Human [rights], what are those to you?

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth

Human rights always apply to all people.

Post by NeilBlanchard » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:31 pm


Again, I'm not sure why a general discussion of human rights has narrowed to criminals? Human rights apply to all people, all the time. Prisoners lose privileges, not their basic human rights.
Sincerely, Neil

Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:52 am

Post by walle » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:54 am

Lets see if we can get back on track then…
thejamppa wrote:I wish just to see what you, regular joe's and user's of this site consider human rights or should be one.
"Breathe fresh air, being able to drink fresh water, able to eat healthy food, no polluted crap, that, to me, would be one of the basic human rights."


Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Erssa » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:17 pm

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.
Human rights should look like individuals rights defined by libertarians.

I wonder how long it will take before right to (assisted and unconditioned) suicide becomes a basic human right.
[color=blue][size=84]Antec Solo case /w Seasonic S-12 430W, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2, X2 4850e /w Scythe Ninja, 2x2Gb DDR2800, WD Raptor 150GB, 500GB WD GP in Antec MX-1, BenQ G2400W, Logitech diNovo Laser, Logitech z-680[/color][/size]

Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:52 pm

Re: Human [rights], what are those to you?

Post by croddie » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:35 pm

thejamppa wrote:To you what do you think are human rights or should be something consider one.
There are no "human rights". Sometimes things done in the name of "human rights" are good (encouraging development or attacking some of the nastier political regimes) but human rights are an illusion.

Human rights means "the state must give x to everyone regardless of considerations of the consequences of policies" for a for a certain set of x. E.g. regardless of consequences, the state must give an healthcare to everyone. But there are benefits that could accrue to a majority of people that would outweigh any benefits of giving x to everyone and not getting those benefits. E.g. healthcare is a benefit; so is safety. Giving healthcare to everyone including multiple-murderers is a bad policy compared to giving healthcare to almost everyone, excluding murderers, IF that gives many people more safety.

If when you consider government policy you consider all of the consequences before you decide whether it's a good policy, you are engaging in non-human-rights-thinking. Human-rights thinking decides on policy before considering all the costs and benefits. And that's a mistake.

Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:52 pm

Post by croddie » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:49 pm

tehfire wrote:I believe that there exists an objective entity that is morality, and by definition moral agents (including humans) are bound by it. I see a clear distinction between descriptive claims (how the world is) and normative claims (how the world ought to be). Like Kant, I believe that the fundamental principle of morality lies somewhere with autonomy - that is, rational, self-conscious agents ought to be allowed to do what they want/desire. This ability ends when one's desires unfairly infringes upon another's rights.
So there is objective good... but that good cannot be autonomy* ... and yet if a person is in a position to make laws his aim should not be to promote objective good but to promote autonomy? Why is that?

*Otherwise agents ought to act to increase autonomy, so should always increase their power rather than spend it, but they won't want to do this rationally, and then the state should in some cases restrict autonomy in a way that makes them forced to increase their autonomy, a restriction that is not motivated by concerns about the rights of others people.
Also it blurs the distinction between ought and is in your theory if you assume people have rationality.

Post Reply