[QUOTE=col_10022]
The question is “am I my brother’s keeper”
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know what he meant by that, but it’s still not a reason. It’s, at best, an appeal to emotion. And we’re talking about rights, which are a legal construct, not an ethical construct. Some people might like to pretend there shouldn’t be a difference, but there must be.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Just because people don’t have an inherent right to food doesn’t mean we can let them starve and feel perfectly ethically correct. Rights mean we must do something; we do not have to help, but we can choose to, and choosing to is the right thing to do (barring extreme exceptions).
[/QUOTE]
We’re all lucky to live the way we do, but for the gradce of god, it could be us starving in some war torn country. People may not have an inherent right to food but we have an inherent obligation to at least feel guilty about people starving to death in other countries. BTW, the cost of the war in Iraq could have paid to feed all the starving children of the world for a few decades (assuming present interest rates).
[QUOTE=furt]
Given the hypothetical, yes; however I do not believe rights are social constructs.
The idea of a “right to food” is a very misguided idea, however, akin to a “right to happiness.” Far better to posit a “right to eat” or a “right to pursue food.” You do not, as a human, inherently deserve a sandwich; you do (IMO) inherently deserve the opportunity to earn one, and once earned to not have it taken away.
As with all other rights, of course, people may not get what they’re entitled to unless they have guns.
[/QUOTE]
The law entertains something called “natural law” and “universal rights”
It recognizes that there is an objectively moral state of being and while the boundaries of that state are fuzzy there are some things that are uncontrovertible. We prosecuted war criminals after WWII based on natural law and we say that murder is illegal even if the man made law doesn’t recognize murder as illegal. Is the right to food a god given right? I haven’t heard this being argued a whole lot, my sense is that the reason for this is because noone really disagrees.
The Church says that if you are starving, you can steal food from those who are not starving. I cannot find a major religion that does not give a similar right to starving people or impose an affrirmative obligation to feed the hungry. I think it is part of being human to share our abundance with those living in deprivation.
So I guess I think that natural law extends beyond just a “right to work” but includes a more basic “right to food” Sometimes it is not enough to teach someone how to fish, sometimes you must give them a fish.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
We’re all lucky to live the way we do, but for the gradce of god, it could be us starving in some war torn country. People may not have an inherent right to food but we have an inherent obligation to at least feel guilty about people starving to death in other countries. BTW, the cost of the war in Iraq could have paid to feed all the starving children of the world for a few decades (assuming present interest rates).
[/QUOTE]
Do you know how many people you could feed for what you paid for the computer you’re typing on write now?
And how exactly are we going to “feed the hungry” in Africa?
Go over there with shiploads of food and start handing it out? Shiploads of clothing? What’s that going do to local farmers? Local textile workers? What do we do when local governments interfere with our food giveaways? Should we send soldiers to protect the food-givers?
Generally the people who are starving aren’t starving because of some ecological problem–a drought, a blight, a swarm of locusts. Those things are trivial to fix, and can indeed simply be solved by giving people some food aid until next year’s crops.
The people who starve starve because of war and politics. People are starving in Zimbabwe, and why? Because Mugabe nationalized the farms. Because he would simply take any food we sent to Zimbabwe and distribute it for his own purposes. Meaning, not to hungry people, but to his political followers. Hungry political enemies would get nothing.
Remember the famine in Ethiopia back in the 80s? Remember Sam Kinnison screaming “Why are they in the fucking desert! Leave the desert you idiots!”. Except the people were wandering in the desert because they had been chased off their farms by soldiers/rebels/bandits (same thing in the third world). If they hadn’t left the farms, they’d have been shot. So now they faced starvation instead of a bullet, and even if they’d stayed and farmed the soldiers would just take whatever food they produced anyway. And so a whole year’s worth of food production for the country never happened.
Or take starvation in North Korea. North Korea is the only country in Asia that still has famines. And we all know why. Normal poor countries can ask for food aid, they not only allow but actually encourage humanitarian workers to distribute food. North Korea will allow us to give them food…but only to the North Korean government. We’re not allowed to actually distribute food to starving people.
So the only solution to starvation in North Korea is to get rid of the North Korean government. Anyone in favor of regime change through military invasion? Anyone in favor of sending US troops to the Darfur region of Sudan? Anyone in favor of sending troops to Zimbabwe? Somalia?
Because by tautology, the only places in the world that are starving are places food aid can’t get too. And food aid can’t get to those places, not because there’s not enough food aid, but because no one is willing to send soldiers to guard the food aid and shoot any government troops, rebels, or bandits who try to kill the aid workers and steal the food.
If I have a right to food, doesn’t that mean I shouldn’t have to pay for it? Whether or not I can?
The abstract question: “basic universal human rights” … silly or not? Not silly. As societies, and moreso as a members of a society of societies, we axiomatically accept some agreed upon basic human rights. If only we could decide what it is that we all agree upon. Those rights that are accepted by the majority of the world have become the basis of our plurulistic world, and disagreement with those rights is the basis of much conflict from those who therefore wish to insulate themselves from the rest of world society (see the Islamist movement for example).
Accepting basic human rights is not silly, it is an essential feature of worldly coexistence.
Now to the specific. I think that we are confusing issues. I have a right to vote in this country. If I do not vote, and it isn’t because someone stopped me from doing it, then I have not been denied my right. If it is difficult for me to get to the polls and I therefore do not go, no one is denying me my right, but society may decide to help me exercise that right anyway and feel shame if many members do not exercise the right to vote because of poor access. And if that poor access is specific to particular groups systematically, then society may be culpable in denying those rights.
The claim is that people have a right to eat, eassentially a right to survive. If someone doesn’t eat, but has the means to do so, then no one is denying them the right. If a particular group is being denied the capability to eat (see post 25 for examples) then they are being denied a most basic human right. And society at large, has an ethical obligation to help them get those rights even if they are not responsible for their having ben denied.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
The abstract question: “basic universal human rights” … silly or not? Not silly. As societies, and moreso as a members of a society of societies, we axiomatically accept some agreed upon basic human rights. If only we could decide what it is that we all agree upon. Those rights that are accepted by the majority of the world have become the basis of our plurulistic world, and disagreement with those rights is the basis of much conflict from those who therefore wish to insulate themselves from the rest of world society (see the Islamist movement for example).
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t this an excellent argument against basic universal human rights? Sure every society that can be called a society offers rights. If it doesn’t, we don’t consider it a society. Some societies offer these rights, some offer those; some only offer rights to some people and grant nothing to the remainder. How does this in any way imply a universal system?
OK, let’s say we have an obligation to feed starving people. How far does this go? Do we have an obligation to invade North Korea then? Do we have an obligation to invade Sudan and Zimbabwe? What about Pakistan’s “tribal areas”? Do we have an obligation to set up colonial governments for these countries?
Do we have an obligation to repeal agricultural subsidies in the First World? Do we have an obligation to repeal trade barriers with starving countries? Do we have an obligation to encourage international capitalism, or an obligation to do the reverse? Do we have an obligation to hand food over to dictators, no questions asked, because people are starving in the dictator’s country?
As I said earlier, there is nowhere in the world where a starving person would eat, if only we had spent one more dollar sending one more sack of grain to one more third world country rather than buying a latte at Starbucks. The people who can be saved by one more dollar and one more sack of grain are already saved.
The people who aren’t being saved are the people where you can’t just send them a bag of rice, you have to do something else. And while we may have consensus about sending a starving person a bag of rice that costs us comparitively nothing, we certainly don’t have consensus about international trade, sanctions, invasion, imperialism, colonialism, or global capitalism.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Do you know how many people you could feed for what you paid for the computer you’re typing on write now?
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t given up all my worldly belongings to feed the hungry either but my computer is productive, the war in Iraq is not.
“What good is a political party to a man who has no bread?” - Marat
Without essential subsistence, none of these rights have any value. A starving man has no mind worthy of the name, his condition robs him of his humanity and obliterates his conscience. He is wholly the creature of whomever will feed his children, he is their soldier, their martyr, their stooge. He has no rights because he has no mind, he is deprived of his humanity and his reason. If a “right” is “basic”, it is because other rights depend upon it, freedom of speech presumes freedom of conscience. But if all of these rights are empty and meaningless without food, then food is the more basic right, upon which the others depend.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Because by tautology, the only places in the world that are starving are places food aid can’t get too. And food aid can’t get to those places, not because there’s not enough food aid, but because no one is willing to send soldiers to guard the food aid and shoot any government troops, rebels, or bandits who try to kill the aid workers and steal the food.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not entirely true. UN World Food Programme (WFP)
There are places in Latin America and Southeast Asia where people starve.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
OK, let’s say we have an obligation to feed starving people. How far does this go? Do we have an obligation to invade North Korea then? Do we have an obligation to invade Sudan and Zimbabwe? What about Pakistan’s “tribal areas”? Do we have an obligation to set up colonial governments for these countries?
Do we have an obligation to repeal agricultural subsidies in the First World? Do we have an obligation to repeal trade barriers with starving countries? Do we have an obligation to encourage international capitalism, or an obligation to do the reverse? Do we have an obligation to hand food over to dictators, no questions asked, because people are starving in the dictator’s country?
As I said earlier, there is nowhere in the world where a starving person would eat, if only we had spent one more dollar sending one more sack of grain to one more third world country rather than buying a latte at Starbucks. The people who can be saved by one more dollar and one more sack of grain are already saved.
The people who aren’t being saved are the people where you can’t just send them a bag of rice, you have to do something else. And while we may have consensus about sending a starving person a bag of rice that costs us comparitively nothing, we certainly don’t have consensus about international trade, sanctions, invasion, imperialism, colonialism, or global capitalism.
[/QUOTE]
We have an obligation to care enough to look for solutions.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
“What good is a political party to a man who has no bread?” - Marat
Without essential subsistence, none of these rights have any value. A starving man has no mind worthy of the name, his condition robs him of his humanity and obliterates his conscience. He is wholly the creature of whomever will feed his children, he is their soldier, their martyr, their stooge. He has no rights because he has no mind, he is deprived of his humanity and his reason. If a “right” is “basic”, it is because other rights depend upon it, freedom of speech presumes freedom of conscience. But if all of these rights are empty and meaningless without food, then food is the more basic right, upon which the others depend.
[/QUOTE]
“Poverty is the worst form of violence” Ghandi
We can’t all be like Ghandi but at least some part of us must want to.
That’s just a link to the World Food Program main page. I poked around but could find no support for your assertion. Does SE Asia count Burma? What Latin American countries have people starving to death?
Elucidator, Col, you’re just spouting platitudes. Yeah, hunger is bad. What are we going to do about it?
I have stated 4 or 5 times that if the solution was just giving food to people in the third world the problem would be solved already, and that virtually all hunger that can be solved by just giving away food has already been solved. You’re willing to give food to hungry people, I got that. What else? What about hungry people in North Korea? What will you do for them? What will you do for hungry people in Darfur? Are we sending troops to Somalia to distribute food any time soon?
Of course you are right, Lemur, we are merely moral gasbags, mouthing well worn pieties. We should be more concerned, perhaps, with our own nation and its health problems. Obesity, for instance.
It depends on the meaning of the word “right.”
In my view, a right exists only when there is a legal remedy for its lack. Any other definition makes the word either useless, vague, or a product of wishful thinking. “Right” suggests that there is an enforceable remedy; that you may call upon society to cure your damage. It suggests an entitlement, something enforcement mechanism that you may use to ensure that you receive the right in question, or that those who took it from you are punished.
Is there a universal right to food?
No. There is not.
Not by that definition, anyway.
If you wish to propose another definition of the word “right,” then have at it.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
OK, let’s say we have an obligation to feed starving people. How far does this go? Do we have an obligation to invade North Korea then? {etc}
[/QUOTE]
Ethics is (?are?) always about balancing conflicting moral imperitives. (I should not steal, I should feed my family, should I steal bread to feed my family?) Can one imperitive outweigh another? Can it vary according to the circumstance? Well duh. Of course. And that in no way informs us as to whether or not these are rights.
Does the obligation to see that rights to have a chance to have enough food to survive are upheld outweigh the need to not kill others in war? To respect another nation’s borders? What action is likely in each case to result in the most good for the most people over the long term? Which action violates which principle and how important is that particular right which is violated relative to the others. Each scenerio presented is a debate in itself as the application of rights in real world contexts can be a messy affair.
“Universal” begbert is of course a relative term. A religious system can claim to offer universal truths, but of course someone outside of that religion may not accept that particular revealed truth. Absent that we have those rights that all societies that wish to be part of the global community accept are universal rights. They are universal to those societies that want to be members of the world community. These cannot be those overtly based on any particular religious dogma but will likely be consistent with most religious dogmata. They will be, in actuality, secular humanism (small letters, no caps). They are values that we agree are universal to the human condition within human societies for our mutual and global self-interest.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
“What good is a political party to a man who has no bread?” - Marat
Without essential subsistence, none of these rights have any value. A starving man has no mind worthy of the name, his condition robs him of his humanity and obliterates his conscience. He is wholly the creature of whomever will feed his children, he is their soldier, their martyr, their stooge. He has no rights because he has no mind, he is deprived of his humanity and his reason. If a “right” is “basic”, it is because other rights depend upon it, freedom of speech presumes freedom of conscience. But if all of these rights are empty and meaningless without food, then food is the more basic right, upon which the others depend.
[/QUOTE]
OK, that’s a logical argument that I can understand and argue back with. In some sense you are correct-- the right to life is basic. But since we are not responsible for ensuring those less basic rights in other countries, it does not follow that we must ensure the more basic ones. Why must we, under force of law, feed the world? If we don’t need to do it under force of law, then it isn’t a right.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
It depends on the meaning of the word “right.”
In my view, a right exists only when there is a legal remedy for its lack. Any other definition makes the word either useless, vague, or a product of wishful thinking. “Right” suggests that there is an enforceable remedy; that you may call upon society to cure your damage. It suggests an entitlement, something enforcement mechanism that you may use to ensure that you receive the right in question, or that those who took it from you are punished.
…
If you wish to propose another definition of the word “right,” then have at it.
[/QUOTE]
See here. The point being that I think that you are confusing “human rights” with “legal rights.” Once particular human rights are recognized they may be recognized and enforced as legal rights, but may not be. But the latter requires the former to occur first.
So if the world community recognizes particular human rights, then decisions as to any possibility of enforcement and under which circumstances and by which means may occur.