute" reason for him to jump off the bridge (or obey a man-made law), but there is force driving him. If the person rejected absolute morality, I don't think they could accept absolute rights. In this case, the person would be inconsistent because they would be defying their absolute morality (the implication that deeds are inherently "good" or bad"), whilst contradicting themselves by saying, "Well, you still have a natural right not to jump! [knowing that they're defying the person's free agency and performing a "bad" deed]". It appears to me absolute morality is supposed to, in some way, *protect* the absolute rights. The "absolute rights" appear to build off the "absolute morality". This is where I feel the inconsistency lies.

I thought about my post some and realized exactly the point you made here, at the end, the logical relation between morality and moral rights. Unfortunately, rather than writing a new post, I thought I had enough time to just modify my preceding one.

Now the point I have made, or have attempted to make, is this. And it is one that Herbert Hart himself made in The Concept of Law. It centers on your disjunct: or obey a man-made law.

The X, who coerces Y to jump off the bridge, whether Y jumps or not, has the freedom to or not, under this example, is not a sovereign habitually obeyed (as legal philosopher John Austin would have it) nor is X a government. X is not in its person a thing which enacts laws or is to be seen as coercing Y to jump by some enacted statute, judicial conclusion, or legislation.

Where you move to appeal to "figurative" viewpoints and figures, I wish to absolutely and perhaps will tirelessly attempt to stop you. What you commit here is not a transition to figures and figurative language, but a fallacious move of crossing bridges between concepts where no conceptual link exists.

The link between "the general case" of rights and "the particular case" of rights is not built on the ground of "figurative language." You absolutely cannot establish such a connection by metaphor or poetic device. You need argument, not a flagrant misuse of language (a mere cop-out). A particular dog on the street is not related to the general concept of canine in virtue of the particular dog on the street being some figure. We do not say "the particular dog on the street is a figurative way of looking at the general concept of canine." We use the concept of canine to correctly, should a thing meet the proper criteria, by applying it to that thing. A particular dog is not a metaphor or a figure of the general concept. It is the thing that falls under that concept. It is within the extension of the general concept.

Being a figure will not grant some entity or object entrance into the extension of a concept, for I can easily tell you, as I have said, that the figure you speak of is in the extension of another, though related concept.

A particular man is not a figure of society. So the right to disobey his wishes is too not some figure of rights in society. This should be obvious. A particular man is not a body of rules, statute, judicial precedent, immunities, organization, etc under which some other many assents or denies, or even has access to. It makes no sense to suggest that a particular man is a figure of society. It makes no sense to say that asserting your right to disobey one particular man is like asserting your right to disobey some law. Even if you do in fact assert your right in both cases, one case is logically different from the other.

If I disobey the President in his person as a man and not as a standing official entity within a system of law, it does not follow that I am in some way disobeying that system of law.

Quote:

Simply, there is no "absolute" reason for him to jump off the bridge.

Whether or not there is an "absolute" reason is not my concern. My concern is the idea that "being forced to jump off a bridge" is comparable to "being coerced by law." They are not comparable.

Laws pertain to the general case. "Being forced to jump off a bridge" is a particular case. This is essential to understand. No law is conceived under even categorically similar circumstances as a particular cases. The story behind a law's concept is radically different from the story of the conception of a particular command. Laws are not "out to get us" in our persons, though it can seem as if they are (Nazi Germany). Being coerced by law is not like being bullied by Stew, the playground bully. And the means by which one overcomes Stew is categorically, and unilluminating, as to how you overcome law. It's not that you and our original poster are wrong. It's that you are not giving appropriate representation to law as such.

You are talking about something completely other. Laws have a weight other than their coercive power. They are backed by reasons, presupposes descriptions which suggest why they are considered in the first place, carry stories, and so forth. Coercion is a component of law, but it is not sufficient. Why is Y being coerced? What are the circumstances? This is clearly relevant as to why Y is entitled to not obey. And it is relevant because these circumstances and the logical character of the particular brand of coercion exposes the distinction between rights, which are created through law, and the denial to jump from the bridge.

But of course, we may be talking about "moral rights." In that case, I ask again: Is the person who believes in "absolute rights" taking "rights," in that phrase, to be a synedoche for "moral rights"?

@click here,

click here wrote:

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.

I am just going to throw what I think into the fire here.

Do humans have a 'right to their lives'?... From the morality I feel inside me, as a fellow human with compassion, I have to say yes. Being born into slavery or being executed for coming from a certain ethnic background is severely unfair in my opinion. I think any kind of human society should grant a basic right to life, to the benefit of all citizens.

My justification is that a right to life is beneficial to a happy society, but are just conventions. I agree with Click Here's original standpoint.

Outside of society, objectively, I don't think anything intrinsically has a right to anything. No objective morality, etc. Evolution itself is an unfair, opportunistic process, so why should we feel that every born human be treated equally? As a strategy for survival and progress, sometimes morality doesn't fit.

A right to life may be beneficial to a happy society, but I can't really justify it more than saying its a good method of promoting happiness in a society that can afford human rights and still survive.

@aaktinos,

Quote:

It's that you are not giving appropriate representation to law as such.

My concern is the idea that "being forced to jump off a bridge" is comparable to "being coerced by law." They are not comparable.

I believe my post was misinterpreted, as I was not trying to represent laws, at all. In fact, laws had little to do with my post [In retrospect, I see now I should have edited the one time I spoke of "laws" out, to avoid confusion]. I never said "being forced to jump off a bridge" was synonymous with "being coerced by law", but rather that "being forced to jump off a bridge" would be an invasion of the free agency (that Mr. FTP) suggested, defying not only an absolute morality but absolute rights.

Again, "rights" in this context has nothing to do with laws as far as I understood. And yes, it is contrived, because as you've mentioned in countless paragraphs, the general usage of the word "rights" involves law. If you feel this contrived definition is outlandish, so be it, but let me address this:

Quote:

The link between "the general case" of rights and "the particular case" of rights is not built on the ground of "figurative language." You absolutely cannot establish such a connection by metaphor or poetic device. You need argument, not a flagrant misuse of language (a mere cop-out)

This particular interpretation of "rights" would imply a higher order of some sort; a mystical notion would be attached. It would have nothing to do with man-made law, but some "natural understanding", as far as I can understand. Frankly, I've never heard of "rights" referred to in this manner, but I cannot understand the term Absolute Rights without adding some sort of mystical notion.

Hope I've shed some light,

Zeth

@Aedes,

I've thought about this for a while, and I've come to conclude that the only absolute human right that a person has is freedom. The freedom to live their life however they please.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;49573 wrote:

I believe my post was misinterpreted, as I was not trying to represent laws, at all. In fact, laws had little to do with my post [In retrospect, I see now I should have edited the one time I spoke of "laws" out, to avoid confusion]. I never said "being forced to jump off a bridge" was synonymous with "being coerced by law", but rather that "being forced to jump off a bridge" would be an invasion of the free agency (that Mr. FTP) suggested, defying not only an absolute morality but absolute rights.

Again, "rights" in this context has nothing to do with laws as far as I understood. And yes, it is contrived, because as you've mentioned in countless paragraphs, the general usage of the word "rights" involves law. If you feel this contrived definition is outlandish, so be it, but let me address this:

This particular interpretation of "rights" would imply a higher order of some sort; a mystical notion would be attached. It would have nothing to do with man-made law, but some "natural understanding", as far as I can understand. Frankly, I've never heard of "rights" referred to in this manner, but I cannot understand the term Absolute Rights without adding some sort of mystical notion.

Hope I've shed some light,

Zeth

How can we argue with the mystical?

But I'll be cheesy and quote it:

"Whereof one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence."

@click here,

Absolute Human Rights are not possible, all propositions in morality are normative statements that affirm how things ought to be. Normative statements cannot be confirmed or falisfied. There is no way to verify the statement 'Humans ought to have Right A or Right B and so on'. So we are thrown into the realm of subjectivity. And once we enter Subjective disscussions we can no longer talk of human rights being absolute. This is no criticism of the important role that human rights have within our civilised society.

But only Positive statements can be said to be absolute, as only statements made in Positive language can be proved in this very all or nothing way. Even when we try to prove Positive statements in a Objective or absolute way, we run into all kinds of epistemological problems.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

How can we argue with the mystical?

But I'll be cheesy and quote it:

"Whereof one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence."

Welcome to the forum. There are some here that can argue the mystical, believe it or not Smile

Or, at least they try...(My custom title is fitting, in this respect)

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

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.

Yessir, might is right. That's all.

Philosophy Forum

Absolute Human Rights

Quick Links

My Account

able2know