No, I’m not confusing them. I am suggesting that the term “human rights” means whatever the speaker thereof wishes it to mean. There is no standard, neutral, unimpeachable guide that expresses “human rights” in such way that all who read it nod in agreement.
You may assert a particular condition, such as freedom from hunger, is a human right. But it’s a meaningless exercise if others do not agree to enforce that “human right” by law and policy.
Look, suppose I agree with you. I actually do, in some ways. And lets say you convince everyone else too. OK, food is a basic human right.
Now what?
That’s what I’m trying to get at. Now what. What does the existance of a right to food mean we must do? Send food to starving people. OK, done and done. We already do that now.
Then what? What’s next? We’ve reached the limit of what showing up with container ships full of food and distributing it for free can do. And still we notice that people are hungry. And then we ask ourselves, well, we’ve got all this free food we want to give to hungry people, why are these people still hungry?
Is it because we’re too greedy? Is it because Haliburton is stealing the food we’re trying to give away? Is it because we’ve spent too much on Xboxes and Humvees and don’t have any extra left? No, no, and no. We may spend too much on Xboxes and Humvees, but we’ve still got plenty of surplus food sitting around to feed those hungry people.
So…WHY doesn’t that food get to the hungry people? And the answer of course is war, anarchy, and dictatorship. So if we want to end hunger the answer isn’t for everyone to give up a latte every week to send another dollar’s worth of rice to the Sudan, because that rice will never get to the mouth of a starving Darfuri. We’ve got millions of dollars worth of grain, the problem is not lack of grain, the problem is not lack of generosity.
You say everyone needs food. OK, so what’s your plan? That everyone should keep doing the same thing we’re doing now, only basking in the warm moral glow of at least feeling guilty about it? That’s crap and you know it.
I think it was pretty clear that **elucidator **wants Bush to invade every country where there are starving people and do his “regime change” thingy. Or maybe he wants the UN to do it, which would be marginally better in some respects and marginally worse in others.
Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic in that last post. However, people insisting that food is a basic human right must live with the fact that in order to enforce that right, one must often take down evil regimes. So, should we do that? Maybe sometimes, but I’m not ready to sign up for a a blanket policy.
Now, one might argue that if starvation can be used as the sole justification for a war (ie, UNSC approves armed force), then that in and of itself is a recognition of food as being a universal human right. We may, at times, decide that the consequences of enforcing that right by force would be worse than not enforcing it, and that would be OK. However, has the UNSC ever taken such action? I don’t think so, but I’ll be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
Well my read of the link is that it isn’t only because of war. And that the report isn’t saying to just send more food.
(bolding added.) Now I am not sure if I agree with the analysis made in the article or not, but I agree with that statement I bolded. The world community has a responsibility to undertake a serious analysis and begin a long term plan to address those factors. Not to wring hands. Not just to buy free trade Starbucks. A serious international multinational multilateral effort at understanding and fixing the systems.
Glad you clarified that, John. Frankly, on first reading, I missed the tone of light-hearted jocularity.
But now we are off into methods and techniques. How is it to be done? I don’t know. But that isn’t what we were talking about, was it?
Is there a category more fundamental than a right? Because, as I belabor, without the human necessities, human rights are just political vaporware. If human rights depend on these things, I don’t see how they could be anything less than a right.
(Brings to mind that G.K. Chesterton quote about Christianity, something about its not being tried and found wanting, but found difficult and not tried…)
There is no standard, neutral, unimpeachable guide to resolve any philosophical debate. That doesn’t entail that one can’t speak meaningfully about various subjects of such debate, including various theories of natural moral rights. Heck, your own “it’s only meaningful if it’s enforceable” view is every bit as disputable as natural rights theory. One might make a case that you’re treading close to the sort of silliness that was the fashion at the height of logical positivism. Those guys thought all kinds of things were meaningless. Turns out by their own standards, everything was meaningless, even the things they wanted to be meaningful, making their own standards kinda useless.
Anyways, ultimately all “rights only exist if they’re enforceable” means is that might makes rights. Physical coercion is the basis for all rights, and if I can out-coerce the government (tricky to do these days) then even your legal “rights” cease to exist as you have no way to enforce them. Not an entirely implausible view, but many careful thinkers would disagree.
Disclaimer: On this subject I’m with Bentham - rights are nonsense, natural rights are nonsense on stilts.
Of course, human rights is nonsense, in the same way that the “Ode to Joy” is just a bunch of notes.
You really thought it plausible that I thought you were recommending more invasions of other countries? Well, in that case, I’m gald I clarified, too!
I’m not sure what you’re getting at there, but without the legal framework to protect a right and the willingness of others to recognize that right, it seems meaningless to me to sit around saying that the right exists. It exists as much as my right to have whatever I want right now exits-- in my own mind. Whoopie!!
Do you disagree, then, with the ideas that rights are
– divinely endowed
– inalienable
– that governments are created to secure these rights
– that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
– when a long train of abuses and usurpations reduce the people to living under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but rights as you define them seems at odds with the above.
Yeah, it might help if you type a little slower when talking to me…
So long as you define rights in that rather peculiar way, no doubt. But it raises more questions than it resolves.
“…without the legal framework to protect a right and the willingness of others to recognize that right, …”
Lets call that The Prop, without which a right does not exist.
Suppose that changes? Suppose the it becomes the conventional wisdom tomorrow that libertarians should have their civil expression curtailed, on the grounds of persistent annoyance. Today, civil rights for Libbys still exist, tomorrow they vanish. And if we change the law in a fit of remorse? Well, then, the rights magicly reappear. Exist, don’t exist, exist… Prop is there, right exists, Prop not there, poof! gone!
However the exact same rights exist for the rest of us, just as they did yesterday and will tomorrow. So, by your definition, a right can exist/not exist for specific people or groups of people. Since most of us who refer to “human rights” generally acknowledge that such rights are universal, your definition seems oddly selective.
Boiled down, you are pointing out that “rights” is an abstraction. Well, duh. That being the case, I’m going to just go ahead with the “We hold these Truths to be Self-evident, that all Men are created equal…”. Good as any, got a good beat, easy to live to.
I’m an atheist, so you lose me when you get to that stuff about the Creator. Besides, if God gave us our rights, he could take them away.
Rights are social constructs. Without society, there are no rights. With society, we all get together and decide what the rights are. If we don’t decide “x” is a right, it isn’t. If later we decide that it is a right, then it is. If you think “x” is a right, and the rest of society doesn’t, then it might as well not be.
So what happens if half of us think its a right, and half of us don’t?
You get a war, and the winner gets to decide.
Rights have to be social constructs. You may say that you have a Creator-given right to Life, but if you are drowning in the middle of the ocean, this “right” isn’t going to do you much good because Nature isn’t listening.
Is there something inherently illegitimate about trying to realize an abstraction, a social construct entirely dependent upon The Prop? Justice is an abstraction, we should stop, already? Couldn’t we commit ourselves to advancing that abstraction “human rights”, to realize it, to embody it and carry it forward?
Of course, we would then all be progressives. Works for me.
Everybody has a right to eat, just like they have a right to breath
Not necessarily. Sometimes we actually have an intelligent discussion and try to persuade each other. In the end, we either vote and decide to live with the outcome, or we go to war.
Sure. As soon as “we” all agree on what those rights are. Until then, we’re stuck with that messy democracy thing.
Well, then, let’s review… Such rights only exist when supported by the Prop, and will only exist at some future point in time when universal consensus is reached as to thier nature. Until then, despite all misgivings, we shall simply have to muddle through with democracy. A democracy, apparently, based on something more tangible and realistic than these vague “human rights” thingies?
Got that about right, have I, John?
We have rights whether they are enforceable or not. A warlord, a psychopath or a libertarian may deny a starving child food because he or she has the power to do so and no one may prevent him or her from doing so, but they have still abrogated that child’s right to eat. The rest of us may properly think of them as aberrations of human nature and if possible, do something about their behavior.
In human history, rights have been honored much more often in the breach than in the observation, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t always there. Even in Biblical times, slaves were known to crave freedom.
Great for that child, then. He can rest assured he has a right to eat, and he may pluck that right off the tree from which it grows. It may be dim comfort in that is has zero calories, zero fat, and zero grams of protein, so it will do naught to quiet his stomach. But he has a right! Yea, him!
Your definition isn’t particularly useful. The word “right” carries with it a sense of surety, a sense of guarantee. There is no such sense for your hypothetical kid. You may chose to define ‘right,’ in this way; I think you vititate the word.