What are basic human rights?

[dilloduck]

Human rights (at least in this discussion) should be considered as completely separate from any nation's laws or anyone's legal rights.

For example, if you did something to another person or withheld something from them, would people believe that your actions are fundamentally wrong, regardless of what nation you're located in? If the answer is yes, that would be a violation of someone's basic human rights.

Here's something more literal: people have the right not to be attacked without provocation.

Obviously there are many more human rights. Which do you consider basic and why?

Define "people" in this context.

 

[dblack]

Huh? Please to pretend to speak for conservatives or Libertarians. We are referring to INalienable rights (yes, that is spelled correctly) as rights that are incapable (by definition) to be surrendered or transferred.

These rights exist even if someone or some government violates them.

rights are an invention of man. Can you show me one ?

Can't you see you're not contradicting each other?

 

[dilloduck]

Huh? Please to pretend to speak for conservatives or Libertarians. We are referring to INalienable rights (yes, that is spelled correctly) as rights that are incapable (by definition) to be surrendered or transferred.

These rights exist even if someone or some government violates them.

rights are an invention of man. Can you show me one ?

Can't you see you're not contradicting each other?

It's a communication issue. I was responding to someone else.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".

Cats can think, too.

 

[dilloduck]

Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".

Cats can think, too.

I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.

 

[Cookie]

Aaaaaannnnnndddddddd ...

... this thread dies from incomprehensibility.

 

[dilloduck]

Aaaaaannnnnndddddddd ...

... this thread dies from incomprehensibility.

please feel free to bail out as opposed to trolling

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This conversation makes me wonder why we bothered to fight our Revolution or either of the two "world" wars.

 

[dilloduck]

This conversation makes me wonder why we bothered to fight our Revolution or either of the two "world" wars.

Who is "we" ? Americans or the whole world of humans ?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".

Cats can think, too.

I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.

I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.

I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Aaaaaannnnnndddddddd ...

... this thread dies from incomprehensibility.

Speak for yourself.

 

[dilloduck]

Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".

Cats can think, too.

I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.

I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.

I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.

A list of rights would be about as close as it gets to a secular version of a Holy Book. A thing that people would cite as some things that needs to be honored and respected. It would be pretty worthless without the framework that included priorities, authorities, etc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.

I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.

I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.

A list of rights would be about as close as it gets to a secular version of a Holy Book. A thing that people would cite as some things that needs to be honored and respected. It would be pretty worthless without the framework that included priorities, authorities, etc.

Agreed - and that doesn't even address how we'd be able to agree as to what "rights" to include on the list.

 

[dblack]

I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.

I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.

A list of rights would be about as close as it gets to a secular version of a Holy Book. A thing that people would cite as some things that needs to be honored and respected. It would be pretty worthless without the framework that included priorities, authorities, etc.

Agreed - and that doesn't even address how we'd be able to agree as to what "rights" to include on the list.

Which is why it's not really saying anything. The question 'what are our rights' - is really asking "which of our rights should we protect with government?" And that requires deliberation. I requires us to consider general questions characterizing which rights we will protect with government, and which rights we won't. What principles should guide us in making the call? If we're not addressing those questions, we're not really getting anywhere.

 

[Cookie]

The question was "what are our basic human rights?" In other words, which rights are inalienable. I answered that in a thoughtful and well reasoned post. The seat-of-our-pants philosophers on the board, though, decided to curse the darkness by shooting out all the light bulbs, though.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The question was "what are our basic human rights?" In other words, which rights are inalienable. I answered that in a thoughtful and well reasoned post. The seat-of-our-pants philosophers on the board, though, decided to curse the darkness by shooting out all the light bulbs, though.

We are posting in the Philosophy forum, are we not?

 

[dblack]

The question was "what are our basic human rights?" In other words, which rights are inalienable. I answered that in a thoughtful and well reasoned post.

Indeed you did! My apologies for missing it the first time around (and thanks for pointing it out). It was a good read and I agreed with most of it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A list of rights would be about as close as it gets to a secular version of a Holy Book. A thing that people would cite as some things that needs to be honored and respected. It would be pretty worthless without the framework that included priorities, authorities, etc.

Agreed - and that doesn't even address how we'd be able to agree as to what "rights" to include on the list.

Which is why it's not really saying anything. The question 'what are our rights' - is really asking "which of our rights should we protect with government?" And that requires deliberation. I requires us to consider general questions characterizing which rights we will protect with government, and which rights we won't. What principles should guide us in making the call? If we're not addressing those questions, we're not really getting anywhere.

Where do you expect to "get"?

 

[dblack]

Agreed - and that doesn't even address how we'd be able to agree as to what "rights" to include on the list.

Which is why it's not really saying anything. The question 'what are our rights' - is really asking "which of our rights should we protect with government?" And that requires deliberation. I requires us to consider general questions characterizing which rights we will protect with government, and which rights we won't. What principles should guide us in making the call? If we're not addressing those questions, we're not really getting anywhere.

Where do you expect to "get"?

Somewhat closer to a useful answer to the question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't prevent someone from thinking. Who are you kidding?

Then rights are not human concepts, are they?

Sure they are. Humans thought them up.

No we didn't, animals enforce them with each other.