What is a human right?

[Shogun]

There are so many different interpretations of what person Jesus was (What were his views on socialism on capitalism as defined today? Would he be a Republican or a Democrat? Different statements in the Bible almost seem to contradict each other. Consider the Sermon on the Mount. It talks so much about giving.

Yet, consider this passage: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (II Thessalonians 3: 10) (It does not say “can’t work”.)

I don't recall where we've determined that poverty is the sole product of laziness. I mean, it sounds real good on a bumper sticker but...

 

[mattskramer]

I don't recall where we've determined that poverty is the sole product of laziness. I mean, it sounds real good on a bumper sticker but...

I agree and that is part of my point. What about those who, due to some physical or mental condition, can’t be productive? Are we to care for them or let them starve? The Bible seems to give different answers.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you carefully read those documents that give us a glimpse into the thoughts and intellect of our Founders and all those who have thoughtfully contributed their own critical analysis, in the USA human rights fall into three categories:

1) Constitutional and Civil Rights - these are rights guaranteed by the Constitution that will remain until the Constitution is amended or until the Constitution is destroyed by those who hold it in disdain or until the USA falls against a stronger power that will impose its own definition of human rights.

2) Legal Rights - these are rights guaranteed by law which are more temporal as they are enacted by federal, state, or local legislative bodies that can give and take away at will. Here are the protections to our persons and property via prohibition of harmful physical contact, theft, destruction etc., and enforcement of contractual agreements, safe and peaceful environments, cultural mores, public conduct, and necessary regulation for efficient transportation, trade, commerce, etc.

3) Unalienable Rights - these are those rights that Thomas Jefferson described as God given. These are those rights that all the rest were initially intended to protect. These can be boiled down to ANYTHING that requires no contribution by anybody else other than his/her non interference. Our thoughts, hopes, beliefs, ambitions, creativity, instincts, emotions all fall into this category as do all actions that require no participation by others. Among all people, Americans may be alone in valuing unalienable rights above all other rights.

None of these rights guarantee anybody or should guarantee:
1) A home
2) Food to eat
3) Health care
4) Transportation
5) A job
6) Leisure
7) Clothing
8) Wealth or even a living wage
9) Power or prestige
10) Friends

All of these rights, however, allow the opportunity to prepare oneself and make the kinds of choices that make all these things possible to achieve and also the freedom to voluntarily assist others to achieve them. There was no original intent, however, that ever empowered the government to take what Citizen A earned and give it to Citizen B who did nothing to earn it unless Citizen B is a responsibility that Citizen A voluntarily acquired.

 

[Shogun]

I agree and that is part of my point. What about those who, due to some physical or mental condition, can’t be productive? Are we to care for them or let them starve? The Bible seems to give different answers.

I don't think that the bible gives different answers at all.



3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
Philippians 2:3

2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
Galatians 6:2

1 Blessed is he who has regard for the weak;
the LORD delivers him in times of trouble.

2 The LORD will protect him and preserve his life;
he will bless him in the land
and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

3 The LORD will sustain him on his sickbed
and restore him from his bed of illness.
Psalm 41:1-3

Or, read the parable of the good Samaritan.


No, I'd say that the bible is pretty clear about helping those in need. It's unfortunate that modern pharisee christians think otherwise. Then again, perhaps Im giving the bible a larger benefit of the doubt than it deserves.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think Shogun is failing to make a distinction between people voluntarily choosing to help others and having our property confiscated by the government for the purpose of giving to others. There is a difference between what we should do because we are good people and what we are forced to do. The Bible speaks to volunteer charity because the other is not charity at all.

 

[Shogun]

and the bible, nay JEBUS, also says to give unto ceasar that which is ceasars and to god that which is gods... Shall we spend the next 20 posts trying to rationalize that everything is gods anyway so jesus spoke in error regarding the separate motivation of your faith versus government?


Where does the bible suggest that you rebel against good works just because you were not asked, personally, for your opinion?


pharisee christians, lemme tellya.. trying to rules lawyer doctine according to their political opinon. Luke 10:29 for you, missy.



I guess the following really is no mystery:

Americans Change Faiths at Rising Rate, Report Finds
WASHINGTON — More than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion, according to a new survey of religious affiliation by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/u...cce06fd2c02a&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

 

[Foxfyre]

Have you always had these private discussions with yourself, Shogun, or is this a new thing? I only ask because you seem to infer that you are participating in a conversation with somebody else, but your comments are rarely relevant to what anybody else has said.

 

[Shogun]

which is probably why you reply to them... After all, I was chatting with someone else when you made reference to me... Hell, I COULD point out how posts 39-42 suggest otherwise but.. well.. we know how christians react to evidence. Vampires react less violently to sunlight, you know..




ps, just in case pharisee christians have a different bible from which to bludgeon society with:

Luke 10:29
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but when a post immediately follows mine and doesn't specifically reference the member addressed, I generally assume it is addressed to me. Silly I know. Didn't realize this was a private discussion however, so I'll bow out. Carry on.

 

[Shogun]

it's a public forum.. feel free to jump in and out at your leisure... Certainly you can see that i'm jogging ten feet ahead of you in the bible reference category but, again, feel free.


I'm just not sure i'd make silly statements without reading a few posts the next time.

 

[Diuretic]

But to get back to my point, 'life has intrinsic value' as without it nothing here means anything - Not even these strange symbols I just typed. It is not a construct or an intellectual agreement as without it ......

This is where I caution myself. I have a well-developed tendency to chase my own ideas and end up in confusion (remembering Bacon's dictum that it's best to start off with confusion and end up with clear ideas). So, allowing for that...

I'm going to have to ask about the "life has intrinsic value" point. Are you arguing that because you have consciousness and can operate intellectually, such as being able to read and to write, that means "life has intrinsic value"? Or am I completely off track here?

 

[Diuretic]

since we're rounding the dogma tangent...


why didn't jebus sell his fishes and loaves at a profit at the sermon on the mount? why didn't he take full advantage of the capitolist opportunity present since he solved his little supply problem while demand was peaking? I wonder if a good christian capitolist can help me out with that... It's almost as if... jebus was acting like... a fucking socialist...

indeed, why the anger at money changers in the temple? Sounds like ole jebus was into regulating commerce too. fucking commie.

For what does if profit a man to gain the whole world... and forfiet his soul?


hippies, man. dirty stinking Nag Champa dirtball hippies. If only Kerouac had told Alan to grow up and shave his fucking beard... sheesh.

Alan would have howled

 

[midcan5]

One's life has intrinsic value to whom? I'm sorry but this conversation is almost becoming too high-brow even for me. Is this conversation going to move toward the Terri Schiavo issue as what constitutes human life - or am I off track?

Obviously to yourself as it presupposes all the other pieces of life that make it worthwhile. Terry died long before her body did.

I'm going to have to ask about the "life has intrinsic value" point. Are you arguing that because you have consciousness and can operate intellectually, such as being able to read and to write, that means "life has intrinsic value"? Or am I completely off track here?

I am arguing that everything follows from your living and thus creates (not sure that is best word or way to say it) intrinsic value.

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks midcan. I'm not being difficult, I just like to try and agree on terms.

"Everything follows from your living." It does doesn't it? I mean this is a bit like the old tree falling in the forest conundrum.

Being alive is a prerequisite for consciousness.

Having a brain with a human cerebral cortex is also a prerequiste for consciousness and self-awareness.

But consciousness and self-awareness are entirely subjective. Get more than one fully functioning (cognitive) human in one place and they'll start to work out shared understandings.

With their senses they will recognise various things around them but unless they have a shared language and culture then they'll not be able to communicate what their senses perceive.

So, they develop agreed understandings. "We'll call that a chair". "Chairs can be used to sit in". "That chair belongs to me because I made it."

Human rights are an agreement as well. They don't come from a deity, they come from humans agreeing on things like not killing each other, thus producing the understanding of the right to live.

Human rights can change by agreement. It used to be that it was a human right for one human to own another. In many countries in the world that right has now been displaced by the understanding that every human being has the right not to be enslaved. That human right, not to be enslaved, has great currency in the world, even though in many places it's ignored. Being ignored doesn't kill its validity. In fact the idea has such currency that is of a form of right we call, by agreement, a universal human right:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

 

[Annie]

Thanks midcan. I'm not being difficult, I just like to try and agree on terms.

"Everything follows from your living." It does doesn't it? I mean this is a bit like the old tree falling in the forest conundrum.

Being alive is a prerequisite for consciousness.

Having a brain with a human cerebral cortex is also a prerequiste for consciousness and self-awareness.

But consciousness and self-awareness are entirely subjective. Get more than one fully functioning (cognitive) human in one place and they'll start to work out shared understandings.

With their senses they will recognise various things around them but unless they have a shared language and culture then they'll not be able to communicate what their senses perceive.

So, they develop agreed understandings. "We'll call that a chair". "Chairs can be used to sit in". "That chair belongs to me because I made it."

Human rights are an agreement as well. They don't come from a deity, they come from humans agreeing on things like not killing each other, thus producing the understanding of the right to live.

Human rights can change by agreement. It used to be that it was a human right for one human to own another. In many countries in the world that right has now been displaced by the understanding that every human being has the right not to be enslaved. That human right, not to be enslaved, has great currency in the world, even though in many places it's ignored. Being ignored doesn't kill its validity. In fact the idea has such currency that is of a form of right we call, by agreement, a universal human right:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

I disagree that 'human rights can change by agreement.' The whole idea of slavery was wrong, as owning another negates human right. To do so means to say based on race/religion makes one less than human; that's the only way to do so. They were wrong. Every bit as much as those that say Jews are relatives of monkeys, pigs, etc.

Human rights are those that are given by 'a creator' or those that transcend the state.

The right to live, be free, say what one means, practice one's religion or not, own property and be free to enjoy it, raise one's children and care for one's family, etc.

They are more than spelled out in any constitution, but those necessary to enjoy all, the attempt is made.

 

[Diuretic]

I disagree that 'human rights can change by agreement.' The whole idea of slavery was wrong, as owning another negates human right. To do so means to say based on race/religion makes one less than human; that's the only way to do so. They were wrong. Every bit as much as those that say Jews are relatives of monkeys, pigs, etc.

Slavery is probably as old as humanity itself. Ancient legal systems actually regulated the trade, that leads me to think that slavery was legal in those systems. Slavery was only considered "wrong" (in Britain) after the work of Wilberforce. Even then it took a huge effort as slavery was an important economic tool. Slavery is still practised in the world today but it has been agreed in much of the world to be a breach of human rights. In other words, it is an agreed position.

Human rights are those that are given by 'a creator' or those that transcend the state.

You'll have to prove the existence of a creator to make that claim.

The right to live, be free, say what one means, practice one's religion or not, own property and be free to enjoy it, raise one's children and care for one's family, etc.

They are more than spelled out in any constitution, but those necessary to enjoy all, the attempt is made.

But that doesn't disprove my claim that human rights are a human invention.

 

[Annie]

Slavery is probably as old as humanity itself. Ancient legal systems actually regulated the trade, that leads me to think that slavery was legal in those systems. Slavery was only considered "wrong" (in Britain) after the work of Wilberforce. Even then it took a huge effort as slavery was an important economic tool. Slavery is still practised in the world today but it has been agreed in much of the world to be a breach of human rights. In other words, it is an agreed position.

Legal doesn't equate with 'right', as in natural rights.

You'll have to prove the existence of a creator to make that claim.

Let's just say whatever created or allowed or enabled the big bang or your favorite beginning.

But that doesn't disprove my claim that human rights are a human invention.

I doubt anyone could, but doesn't make you 'right' .

 

[jodylee]

human rights are that which our leaders will let us have, as and when they want, and I don't mean the 'elected' leaders I mean the real leaders. We are expendable cannon fodder.

 

[Annie]

human rights are that which our leaders will let us have, as and when they want, and I don't mean the 'elected' leaders I mean the real leaders. We are expendable cannon fodder.

What in this world do you mean?

 

[Gunny]

Slavery is probably as old as humanity itself. Ancient legal systems actually regulated the trade, that leads me to think that slavery was legal in those systems. Slavery was only considered "wrong" (in Britain) after the work of Wilberforce. Even then it took a huge effort as slavery was an important economic tool. Slavery is still practised in the world today but it has been agreed in much of the world to be a breach of human rights. In other words, it is an agreed position.



You'll have to prove the existence of a creator to make that claim.



But that doesn't disprove my claim that human rights are a human invention.

How far to base do you want to go? There are no rights endowed upon the human species except one. You have the right to survive so long as you posess the means to.