Rights: Natural, Equal, Universal

[midcan5]

Often on USMB and other sites the question over whether rights are natural or created causes great debate. Starting points are difficult as primitive women didn't bother writing down how they handled rights at the dawn of consciousness. Lynn Hunt's view is they evolved as womankind evolved. (I use 'evolve' tentatively.) An interesting perspective as it challenges the nature argument with interesting analyzes of the changes, which then leads me to the question how do societies address rights: separately or even differently. And that leads me to how we judge other societies etc etc. Review of book is below.


American Horse, this touches on our discussion of the creation of the individual and what that meant.


Review by Gordon S. Wood

"The 18th-century American and French declarations unleashed “an implacable logic” that expanded rights to all sorts of individuals and groups, including Jews and other members of minority religions, slaves and women. In the 19th century, however, rights became attached to particular nations and ethnicities, and they lost much of their equal and universal character. “It took two devastating world wars,” Hunt writes, “to shatter this confidence in the nation.”

Only following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which “crystallized 150 years of struggle,” did rights once again come to dominate the conscience of much of the world. Human rights, Hunt concludes, have now become “our only commonly shared bulwark” against the brutalities and cruelties that still afflict much of humanity."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/review/Wood2.t.html?_r=1&ref=review

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Human-Rights-Lynn-Hunt/dp/0393331997/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259805588&sr=1-3]Amazon.com: Inventing Human Rights: A History (9780393331998): Lynn Hunt: Books[/ame]

 

[uscitizen]

Rights are granted by others or seized by power moves.
None are natural, etc. Just rights you have or do not have.

 

[midcan5]

Rights are granted by others or seized by power moves.
None are natural, etc. Just rights you have or do not have.

Uscitizen, how goes it?

So nothing changes and rights are really static? If so then why all the change through the years? And if there is change which I think you'll admit, why?

 

[Polk]

Interesting topic.

 

[Samson]

Often on USMB and other sites the question over whether rights are natural or created causes great debate. Starting points are difficult

Only following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which “crystallized 150 years of struggle,” did rights once again come to dominate the conscience of much of the world. Human rights, Hunt concludes, have now become “our only commonly shared bulwark” against the brutalities and cruelties that still afflict much of humanity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/review/Wood2.t.html?_r=1&ref=review

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Human-Rights-Lynn-Hunt/dp/0393331997/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259805588&sr=1-3]Amazon.com: Inventing Human Rights: A History (9780393331998): Lynn Hunt: Books[/ame][/QUOTE]

"Inventing Human Rights?"

I'm not sure if Hunt, or the NYT reviewer is more ridiculous. I suspect both would qualify, particularly in light of the idiotic contradictions in the short quote above.

Let's first examine the misnomer "Universal" Declaration of Human Rights. As there remains "Brutalities and Cruelties that still affect Humanity" doesn't the "universiality" become more than a little incredulous? How have Human Rights "dominated the conscience" of anyone outside the NYT, much less the world?

When we talk about "Our only COMMONLY shared bulwork," aside from being redundent (if its "Ours" then it must be "commonly shared"), who is Hunt talking about? Me and Hunt?Humanity?

Is anyone so naive as to believe that because "Universiality" is declared then it is automatically accepted by every single Human, or even every single human culture? Is it even accepted by everyone that declared it (whoever that might have been)?

So, here is what I suspect (I could be wrong):

Some sadly-overeducated-but-under-experience acamedian has imagined that the entire planet is just like Princeton, or Harvard, or ________(pick your favorite Ivy League School). Ignoring the fact than this microcosim represents a highly ideal model, they have applied the local model of Human Rights to every other human on earth. As long as our hypothetical Ivory Tower dweller remains sequestered within the musings of the NYT, they are safe.....or, I should say, we are safe.

However, our country's leaders read the NYT.....worse, they are influanced by the voting public that reads the NYT and may actually agree with the fairy tale that there are commonly held concepts of "Human Rights!"

 

[Diuretic]

If something is good for humans shouldn't it be universal for humans? And simply because it might be opposed by political regimes, does that make it less good or that it shouldn't be regarded as a universal good?

 

[midcan5]

...Some sadly-overeducated-but-under-experience acamedian has imagined that the entire planet is just like Princeton, or Harvard, or ________(pick your favorite Ivy League School). Ignoring the fact than this microcosim represents a highly ideal model, they have applied the local model of Human Rights to every other human on earth. As long as our hypothetical Ivory Tower dweller remains sequestered within the musings of the NYT, they are safe.....or, I should say, we are safe.

However, our country's leaders read the NYT.....worse, they are influanced by the voting public that reads the NYT and may actually agree with the fairy tale that there are commonly held concepts of "Human Rights!"....

"Human rights, Hunt concludes, have now become “our only commonly shared bulwark” against the brutalities and cruelties that still afflict much of humanity.""

Our son lived in Princeton, we still go there often, and yes, it would be nice if more of the world were like Princeton, but I think you miss the point with your cynicism. Academics don't operate in a vacuum, there is real life out there and any view of the middle ages to today must demonstrate that progress has happened even with all the bumps. Steven Pinker even argues we are less violent today. Maybe we look too closely at our times and assume the dangers represent a sort of hopelessness for humankind, but law and rights and especially individual rights in the West have had great impact. The changes needed for the rest of the world may take longer than our limited vision allows. I remain a bit hopeful.

Edge: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE By Steven Pinker


"Life can be seen through many windows, none of them necessarily clear or opaque, less or more distorting than any of the others." Winston Churchill

 

[Samson]

If something is good for humans shouldn't it be universal for humans? And simply because it might be opposed by political regimes, does that make it less good or that it shouldn't be regarded as a universal good?

Food is Good for Humans.

So, Cannibalism is Good?

See, there is no such thing as "Universally accepted "Good," or "Human Right's." Its a fairy tale

"Human rights, Hunt concludes, have now become “our only commonly shared bulwark” against the brutalities and cruelties that still afflict much of humanity.""

Our son lived in Princeton, we still go there often, and yes, it would be nice if more of the world were like Princeton, but I think you miss the point with your cynicism. Academics don't operate in a vacuum, there is real life out there and any view of the middle ages to today must demonstrate that progress has happened even with all the bumps. Steven Pinker even argues we are less violent today. Maybe we look too closely at our times and assume the dangers represent a sort of hopelessness for humankind, but law and rights and especially individual rights in the West have had great impact. The changes needed for the rest of the world may take longer than our limited vision allows. I remain a bit hopeful.

Edge: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE By Steven Pinker




"Life can be seen through many windows, none of them necessarily clear or opaque, less or more distorting than any of the others." Winston Churchill

I think you may also hope there is a Santa Clause.

And your Churchillian Quote is quite .........appropriate, given he was the creator of Iraq, an excellent example of where the Princeton Academic Idealisms and Good Intensions have lead the United States down the Road to Hell.

"The changes needed for the rest of the world may take longer than our limited vision allows".....Did Herbert Walker Bush learn this at Princeton?

Unhappily, Even though you say, "Academians don't operate in a vacuum," they don't really operate in the REAL WORLD either: Human rights are NOT "univeral" or "common," regardless of how much you, or anyone else wishes them to be. In fact, what has been, and IS much more common is the antithesis.

Furthermore, there is very little proof that without the fragile existance of civilization, even Princeton would not become "Brutish" (in fact, I'd like to attend a Fraturnity Party or two, just to sample some of the Human Rights that flourish among the Ivory Towers).

 

[Diuretic]

I don't know if food has a moral quality but it's certainly necessary for our survival.

Cannibalism is a reasonable response where people live in an area where there isn't much protein. It's probably more polite to eat your enemies than your friends though.

But back to the point. If we know something is good in that it's beneficial for humans, say the concept of individual liberty, then surely we can say that it should be available for all humans?

 

[Samson]

I don't know if food has a moral quality but it's certainly necessary for our survival.

Cannibalism is a reasonable response where people live in an area where there isn't much protein. It's probably more polite to eat your enemies than your friends though.

But back to the point. If we know something is good in that it's beneficial for humans, say the concept of individual liberty, then surely we can say that it should be available for all humans?

Hmmmmm.....Individual Liberty ISN'T "available" to all humans? Like who?

But, like cannibalism, and what is "Good," it is the Moral Relativists that make it impossible to define. Which is somewhat ironic because many of these Moral Relativists are the same people that declare that there are Commonly Held, even Universal, Human Rights.

 

[uscitizen]

Rights are granted by others or seized by power moves.
None are natural, etc. Just rights you have or do not have.

Uscitizen, how goes it?

So nothing changes and rights are really static? If so then why all the change through the years? And if there is change which I think you'll admit, why?

Hey there, Going pretty well.

Sure there is change thru the centuries on rights, but it all still boils down to rights being what others grant you.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't know if food has a moral quality but it's certainly necessary for our survival.

Cannibalism is a reasonable response where people live in an area where there isn't much protein. It's probably more polite to eat your enemies than your friends though.

But back to the point. If we know something is good in that it's beneficial for humans, say the concept of individual liberty, then surely we can say that it should be available for all humans?

Hmmmmm.....Individual Liberty ISN'T "available" to all humans? Like who?

But, like cannibalism, and what is "Good," it is the Moral Relativists that make it impossible to define. Which is somewhat ironic because many of these Moral Relativists are the same people that declare that there are Commonly Held, even Universal, Human Rights.

Individual liberty isn't an absolute, in fact I'm going to take the pugnacious position of declaring that there are no moral absolutes to see where it might lead. Freedom of choice and action (among many other things) are markers of humanity. Unreasonably restricting individual liberty is denying that humanity. So that's "bad". Totalitarian regimes unreasonably restrict individual liberty.

Moral relativism is the only sensible approach to trying to define what is and what isn't "moral". Any action must be judged in context so any action can't be, in an absolute sense, "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong." It is entirely possible to hold the view that morality is relative yet also hold that there are a number of markers of humanity that define it, one being those identified in the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Moral relativists have to think about the nature of an action or condition, nothing is predetermined in terms of its morality. Absolutists can simply make a pronouncement and sit back, well satisfied and somewhat smug but probably wrong, after having expended a minimum of mental effort.

 

[Samson]

Individual liberty isn't an absolute, in fact I'm going to take the pugnacious position of declaring that there are no moral absolutes to see where it might lead.

You don't manage humans, do you? If you do, then I'd be fascinated to determine how you manage their activity without any moral absolutes.

Freedom of choice and action (among many other things) are markers of humanity. Unreasonably restricting individual liberty is denying that humanity. So that's "bad". Totalitarian regimes unreasonably restrict individual liberty.

"Unreasonably restricting?" This must be opposed to Reasonably restricting?

It appears "Diuretic's Utopian World of No Moral Absolutes" only survived one sentence.

Moral relativism is the only sensible approach to trying to define what is and what isn't "moral". Any action must be judged in context so any action can't be, in an absolute sense, "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong."

Agreed. I hope you don't object to allowing ME to be the judge. My first Moral Determination is to require all beaches to be topless. My second Moral Determination is to require Burkas to be worn by anyone weighing more than 200 lbs.

It is entirely possible to hold the view that morality is relative yet also hold that there are a number of markers of humanity that define it, one being those identified in the Declaration of Universal Human Rights.

Why would I be astonished if this so-called Declaration wasn't made by a group of Western University Professors and Grad students, and that the "Unborn," are not considered "Human."

Moral relativists have to think about the nature of an action or condition, nothing is predetermined in terms of its morality. Absolutists can simply make a pronouncement and sit back, well satisfied and somewhat smug but probably wrong, after having expended a minimum of mental effort.

"nothing is predetermined in terms of its morality." And this, my dear fellow, is why Moral Relativism will never be useful; Because No One Knows The Rules to the Game.

 

[Diuretic]

Individual liberty isn't an absolute, in fact I'm going to take the pugnacious position of declaring that there are no moral absolutes to see where it might lead.

You don't manage humans, do you? If you do, then I'd be fascinated to determine how you manage their activity without any moral absolutes.

Freedom of choice and action (among many other things) are markers of humanity. Unreasonably restricting individual liberty is denying that humanity. So that's "bad". Totalitarian regimes unreasonably restrict individual liberty.

"Unreasonably restricting?" This must be opposed to Reasonably restricting?

It appears "Diuretic's Utopian World of No Moral Absolutes" only survived one sentence.



Agreed. I hope you don't object to allowing ME to be the judge. My first Moral Determination is to require all beaches to be topless. My second Moral Determination is to require Burkas to be worn by anyone weighing more than 200 lbs.

It is entirely possible to hold the view that morality is relative yet also hold that there are a number of markers of humanity that define it, one being those identified in the Declaration of Universal Human Rights.

Why would I be astonished if this so-called Declaration wasn't made by a group of Western University Professors and Grad students, and that the "Unborn," are not considered "Human."

Moral relativists have to think about the nature of an action or condition, nothing is predetermined in terms of its morality. Absolutists can simply make a pronouncement and sit back, well satisfied and somewhat smug but probably wrong, after having expended a minimum of mental effort.

"nothing is predetermined in terms of its morality." And this, my dear fellow, is why Moral Relativism will never be useful; Because No One Knows The Rules to the Game.

Managing people and moral absolutes. No problem. Rules are set down to guide conduct in an employment situation, those rules bind both employer and employee. Rules aren't “moral absolutes”, they're rules.

Restrictions. John Stuart Mill pointed out the difference between “liberty” and “licence”. I can't improve on it. The solitary individual in a state of nature is completely free. The individual in company with others is not completely free, he or she is subject to reasonable restrictions on their behaviour. It's a social necessity.

Beaches and burqas. There you go, you've got the point. Now, what's the reasoning behind those positions?
Declaration. Go and have a look at how it was created, it may well have a bunch of professors and grad students for all I know. And it's about “human” rights, not “foetal rights”, so you need to bear that in mind.

Rules. We're thinking animals, we make the rules up as we see fit. We can do that because we know there are no moral absolutes.

My position on human rights is that they are a posteriori, they exist as a result of human reason they don't exist without human reason. My position on morality is the same. There is no a priori morality, it exists because we have the ability to reason about the moral nature of an act.

 

[Samson]

Managing people and moral absolutes. No problem. Rules are set down to guide conduct in an employment situation, those rules bind both employer and employee. Rules aren't “moral absolutes”, they're rules. Rules. We're thinking animals, we make the rules up as we see fit. We can do that because we know there are no moral absolutes.

As I guessed; you don't manage anyone. And, if you feel that rules are not "moral absolutes" then heaven forbid you ever manage people.

Perhaps disaster can be averted, and you won't end up as the next ill fated CEO of Enron.

What is an example of a rule that is not a moral absolute?

Restrictions. John Stuart Mill pointed out the difference between “liberty” and “licence”. I can't improve on it. The solitary individual in a state of nature is completely free. The individual in company with others is not completely free, he or she is subject to reasonable restrictions on their behaviour. It's a social necessity.

Who decides what is "Reasonable?"

Beaches and burqas. There you go, you've got the point. Now, what's the reasoning behind those positions?

My own personal likes. Only things that I like are reasonable.

My position on human rights is that they are a posteriori, they exist as a result of human reason they don't exist without human reason. My position on morality is the same. There is no a priori morality, it exists because we have the ability to reason about the moral nature of an act.

I'm pleased that you are human, that humans have human rights, and that human reason is the origin of human rights.

Happily, being human myself makes this position difficult to argue.

My problem is that any one human, or small group of humans, should define "Universal" human rights and then be so smug as to believe that simply because they have made the Declaration, that everyone must share them. Absurd Notions like this is the fundamental obsticle seperating cultures, religions, races, etc., etc.

They Might as well Declare that "The White Race is Superiour" or "Allah is the One and Only God."

 

[Diuretic]

Managing people and moral absolutes. No problem. Rules are set down to guide conduct in an employment situation, those rules bind both employer and employee. Rules aren't “moral absolutes”, they're rules. Rules. We're thinking animals, we make the rules up as we see fit. We can do that because we know there are no moral absolutes.

As I guessed; you don't manage anyone. And, if you feel that rules are not "moral absolutes" then heaven forbid you ever manage people.

Perhaps disaster can be averted, and you won't end up as the next ill fated CEO of Enron.

What is an example of a rule that is not a moral absolute?

Restrictions. John Stuart Mill pointed out the difference between “liberty” and “licence”. I can't improve on it. The solitary individual in a state of nature is completely free. The individual in company with others is not completely free, he or she is subject to reasonable restrictions on their behaviour. It's a social necessity.

Who decides what is "Reasonable?"

Beaches and burqas. There you go, you've got the point. Now, what's the reasoning behind those positions?

My own personal likes. Only things that I like are reasonable.

My position on human rights is that they are a posteriori, they exist as a result of human reason they don't exist without human reason. My position on morality is the same. There is no a priori morality, it exists because we have the ability to reason about the moral nature of an act.

I'm pleased that you are human, that humans have human rights, and that human reason is the origin of human rights.

Happily, being human myself makes this position difficult to argue.

My problem is that any one human, or small group of humans, should define "Universal" human rights and then be so smug as to believe that simply because they have made the Declaration, that everyone must share them. Absurd Notions like this is the fundamental obsticle seperating cultures, religions, races, etc., etc.

They Might as well Declare that "The White Race is Superiour" or "Allah is the One and Only God."

As I guessed; you don't manage anyone. And, if you feel that rules are not "moral absolutes" then heaven forbid you ever manage people.

I'd send you my cv but I value my privacy.

No, rules of employment aren't moral absolutes, they're fashioned from common law and statutory law. They are to be adhered to yes, by all parties, but moral absolutes? No.

What is an example of a rule that is not a moral absolute?

They're two different concepts. Any rule has to have exceptions. Therefore it's not an absolute, moral or otherwise.

Who decides what is "Reasonable?"

It depends on the form of governance in place.

My own personal likes. Only things that I like are reasonable

So you have your answer to the previous question. If you were King then you'd be able to make that rule!

Happily, being human myself makes this position difficult to argue.

I'm human too, solidarity for our species!

My problem is that any one human, or small group of humans, should define "Universal" human rights and then be so smug as to believe that simply because they have made the Declaration, that everyone must share them. Absurd Notions like this is the fundamental obsticle seperating cultures, religions, races, etc., etc.

They Might as well Declare that "The White Race is Superiour" or "Allah is the One and Only God."


It does sound a bit ridiculous doesn't it? But what if the Declaration has actually identified what it means to be a human being (stripped of all the cultural baggage we all carry with us)? Do you think it's possible to do that?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Only following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which “crystallized 150 years of struggle,” did rights once again come to dominate the conscience of much of the world. Human rights, Hunt concludes, have now become “our only commonly shared bulwark” against the brutalities and cruelties that still afflict much of humanity."

He's a fool. 'Rights' are no common ground beyond the extent to which they serve as the rhetoric to justify common interests. It is our common goals and desires which unite (and divide) us, as has always been the case.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If something is good for humans shouldn't it be universal for humans?

Humans are too stupid to work together for mutual benefit. Have you not realized this?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I don't know if food has a moral quality but it's certainly necessary for our survival.

Cannibalism is a reasonable response where people live in an area where there isn't much protein. It's probably more polite to eat your enemies than your friends though.

Becuse they are you enemies? Do you declare them to be so because you are hungry, then?

 

[Samson]

It does sound a bit ridiculous doesn't it? But what if the Declaration has actually identified what it means to be a human being (stripped of all the cultural baggage we all carry with us)? Do you think it's possible to do that?

I think its a work in progress.

My problem with the Declaration is really only semanic: There cannot possibly have been Universal Agreement on the issue.

I think I'd have been happier had there been a "Flexible, Morally Relativistic Declaration of Human Rights That Have Worked Particularly Well at Princeton University."

Of course, I agree, that's quite a mouthful.