This, I can agree with. 
My apologies for accusing you of writing something you weren’t.
Top man - it’s not often you get any kind of agreement in a topic like this…
I’m going for a pint.
I believe it was glee who made a comparisson of proselytizing to the KKK handing out candy to children. I think this is a valid analogy in many cases of missionary work.
In much of the Third World, the people receiveing aid are illiterate, uneducated in the extreme, know little to nothing about the outside world and are poor, starving and without medical care.
Being illiterate, they do not have the option of comparing different religions and decididng for themselves which they believe. They are dependant on the missionary’s interpretation of Christianity. This is also true, of course, regarding their own religion. I’m sure many Christians would say that it doesn’t matter that the people can’t actually read the Bible themselves, because the missionary is telling them the truth about what it says. No doubt the Catholics, Southern Baptists, Mormons and Episcopalians are all in agreement about The Truth and would never have a disagreement about interpretation, so it’s quite unneccessary to alert the natives that different interpretations are possible.[rolly eyes]
Most of the Third World people I speak of also have shockingly little information about the world. I don’t mean just current events–I mean they don’t know that the Earth revolves around the sun; where Europe is; that germs/bacteria can cause disease. They know nothing of world history, the workings of government (including their own), economics, philosophy—I could go on and on. I believe that anyone who has spent time in the Third World will agree with me. One of the biggest culture shocks was realizing that it was necessary to confirm that people fly on airplanes to grown adults who has suspected it was only myth.
It is always important to know your audience and change your approach accordingly. In the case of many missions, ignoring this rule works in their favor. The missionaries come in with all of their stuff. They are so obviously filthy stinkin’ rich in the minds of the indiginous people. Uneducated, illiterate people also often have very simplistic views about religion and believe that (eg) sacrificing a goat to whichever god was absolutely the cause of their child’s recovery from some illness. When they see the rich missionaries, it is easy to make the jump that the Christian God must be the correct one because “look at how rich they are. their god gives them everything.” Having no understanding of history, economics and politics, this is a logical conclusion. But is it fair to take advantage of their naive beliefs in order to gain converts or is it incumbant upon the missionaries to ensure that the people are making an informed and educated conversion?
IMHO, that would be the ideal situation. If the missionaries would go in and teach the people to read, educate them about their native religion, the missionary’s religion and other major religions, without bias, and then allow the people to make a choice, I would have absolutely no complaints about what they do. In fact, I would have the greatest admiration for them. But this isn’t what happens, and I think it shoots a huge hole in the argument that the missionaries are giving the people the info they need to make a choice.
One caviat: I would not apply this argument to missions in the US or any other deveoloped country where the people are literate and educated. In those cases, they can make an informed choice. But where the people are not equipped to make an informed choice, a responsible person wishing to teach is obligated to respect their pupil and should aim for education, not conversion via undue influence.
Seriously, sirjamesp, I’d like to hear your views on these questions then.
When is it permissible to intervene when another person is doing something you consider immoral? Are we obliged to tolerate what we would consider “evil” from another person? Another society? If some society considers slavery acceptable, should we or should we not intervene? What if the slaves are not badly treated, so that they can live their lives without fear of harm; by your definition, then, being forced into such slavery would not violate any basic rights, so would we have the right to intervene? And lastly, since the only basic right is apparently the right to live without fear of harm, why do we not have the right to impose our cultural views on others?
I’m sure I’ll think of other questions as I have time to think of them, but this seems like enough to start with…
Oh, and DOES might make right or does might merely enable one to do what one pleases? In other words, while it is indisputably true that he has the might makes the rules, is this a case of the mighty being entitled to make the rules or merely the mighty being able to make them? And if the former, why is this so?
Honestly, I think you would be on stronger ground if you simply said that all human rights, without exception, are socially constructed. What if I’m a Viking, and my “cultural context” tells me it’s okay to go and beat up people in other countries who are just living quietly, steal their property, and maybe sell them into slavery? That’s just my “right”, as a big strong tough Viking warrior guy! The strong prey on the weak–if the weak don’t like it, they should stop being spineless peasants and learn to be true Odin-pleasing warriors. Who are we to impose our cultural values on Vikings?
The fact is, “the right to live quietly without the fear of harm” or “the right to spread the Good News about Jesus Christ” or “the right to ensure the chastity and purity of one’s daughters by mutilating their genitals” are all socially constructed. This is not to say that they are all totally arbitrary, or that we can’t argue about them, or that I have to accept anything anybody anwhere has claimed to be their “right”. In the West we have evolved a set of “rights” based on the idea of the inherent worth and dignity of individual human beings. Reasoning from those basic principles or axioms, I think I can justify “the right to live quietly without the fear of harm” and “the right to spread the Good News about Jesus Christ”, but I would reject “the right to ensure the chastity and purity of one’s daughters by mutilating their genitals” (although if a grown woman freely chose to mutilate her own genitals, we arguably would have to accept that decision) or “the right of believers in the True Faith to do their duty to the One True God by suppressing idolatry and heresy”.
We can debate which things are really “rights” and which are not. Is private ownership of weapons part of our rights? How about living in a country with a written constitution? What about the right to marry someone of the same sex? Or the right to simultaneously marry several different people of the opposite sex? We could–and frequently do–fill up this whole forum with debates about which things are and are not “rights” deriving from the basic Western view that individual human beings have inherent worth and dignity. We could also debate the underlying axiom itself–maybe individual human beings don’t have inherent worth and dignity. Maybe “cultures” or “societies” or “states”, abstracted from any of the individual human beings who make them up, are what have inherent worth and dignity. Maybe only genes have inherent worth and dignity. Maybe only the Galactic Overlords have inherent worth and dignity, and we should rightly be their slaves. Maybe nothing has inherent worth and dignity.
But “every person has the right to live quietly without the fear of harm” is just as much a construct as “freedom of religion”. In asserting the existence of one “basic human right”, you have opened up the field to “human rights” in general, and you have opened up the field to the possibility of “imposing our values on other cultures”. (What if a regime violates the basic human right to live quietly without fear of harm? Plenty of regimes have. Is it okay to impose our values on them then? If not–if we shouldn’t intervene even if the leaders of a society simply decide to start killing everyone in their country–then this “basic human right” is pretty worthless.)
First, to gr8rguy…
As I keep saying, you never have the right to intervene. That is not to say that it is never a good thing to do so - I think most people would agree that removing the Taleban from power would be a good thing. But we do not have any absolute right to do so. Reads my earlier posts to see why.
The answer is in your question: “something you consider immoral”. Something one person finds immoral might be perfectly acceptable to you. For instance, the Taleban find it immoral to preach Christianity. Are you saying they do have the right to intervene (by banning non-islamic proselytizers) or not?
I would say that as a government they have the right to make a law such as this, and so Christians do not have the right to preach there (by definition).
You seem to say that since the government there consider Christianity to be immoral, then they have the right to step in and stop it, since anyone can impose their moral beliefs on someone else.
So you too accept that Christians should not be allowed to preach in Afghanistan? Or is it wrong for the Taleban to try and stop what they see as immoral behaviour?
It seems that you believe that it is fine to challenge immoral behaviour - so long as it is what you deem to be immoral.
Enslaving people requires the threat of harm, so does infringe what I consider to be a basic right.
Could you rephrase the question? I don’t get it (apologies if I’m being thick). I am not sure why the right to live without fear of harm extends to the right to impose cultural views on another group.
I read your question as: “If I can make the rules in my house, why can’t I make them next door?” I have answered this one already.
Yes, the mighty is able to make the rules.
No he is not entitled to.
This is why the mighty West has no right to impose cultural rules on another country (see earlier posts for my reasoning).
And now to answer MEBuckner…
Possibly. As I say, my stab at a universal right was a first attempt. But bear with me…
This infringes the basic right to live free from harm. I am sure that if some-one treated the Buckner Vikings in the same way, then they’d be mighty pissed off. This is why I called it a basic right - it is one that no-one would want to forsake.
In addition, I don’t think anyone could argue that attacking another person is a “right” - it is an action, and would be dealt with by those who were able.
As for “who are we to impose our values” - can you guess what I am going to say? Yep, you guessed it: we would still have no right to impose our values on the Buckner Vikings (forget for the moment that we couldn’t even if we wanted to). Like I keep saying, we never have the right to arrogantly assume that our cultural values are better than somebody else’s. And, like I also keep saying, that isn’t to say that we shouldn’t at times step in when we see people suffering, but this is not give us the right to assume that our moral code is superior.
Besides, I repeat that Viking invasions were not an example of a “right” being exercised.
I know I’m repeating myself somewhat here, but it seems necessary: do you think the Vikings had the “right” to prey on weaker nations? If so, then you also agree that the evil regimes around the world have the “right” to treat their people inhumanely. If not, then you cannot agree with the principle of a strong nation imposing its values on another, e.g. the West dictating to fundamentalist Islamic nations how they should carry out their business.
Spot on - can’t argue with that. Although I would argue that every person in the world would feel that living free from the fear of harm is something they require to live a comfortable life. Freedom of religion is not so basic - it is a “nice-to-have”.
But, I’ve said it was just a random stab at something I’d consider to be a basic human right if pressed. Maybe it isn’t a right at all, and I’m just a raving liberalist - but to extend this to all sorts of other “rights” does not follow. Basically, if any group of people would consider that they could live without a so-called “right”, then it is not a “basic” human right. So, the other rights you mentioned aren’t basic - some of them are accepted as rights by some cultures and not others. Perhaps the “right to live quietly without the fear of harm” also falls into this category; there may well be people around the world who love getting beaten for just existing, though I doubt it. Don’t make me retract the one basic human right I’ve allowed! 
Arguing about which rights are constructs of culture and which are absolute underlines the fact that so-called rights are just a product of culture. No-one can assume that their moral code is superior to someone else’s.
To address the particular issue raised in your note: if a regime violates what I consider to be a “basic” right by attacking it’s citizens without cause, then we ought to intervene by preventing these abuses. Note that this is not the same as having the right to intervene, which is what this debate is about.
**FINALLY…**Just before I hit the submit button, what I don’t seem to be making clear is that to assume that you can impose your beliefs on someone else creates an odd result.
If you believe that you have the right to impose your moral views where you wish, then you must accept that the Taleban have these oppressive rights too, and so are therefore a legitimate goverment. As a result, you cannot flout their laws.
My belief is that no-one has the right to impose their culture on another. This includes the Taleban, who have used force to achieve this. However, they have a moral code, and we have no right to override it by going over there and preaching Christianity. To try to impose our views on the Taleban makes us no better than them.
So why, then, does a government have a right to intervene in a person’s life? After all, a government is, in the end, nothing more than a collection of individuals who happen to be in power. They make their laws on rule of might, which you agreed doesn’t entitle them to actually do so. In essence, by your argument as I understand it, the government has no right to intervene in another person’s life either; why, then, would I be obligated to follow any laws they make, including the injunctions against, say, murder, rape, pillage, or even gasp evangelism? There is, after all, no right to stop someone from doing evil, in your view, unless that evil results in measurable harm.
My key thesis is, in essence, that a government has no rights whatsoever except what the governed willingly cede to it. Were the people ruled by the Taliban to freely choose to cede their freedom of religion, we should respect that. Otherwise, any such ban is outside the Taliban’s rightful purview. But basically, this the source of our disagreement; you seem to believe that the governed have no rights except what the government cedes to them (and the right to be free of measurable harm), and I feel that a government has no rights but those willingly ceded to it by the governed.
No, you’re misunderstanding me. If a PERSON sees something he believes to be immoral, he has the duty to try to stop it; if a GOVERNMENT sees something it believe to be immoral, AND THE GOVERNED AGREE, then it has the duty to try to stop it.
Not quite. See above. If someone else considers my behavior immoral, they too are perfectly entitled to challenge it. If the government sees my behavior as immoral and the governed agree, there too are they perfectly entitled to challenge it. If, however, the governed tend to believe I’m doing nothing wrong, the government is no longer rightfully entitled to do so.
Err, you disregarded the premise of “laws against harming slaves” in my thought experiment. Never mind, though, the point is that we agree here. Now then: a government prohibiting something also requires the threat of harm if I disobey them; why is this different? Is it just because I would only be harmed if I disobey them, so I could choose not to be? How is that different from a slave only being harmed if he chooses to disobey his owner?
Mea culpa. I expressed that poorly. What I meant is this. My imposing my cultural views on others is in no way threatening actual harm (as I’ve taken you to be using it); then doing so in no way violates anothers human right. Ergo, since it doesn’t violate their right, it’s okay for me to do it to them.
I just don’t see your views as being internally consistent (I’m sure they ARE, I just don’t see it), so I’m trying to get them fleshed out. This was the biggest problem I was running up against. WHY is it not okay for me to impose my cultural views on others, under your thesis, since doing so does not violate their rights (we presume that my doing so involves no threat of harm)? But why is it perfectly acceptable for a government not freely chosen by the people to impose ITS cultural views on others, since this manifestly DOES involve threat of harm? You see my problem?
Now to step in a bit to your discussion with MEBuckner, if you two don’t mind.
No, the Vikings had no right to prey on weaker nations. And no, the West as a whole has no right to dictate to fundamentalist Islamic nations how they should carry out their business. However, if the citizens of said fundamentalist Islamic nations would not freely choose some particular rules forced up them, these governments have no right to make those rules, either, and I am hence under no obligation to follow them.
Ah, but you see, what happens if there is some concept of an afterlife? If you are some fundamentalist type who believes that all those unfortunate Muslims are going to burn in Hell for ever and ever, by the glory of God, amen, then you see them as under threat of dire harm; freedom of religion becomes even MORE important then your fundamental right. (I don’t believe this myself, but I don’t think you can dismiss freedom of religion as a mere “nice-to-have” either.)
I assume you already know my response to this, but to reiterate one more time: this is simply incorrect. If I believe that (a) a government has rights independent of the will of the governed and (b) there exists a right to impose my moral views on another, then yes, I agree with you that I am forced to assume that the Taliban is a legitimate government. I am not forced to agree that I cannot flout their laws; since I have the right to impose my moral views on another, I have the right to ignore whatever laws I see fit, recognizing that this will have consequences if I am caught.
But I don’t argue both (a) at all; I believe that (a) is simply wrong and NO government has rights independent of the will of the citizens. I am therefore NOT forced to accept the Taliban as a legitimate government unless it derives its legitimacy by popular acclaim and not by force. If the former, then I have no right to flout its laws; if the latter, I have every right to flout its laws. Of course, there will STILL be consquences if I am caught.
:rolleyes: Yes, and stopping a murder is an indefensible imposition of my cultural views on someone else. Therefore, if I do so, I am no better than the murderer. You can’t honestly believe this, and I’m sure you don’t, but you are equating thoroughly dissimilar things.
If you would challenge behavior which results in people who are peacefully living their lives being killed, then you are saying the same thing. If you would not challenge behavior which results in people who are peacefully living their lives being killed, then your “right” isn’t really a universal right at all, just a “nice-to-have”.
You say it infringes the “basic right to live free from harm”. But others say prohibiting people from peacefully teaching their religion infringes the “basic rights to freedom of conscience and expression”. You haven’t established why your “basic right” is in fact “basic”, and others aren’t. You seem to argue that no one would want to forsake that right–but pretty well no one wants to forsake the right to practice their own religion, either–it’s just that some people want to deny that same right to others. Similarly, no one wants their basic right to freedom of harm infringed, but some want to deny that right to others.
Of course you could argue that attacking people is a right. I would argue that there is a right to counter-attack those who attack you; i.e., a right to self-defense. Others might argue that there are rights to attack infidels or “racially inferior” groups. I don’t think all “rights claims” are equal.
Isn’t our moral code superior to a moral code which condones killing people who are peacefully living their lives?
No, I don’t think the Vikings had the “right” to prey on weaker nations. I also don’t think that evil regimes around the world have the “right” to treat their people inhumanely. The whole purpose of thinking about what is right and what is wrong is to go beyond “might makes right”. If the Nazis had won World War II, that would not have made Nazi morality “right”, even if they were in a position to impose their values on other nations. And when the Allies imposed their values on Nazi Germany, it wasn’t just a question of the strong imposing their values on their weak, but also of the good imposing their values on the evil.
Yes, they are a product of culture. And, yes, I can argue that some are superior to others.
We “ought” to intervent, but we don’t have a “right” to intervene?
Your notion of what a “right” is seems rather incoherent. Aren’t “rights” things which “ought” to be respected? People have a “right” to peacefully live their lives free from harm = Governments “ought” to allow people to peacefully live their lives free from harm.
No, because I’m not arguing for a general right to impose one’s beliefs on others, I’m arguing for the superiority of some systems of ethics over others. If liberal democrats controlled Afghanistan, and the entire rest of the world were run by the Taliban, the liberal democrats would still be in the right, and the Taliban would be in the wrong. As a practical matter, my hypothetical “Free Afghanistan” would be lucky if it could just hold on and hold out, and as a practical matter, forcibly imposing our views on Afghanistan is probably impossible in practical terms, even in the current geopolitical situation.
I’ve got to echo g8rguy here–is a police officer who forcibly restrains a criminal from forcibly killing or robbing an innocent person no better than the would-be robber or murderer?
(Understand also that it’s not a question of converting them to Christianity–in the past Christianity has been an oppressive and theocratic religion just like Islam–but of believing that Afghanistan ought to respect the freedom of religion of all its citizens.)
I hope I am getting this.
As far as I can tell, the only basic human right that sirjamesp is willing to allow is “the right to live quietly without harm”. Apparently practicing your religion by proselytization does not come under that heading.
How about practicing your religion in other ways? The Taliban, for instance, has been known to beat men for not participating in the five-times-a-day prayers of Islam. I would assume this is a violation of the right to live quietly and without harm. Similarly when the Taliban beats women for appearing in public, stoning adulterers, etc.
I assume that these are violations of the only human right you recognize. What then should be our attitude towards such a government? Would we justified in imposing our view of a violation of what can really be considered a basic human right?
Would it be OK, in other words, to bomb Afghanistan if this would force them to allow their people to live quietly and without harm?
You also recognize no basic right of free speech. Would that include allowing a government to force silence on a person who spoke out against violations of the right to live quietly and without harm? Or is there a basic right to speak out in defense of basic rights?
Or is the right of governments that you support so broad-based as to allow it to repress human rights violations with impunity?
You also seem to be saying that governments have an absolute right to impose whatever laws they like providing they do not violate the basic human right. Does it matter to you how that government came into power? If I led a coup tomorrow morning and overthrew the British government, I could
[ul]
- close down the media
- suspend all elections
- mandate the death penalty for any who criticize my government
- forbid anyone to practice any religion apart from my own
- outlaw soccer, music, playing with kites, and singing
- disband labor unions and forbid strikes
- pass laws that all women must remain indoors at all times
- mandate the death of all pets
[/ul]
and you would be in complete agreement that no one had any right to object.
Could you be a little clearer on what constitutes a quiet life? As long as I keep my mouth shut about my beliefs in God, is there anything else I don’t have to worry about?
Any information would be welcomed.
Regards,
Shodan
Uh-oh - I’m surrounded…:eek:
I don’t think that any of you misunderstand the basics of what I am saying; I think that you just disagree.
Rather than take every point you’ve made above, let me get back down to the basics:
[List=1]
[li] Yes, I would class “freedom from fear of harm” as a basic right. I would not class freedom of speech as a basic right; in fact, I can think of times when curtailing the right to freedom of speech is desirable. Freedom of speech is not a lofty ideal, but neither is it something that you cannot live without. Hence it is not a basic right.[/li]
[li] No, I do not believe that any group has the right to impose it’s moral code onto another group. If we strongly disagree with another countries laws and see serious human rights abuses, then we ought to intervene - but “ought to” is not the same as “have a right to”. We have no more right to force the Taleban to do as we say than they do to force Afghans to do as they say; but that said, I’d be happier if we did intervene. It is not our “right” though.[/li]
[li] Governments have the right[sup][/sup] to make laws, and servants of the government (police etc) can enforce these laws. In Western countries, the government passes laws through consent with the people; in Afghanistan, it is done through military might. Again, I prefer our method, but the latter does not infringe any basic human rights.[/li][sub] Note that here “right” means that laws passed by the government are legitimate; clearly the right to pass laws is not a “basic human[/sub] [sup]right”.[/sup]
[li]Someone who believes that all Afghans are going to hell unless they can hear about Chrisitanity may have a moral obligation to preach, but this is not the same as a right. The Taleban have a similar “moral obligation” to suppress “blasphemous” Christian teachings as they too believe that this will save their people from hell.[/li]
[li] If Shodan does indeed succeed in her coup and imposes the restrictions laid out earlier, then I would obviously be upset, and would fight against the restrictions. But my point is that none of the restrictions would affect my basic human rights.[/li][/List=1]
What this all boils down to is that I believe that no-one has a basic human right to freedom of speech, and hence no-one has a basic human right to preach Christianity in, for example, Afghanistan.
The whole thing hinges on whether free speech is a human right or not. For the reasons laid out, I cannot accept that it is anything more than a “nice-to-have”.
I take it that I won’t be getting your support if I decided to run for Parliament…
Yup, I’ve reached that conclusion myself.
But you see, I can live without freedeom from fear of harm, too. It would make my life pretty miserable if I were constantly on the run from thugs with guns who went around raping and killing and doing God only knows what else, but I could still live. I think you’d be on firmer ground if you either denied the existence of human rights altogether or else if you postulated that the one and only right is the right to not be killed. All else is window dressing, in the sense that you can live, albeit in great misery, without those rights.
That said, the rest of us obviously disagree with your very definition of a human right as “that without which we cannot live.”
How is this consistent with a government making laws? A government can’t make any laws whatsoever without imposing its moral code on the governed. What gives a government and only a government that right?
Tell me… what is a right? I think this may be even more at the heart of our disagreement than disagreeing as to what constitutes a human right. You seem to be saying that it’s “right” to violate another’s rights. I find that incredibly odd.
Why? What gives them this right? I can’t overemphasize this; it’s one of our biggest differences. I would contend that governments have no rights whatsoever, and I would dearly love to know why you think they do have rights, where these rights come from, and why people in contrast have essentially no rights.
Well, I’d say that it all hinges on whether or not free speech is a human right, whether or not governments have rights at all, whether or not we have a right to oppose injustice, and it would first require agreing upon a definition of rights in general and human rights in particular.
Good guess!
pyramid scheme (or Ponzi Scheme):
An illegal investment scheme in which investors are promised ridiculous returns on their investments. Early investors are paid with money from later investors, but the system inevitably collapses and later investors get nothing.
This is illegal.
However, marketing on the basis of a pyramid is common. That is, where salesmen recruit sub-salesmen, they in turn recruit sub-sub-salesmen, etc. Each higher level receives a percentage commission of the sales of all their sub-salesmen.
This is legal.
Proselytizing sometimes resembles a pyramid marketing approach, although the proselytizers don’t normally get paid any money. It is not illegal.
Hmm… I think I’m not making myself clear regarding the difference I see between “basic human rights” and the “legal rights” of governments to make laws. Let me try to straighten this out in my own clumsy way; I’ll answer g8rguy’s points as they underline pretty clearly where the confusions are.
First, let me define exactly what I consider to be a basic human right - hopefully clearer than I have done so far.
My rough stab at a human right (i.e. the living free from fear of harm thing) was based on the whole premise that this would make life miserable, and so no-one would want to do without it. Freedom of speech is not a basic right as we would not be miserable with it - there are plenty of times when freedom of speech is restricted in the West, and we don’t consider our lives to be unbearable because of it.
On the other hand, if there are people who would happily live in fear (?), then this freedom must also be considered to not be a “basic” human right.
In short, I consider basic human rights to be those that cross all cultures, and so cannot be considered to be a construct of one particular moral code. I would hazard that the “freedom from fear of harm” would fall into this category; it might not, though - I’ll make no bones about it, as it’s a detour from the main issue anyway. Besides, if we discount it, it’ll make the consitution of JamesWorld that little bit shorter when I rule supreme. 
What is important is that “freedom of speech” is certainly a construct of our moral code, and, furthermore, does not make life unbearable when it is absent. For this reason, I cannot class it as a basic human right.
The result is that non-Muslims have no basic right to preach in fundamentalist Afghanistan.
Note this is not the same as saying that they shouldn’t do it, but simply that they do not have the right to do so. There are lots of things that I would do that I don’t think I have an automatic “right” to do.
So, now onto the difference between a legal right and a human right.
A government has the legal right to pass laws, as they rule their country. How the government is formed is irrelevant; the important fact is that they are able to rule an area, and thus do so. Whether their legal right was granted by popular vote or by force of arms, clearly they are then entitled to make the rules of the land - that is what being a government is all about. The alternative system is anarchy.
I might even go so far as to say that all governments could be considered to have been given the right by their citizens to govern, and thus do not force moral codes onto anyone. If the majority of people in Afghanistan were unhappy with the rules being issued by the Taleban, the they would revolt. It is a bit patronising to assume that they are all sat there, hating their rulers, and secretly wishing that the West would come and enlighten them. Not everyone is happy, of course, but the majority are clearly not unhappy. Mind you, this would be a huge debate in itself (there’d be considerations of lack of education, military might, rights of minorities versus majorities, etc etc), so should be left out here. Might be worth starting another GD though.
So, the long and short of it: a government has the legal right to pass laws, but individuals do not necessarily have a basic human right to flout them. In the case of where freedom of speech is restricted, then individuals certainly have no basic right to ignore the rules.
sirjamesp:
You are asuming that the Taliban is a legitimate government of Afghanistan. As of now only one country recognizes the Taliban as the ruling government of Afghanistan, and that country, Pakistan, is actively helping the US take the group down a few pegs.
Not even the citizens there recognize for the most part the Taliban as their government, but just a militia group that has overpowered all the others.
Ah. I understand your perspective, I think. It looks to me as if all you’ve defined a human right as a right constructed by the subset of possible moral codes that are currently in vogue. That’s up to you, and if that’s where you wish to start, there’s truly no point in further discussion about whether freedom of expression is a human right or not, because I reject your definition of a human right out of hand.
Incidentally, I would argue that life without free expression if bearable, but not happy. Miserable is not the same thing as unbearable.
In other words, might does make right. Again, if you wish to take this as an axiom, you are free to do so, but also again, it makes any further discussion exceedingly problematic, as I reject the notion that might gives anyone even a legal right. Certainly it gives one the ability to make laws, but I don’t see that it gives them the right to do so. Of course, the US could then proclaim itself ruler of Afghanistan and enshrine freedom of speech in law, but I get the feeling that you’d say we have no right to do this. I agree that we don’t, but I don’t see how we don’t, using your definition of legal rights. After all, we could just drop several nuclear warheads on Afghanistan, claim it as our own, and presto! We’re the legitimate government and can do whatever we want so long as life isn’t unbearable.
Or, to parody this a bit (no offense intended, of course)…
The armed gang has the legal right to make whatever laws they wish. Individuals terrorized by said gang have no basic right to ignore these laws (NB: this also means that people have no right to follow their own moral code; they must obey the moral code of the armed gang). In cases where leaving gangland is restricted, people have no basic right to do so (one of the laws of gangland being that you can’t leave, and note that life in gangland is presumed to be bearable by the majority of citizens, if not particularly pleasant).
Do you see why I have a problem with this definition of things?
I noticed that the original poster seems to make a lot of assumtions when he/she posts. Generally I find it best to avoid absolutes. never, always…
blech.
Hey… that is exactly where I’m coming from! I like it. Even though we disagree on this point, at least I now have a point, rather than a rambling blurb.
I guess that this point is the logical conclusion of the belief that we have no right to force one moral code onto another.
We are actually saying the same thing here; the problem is with our interpretation of “legal right”. When I say legal right, I mean that the government has the ability to make laws, and that no-one has the basic right to ignore them.
This equates to “might is right” so long as it is made clear that “right” in this case means “ability to make laws that should be followed”.
The US could do this, and, as you say, it would have no basic right to do so - but if this was to happen, then the citizens would have no basic right to flout any laws that the US put in place.
Neither side has basic rights to put its moral code above the other; it is just that the military might of the US (or the Taleban) enables it to do so.
It is not a comfortable scenario, but the above does fit the rules as I outlined them.
Firstly, such a scenario might make it desirable for intervention from someone who could do so, but this does not give the intervener (have I just made that word up?) the right to do so, just as the gangland leaders have no right to impose their rules.
Secondly, the gangland leaders may be imposing a new moral code onto the inhabitants. Once again, they do not have the right to do so, but the fact is they can do so. Intervention by another party would fall into the same category.
Thirdly - and most importantly - to relate this example to the OP: let’s say that the gangland rulers believe that swearing is morally disgusting and leads to eternal damnation, and so pass a law prohibiting swearing. Some of the inhabitants might quite like swearing, but they have no basic right to do so, and hence have no basic right to flout the law.
But onto something we can debate…
As you say we are now clear where we are both coming from (perhaps you might care to write all my future points as you do it a little better than me :)). We do not (and probably never will) agree on the wide issue of human rights.
Let’s ignore how we define rights, and instead look at the one “human right” that is at issue here: the one to free speech. If free speech is a basic human right, then Christians do have the right to preach in devoutly Muslim nations. If it isn’t, then they don’t. Would you agree with this so far?
OK, assuming that we are so far together, let me explain why I don’t see freedom of speech as a basic human right:
Put simply, there are times when it is desirable to restrict freedom of speech; as a result, it cannot be considered to be a basic human right. How can something be a basic right if we frequently and happily toss it to one side? This is why I label it as a “nice-to-have” rather than a basic right.
Sometimes governments kill people, too–executions, wars, police shootings. Sometimes ordinary citizens may legally kill people too, if it’s in self-defense or to defend another from death or grievous bodily harm.
Glad to be of service!
Ah! Okay, I see. Naturally, I disagree (big surprise, eh?), but I see where you’re coming from. I would argue that government has the ability to make laws, but it is not clear to me that in the absence of any consent to be governed, the governed are under any obligation to obey these laws. If they are not under said obligation, wouldn’t you agree that they then have the right to ignore any laws they please?
In other words, if you come up to me and say “I’ll shoot you unless you beat up that old lady across the street for me” (far fetched, I admit!), then you have all the might in this situation, but I still have every right to refuse to do your nefarious bidding. The ability to make a law does not a priori imply the right to have that law obeyed.
Hmm… We actually don’t have much disagreement here. I would agree that no one has any basic right to put his or her moral code above anyone else. However, I would contend that this automatically implies that everyone does have the basic right to not have someone else’s moral code forced upon them. I further believe that the right to not have someone else force his morals upon you implies a right to defend your rights. Otherwise, the right to choose your own moral code is meaningless. This is the source of my contention that in the gangland example, the cowed citizens would have the right to stand up for themselves, and if they request aid from others, those others then, on my view, have the right to give it to them. They aren’t imposing their moral code on other people, but rather preventing other people from imposing a moral code on a third party. I think the distinction in critical.
Yes, absolutely.
Well, here’s my take. The fact that we find other peoples’ rights to be inconvenient in no way mitigates the fact that they do have those rights. We restrict free speech because we believe it necessary; this is a human rights violation, but if it serves the greater good, some might argue it’s okay. Further, people could, I suppose, voluntarily waive their rights (ANY of their rights) for any reason they choose. That I could give up my right to live voluntarily by no means implies that the right to live isn’t a basic right.
I know it’s considered very bad form to argue against one’s own argument, but when reading your last statement I’ve noticed a glaring hole in my last point. I’ve got to put my hand up and wave as it’s so obvious that someone else will notice it anyway; at least this way, I can salvage some self-respect…
My apparantly killer argument as to why freedom of speech is not a basic human right centred on the fact that we choose to ignore this right on a regular basis, therefore it cannot be a basic right.
However, you pointed out that:
My first thought was that this was a little wide of the mark, as, like I said, if we happily restrict a right, then it is not a right. But then, I realised that an extension of this point would be that we bomb civilians (accidentally, but we know it happens) in order to protect our way of life - the “greater good” argument reigns. The problem is, even a hard-nosed non-liberal like me has to admit that the “right to live” must surely be a basic right (anyone care to correct me - I’d be secretly grateful :)), and yet we accept that we must ignore it at times.
Therefore, the fact that we happily restrict freedom of speech does not in itself mean that it is not a basic right. Just call me “numbnuts”.
So, where does that leave us now? I think all attempts to pin down whether or not freedom of speech is a basic right that cannot be outlawed have come back to the same conclusion: it’s down to the individual’s moral code.
That in turn leads to whether it is right to put one code over another. We both agree that it is not.
This, then, takes us to the question as to who is imposing a moral code on whom: are the Taleban forcing their moral code onto Afghan citizens by banning non-Muslim preaching, or are non-Muslim preachers forcing their moral code onto the Taleban by insisting on freedom of speech?
And regardless of “who started it”, the question remains as to whether you have a “right” to ignore the rules. I would say not, just as a renegade spy has no “right” to tell people classified information and a newspaper has no “right” to publish military secrets - in these instances, restrictions are placed for the greater good. In Afghanistan, restrictions on non-Muslim preaching exist for what the Taleban see as the “greater good” of saving their countrymen from blasphemy and eternal damnation, and probably for political stability to boot, and hence non-Muslims have no “right” to preach in their country. From what I understand, you say that in all the above cases, people still have rights to ignore the rules if they wish.
Hmmm… this goes full circle - the next arguments can probably be found further up the page…
Not sure what to add, really. I guess the debate has reached a natural end, i.e. we both disagree totally, but then again it’s been established that the whole matter is purely a matter of personal beliefs.
Before I press “submit”, I ought to mention that since I fully intend to achieve world domination, I think you’d better race me there, as if I become world ruler before you do I’ll have to lock you up for holding “dangerous and subversive points of view”. Not only that, I bet you’d go sharing these views with all and sundry as well.