Such a thing as Human Rights?

Great Debates
1

Ok, let me start off by saying my heart says yes, my brain says no. It seems to me that the UN universal Declaration of Human Rights is really a Universal declaration of what rights the west thinks exist.

Particularly article 21 (3): The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

To me this basically says that democracy is a human right. I completely disagree with this. Just because we in the west happen to think that democracy is the best political system to have does not make it so. I’m sure you could find plenty of people in communist/socialist countries such as China, N. Korea and Cuba, who would completely disagree with this. Yet it still somehow made it into a UN declaration. The UN, IMO, is suppose to represent all the people of the world, not just the west.

I also have some problems with article 7:All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it seems to say everyone is equal. Now I agree with this. I don’t care what colour, gender, religion or sexuality you happen to be. However a lot of people in this world do. Fundamental religous groups in particular. Most really hate gay people and think they are evil. Some think women aren’t meant to work outside of the home. So again, why is this a Universal Human right?

Same problem with Article 16: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

I think this could be read 2 ways, depending on where you stand on Gay marriage/rights. It says men and women, so that implies there has to be one of each to marry, or it could just mean all people as generally we fit into 1 of the 2 categories. Depending on which side you stand on it either discrimanantes against homosexual people or against religions which think being homosexual is wrong. Yet again, hardly universal.

Some of the same problems exist with Article 23:1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

I’m not sure, but I’ve heard, FWIW, that China has been known to force people to work where the government says they should work. As well religions, again fundamental ones such as the Taliban, don’t think everyone should work, well women at least.

So are there such a thing as human rights? Or is it all just a western construct so we can feel better about doing things such as invading Afghanistan, the continued blockades against Cuba, and whatnot. I have to say yes, it is all just a western construct and as such really loses any legitamacy. It seems to be more of a we have all the money, the majority of permanent seats (which come with a veto, the other 10 don’t) 3/5 or 4/5 depending where you put Russia, on the Security Council, we like this stuff so therefore its universal. You don’t like it your wrong.

That is utterly arrogant.

2

It is. Check out the signatories of the convention. You’ll be surprised.

People are entitled to hate others for whatever reason. However, the convention says that this should not extend to that hatred being imposed onto the activities or freedoms of others.

Gay marriage was hardly a major issue in the 1940s.

I don’t understand your logic. Are you saying that because China contravenes the convention, then the convention should not exist? Or that because the majoritiy of better-complying countries are Westernised democracies, that makes human rights a western artifice?

BTW, no country has an unblemished human rights record.

3

I’m not sure where you wish to go with this. Rights are a very contextual thing, and in a “western” sense, as well as an “American/English/French/etc” sense, as well as a “I’m a registered member of some party” sense and even in a completely personal sense. If you find any accord on what human rights “are”, I would contend that it is only because you’ve managed to either 1) grossly simplify the expression of the rights, or 2) limited the people you are looking for agreement.

As a personal matter, I take two different approaches. One is with respect to what I call ‘inherent’ human rights, meaning, “rights as they exist prior to the formation of a government or other power structure” rather than a more intuitive interpretation like “rights as they exist by virtue of man’s existence”. (I find the latter completely empty.) The other approach I take, which is not strictly at odds with the former, is a practical approach of, “what can be declared and agreed upon to the extent that the enforcement or protection of those rights is able to be counted on.” Thus, to the extent that people who agree with the UN can in fact practically impliment, enforce, and protect those rights, those rights exist. But they also might have a very different character than the rights I call inherent, which are rights we consider in the formation and structure of a government. For example, democratic power, right to fair trials, and so on, I think have a very different character than a right to health care or a right for labor to collectively bargain. I’m not suggesting the line is perfectly clear, only that, to me, they have a different feel, and when they come about is at different points in social organization.

4

Some links for you, if you honestly think we need to assuage our conscience for trying to get rid of the Taliban fascists:
Sharia imposed
Actors beaten
Schoolgirls poisoned
Rule of the rapists

(this last is less than laudatory regarding our handling of present day conditions in Afghanistan, but certainly doesn’t defend the Taliban, either.)

There are many more.

I have no cite, but recently on NPR I heard a story about how parents were taking their children out of school early, “because they weren’t learning Koran”. This type of backward thinking contributes heavily to keeping Southern and Central Asia down, not the West’s “arrogance” in trying to “impose” democracy. Democracy with checks and balances says that you don’t have the right, through your elected representatives, to force me to wear a long beard, and I don’t have the right to force your wife to wear a burqa, or be imprisoned inside your home. Do I really have to explain this? Are you freaking serious?

5

I know no country has an unblemished record when it comes to human rights. I wasn’t saying that just because China contrevenes it it means it shouldn’t exist. What I was trying to say was that basically it seems to me that these so called Universal human rights are in actuality western human rights, however you want to define the west. I’m thinking North America, most of Europe, and Australia.

I’m not trying to find an accord on Human rights, as I’m aware that would be virtually impossible. So why bother having a Universal declaration of such? I suppose the way I feel about it is it seems to me this is something that the Western countries feel are important, and therefore they must be Universal. To me that borders on racist, and uncaring to cultures that feel different then we do. As such has no place in the UN and should probably be scrapped.

6

OK. Do you accept that, as human beings, we have any automatic or inalienalbe rights? If yes, then how can we divide between ‘western’ ones and others? Would that not be racist?

7

I am ‘freaking serious’. Seems to me your just saying the same stuff I have a problem with. Yes I think the Taliban was a terrible regime, I’m still not sure that means we had the right to go bomb them. From what I get out of this your still democracy is the best because we like it, it works good for us. And i think its vaguely insulting that you think ‘because they weren’t learning the Koran’ is backwards thinking. To you it may be, to many others it probably isn’t. And no I don’t have a cite either.

8

In order to make the world a better place, however people in the UN can agree on “better”.

Why do you suppose that just because a culture disagrees on whether or not women should be subjugated to the male population, that anyone must respect that belief (to make an example)? I’m as relativistic as the next guy WRT morals and rights, but that perspective is not tempered by a suspension of judgment. I believe people have the right to practice their religiion freely, without coercion from the state or the rest of the population, to the extent that the practice of this religion similarly does not interfere with other secular activities. I find this to be a superior position to anything else because it enables those who believe in a religion to continue to practice it without interference, and those who don’t believe in any religion to be free to do so. For someone who seems intent on accepting differences, I think you’d be able to see the power of that position as an expression of freedom, not racist oppression.

Perhaps if you outlines which rights, exactly, you feel are racist or betray an understanding of other cultures…

9

I’m not sure. Thats one reason I posted this, to hear what others think. If I had to answer right now, I’d say no.

10

How do you feel about the US Bill of Rights?

11

Well I guess my instinctive answer is why shouldn’t we respect those beliefs? Because we find them repugnant and wrong? Which they may very well be, but I don’t see why that should mean we should force this belief on others. To me that seems really wrong, and probably ineffective. People generally don’t like having things forced upon them.

I think I outlined which rights I have a problem with.

Zagadka I have no problem with the US bill of rights. Good document. The main difference, IMO, is that it is the US bill of rights, and not the UN UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights.

12

You are assuming that, given a free and informed choice, these people would not opt for free elections, equal rights for women, fair trials, etc etc. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

13

By that logic, we had no right to attack Germany in the second world war. It’s debatable whether, if Hitler had been victorious, whether he was really interested in extending his empire across the Atlantic. By your logic, apparently, the invasion of Germany was nothing but a case of us meddling in other countries’ affairs.

When you quote me, quote the complete sentence. I said they were taking their children out of school early, because they weren’t learning the Koran. I didn’t say anything was wrong with studying the Koran per se. But these kids are being denied the chance to learn ordinary school subjects which are essential if you ever want to aspire to be something other than a peasant or manual laborer. There’s nothing wrong with teaching faith and morals, but kids in any country need to learn regular school subjects, too.

To address your original question, I think there are indeed absolute human rights, which are fairly well embodied in the U.N. declaration. And based on that, my personal conviction is that no political group, or nation, or movement, as the right to organize a country in the way that Afghanistan was organized under the Taliban. If you allow that right, then you’re implicitly saying that the oppressed groups under such a regime do not have the same rights as you. You’re also being racist, or at least culturist, by the implication that an oppressive regime “works for them” because it’s what they’re culturally accustomed to. My only regrets regarding our actions in Afghanistan is that the world community, including the U.S. did virtually nothing until we were attacked on 9/11/01.

14

Well, the leaders of a fascist state certainly don’t like having democracy forced upon them. I think you’d find the average person in such a state a bit more open to the suggestion.

15

Well I’m not sure that my thinking equates with Germany in WWII. They actually invaded other countries.

I’m sorry for not quoting you completely. My bad, won’t happen again. Still, and I could be and probably am wrong, but couldn’t you become an Imam (thats what an Ismalic priest is called, right?) with vast Koranic knowledge?

On preview I see you posted again. Does it seem like the average person in Iraq wants American, and by extension, western ideals forced upon them?

16

I doubt anyone could find evidence that they would or wouldn’t, so i don’t really see your point. Forgive me if I’m slow.

17

There’s tons of evidence that people do want these freedoms. Undersground movements, resistance fighting, subversion, defection, revolution…None of this suggests people content with their ‘cultural’ lack of democracy or freedom.

18

Hmm, did you forgive me for being slow?

But I would imagine there is a similar number of people who support the said regime, or else the people who don’t would win pretty damn easy.

19

Presumably that’s so, but a 21st century society also needs engineers, doctors, teachers, and so on. And I think you’ll agree that it’s best for a developing country to be able to produce its own techical talent, rather than continually having to import Western specialists to do the technical and professional work.

Trying to imagine myself in that situation, I probably wouldn’t want Baywatch, McDonalds, and Mickey Mouse imposed on me, but I’d likely want to have some sort of say in how my country works. I’d want a free society that respected my religious faith and culture. Especially if I were a woman, I could not imagine wanting to have Sharia imposed on me.

20

Every so often, a “guest” posts something that’s well thought-out, well-written, contains plenty of food for thought, and is undeniably up to the level of the stuff we see from our regular Dopers. This is one of those times. Nice OP, cdnguy, and I hope you stick around. It deserves a lot more in-depth reply than I can give, but I will say something.

If you’re going to claim that people have certain rights, it seems to me that there are two ways to back that up. You can appeal to God (or other religious, metaphysical sources), as Jefferson famously did in the Declaration of Independence (“endowed by their Creator”). Or you can say that people have the rights that we choose/agree that they should have. But then if somebody else believes they shouldn’t have those rights, or should have different rights, how do you arbitrate between them? If the UN is just expressing their opinion about what rights they’d like to see everyone on earth enjoy, then fine for them, and fine for you if you agree with them—but what if you have a different opinion? Is a nation or culture in which everyone is considered equal better than one in which some are basically slaves of others based on sex, race, caste, or whatever? I believe it is, but I can’t give any non-religious reasons to back that up.