Such a thing as Human Rights?

[cdnguy]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

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.

I would agree with that. I can’t see how it wouldn’t be better to have your own professionals rather then import them from another country. However I do think its a big jump to go from

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

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”.

to assuming this would mean a complete lack of professionals.

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

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.

I probably would want Baywatch . And I actually agree with you. I would want the samething. The question is, do they? Or do we just think they do because that is what is right? Here in Ontario there is a debate raging on about the Sharia, and whether or not it is a legitimate conflict resolution tool. I don’t know too many of the specifics but the gist of it seems to be that other religions are allowed to use their specific religous laws to mediate. The Sharia, as it is viewed by many as anti-woman, is not presently allowed. Some Islamic groups are challenging this, and of course some womens rights group are challenging the Sharia. It will eventually be decided by the Ontario Human Rights Board (there’s that phrase again), or possibly McGuinty (our premier) himself. I bet you can all guess that I am in favour of the Sharia being allowed. Who the hell am I to say what I think/believe is more correct then someone else?

Thudlow Boink , thanks, I’m glad I finally posted something someone thought had some merit to it . I am pretty hooked on this board, some pretty interesting stuff here. I think I was hooked the first time I came here, went to GQ and saw a question about whether or not GI’s actually jumped on grenades to save their friends. That was a very informative and amusing thread. Not sure if I can afford a subscription though.

Now back to the point. I agree with most of what you say. How do you decide which believes are correct, and how to stop forcing those believes onto others who don’t agree with you? Personally I think they way we in the west, in general, do things the correct way. Some countries more then others, but thats a different thread. I was kind of hoping some sort of very religious person would come here and tell me what they think. If they are fundemantilists all the better, but I guess most fundies wouldn’t use these boards.

Do none of you think the west is at all arrogant in the way we do things as to human rights? You believe that we are right, and people who disagree are wrong?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Thudlow Boink

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.

I think a third argument is possible, since the fact that one lives in a free society and has options doesn’t mean that one has to accept everything that the culture offers. Living in an open democracy, you are free to abjure television, music, alcohol, or whatever else your personal convictions dictate, but you don’t have the right to impose your strictures on your neighbor. You can opt in or out of things as you wish, because you don’t have someone over you imposing those choices on you with the force of law. Let’s suppose that I’m a very hardcore fundamentalist Christian. As such, in the United States, I can turn the TV off, I can expunge my home of references to evolution, and be secure in the knowledge that the state isn’t going to interfere with my lifestyle. But that would be hardly true for a nonfundamentalist living in a fundamentalist state.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@cdnguy

I can’t see how it wouldn’t be better to have your own professionals rather then import them from another country.

My basis for this is the assumption that having to import most of your professional workers puts you in a state of dependence that bears some resemblance to colonialism. I don’t mean that it’s always wrong to rely on foreign talent–your country simply might not have the talent pool. But I don’t think it’s good as a permanent state of affairs.

[cdnguy]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

My basis for this is the assumption that having to import most of your professional workers puts you in a state of dependence that bears some resemblance to colonialism. I don’t mean that it’s always wrong to rely on foreign talent–your country simply might not have the talent pool. But I don’t think it’s good as a permanent state of affairs.

Guess I wasn’t clear enough, or misunderstood me (My money is on the former). I was actually agreeing with you. It would be better to have a pool of your own professionals to draw from. Still I don’t see how you get from parents withdrawing their children from school due to lack of religous teachings to a complete derth of qualified professionals. I know that in both the US and Canada we have religous schools, both public and private, that manage to teach both. Aren’t a number of famous American colleges associated with religous orders, and no I’m not talking about Bob Jones U, was thinking more of Georgetown. Isn’t it a Jesuit school?

[GorillaMan]

@cdnguy

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.

‘Win’? I thought we were talking about countries that lacked democracy?

[cdnguy]

@GorillaMan

‘Win’? I thought we were talking about countries that lacked democracy?

Hmm, I guess I must be even more unclear then I thought, even if what I wrote makes sense to me. I’m not sure where the confusion is but heres my clarification. By ‘win’ I did mean get democracy. I stated that there would have to be a certain number of people who supported the regime because if there wasn’t the people who didnt would win. If there aren’t people who are willing to fight the
Undersground movements, resistance fighting, subversion, defection, revolution then it would seem they would win, and then institute a democracy. If thats whatthey really want and aren’t trying a power grabt hemselves using democracy as a screen to gain western support.

[SolGrundy]

@cdnguy

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.

It can only be read two ways once you are able to come up with any possible explanation of how gay marriage and gay rights discriminate against religion in any way.

Does allowing same-sex couples to marry mean that all Catholic marriages are now invalid? Does it mean that everybody’s got to have gay marriage now? Does making it illegal for someone to beat up another person because he’s homosexual, mean that churches are no longer able to say that being gay is wrong?

[cdnguy]

@SolGrundy

It can only be read two ways once you are able to come up with any possible explanation of how gay marriage and gay rights discriminate against religion in any way.

Does allowing same-sex couples to marry mean that all Catholic marriages are now invalid? Does it mean that everybody’s got to have gay marriage now? Does making it illegal for someone to beat up another person because he’s homosexual, mean that churches are no longer able to say that being gay is wrong?

I’m afraid I can’t come up with any possible explanation of how gay marriage and gay rights discriminate against religion. I was trying to look at this from viewpoints that aren’t mine, such as ones were homosexuality is wrong. However I do think many religous people think that somehow this is what wouild occur if we allow gay marriages. And I would imagine this isn’t a puny porportion of the population of the world, hence my problem with it being a UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights.

[SolGrundy]

@cdnguy

I’m afraid I can’t come up with any possible explanation of how gay marriage and gay rights discriminate against religion. I was trying to look at this from viewpoints that aren’t mine, such as ones were homosexuality is wrong. However I do think many religous people think that somehow this is what wouild occur if we allow gay marriages. And I would imagine this isn’t a puny porportion of the population of the world, hence my problem with it being a UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights.

Then I guess I don’t understand the distinction, or the thread as a whole. A Universal declaration of human rights is intended to declare the rights that all people are entitled to, not the rights that absolutely every person agrees on.

If you have complete agreement, then there’s no point in declaring rights in the first place. It’d be as pointless as saying “all humans have the right to be subject to the laws of gravity.”

[erislover]

@cdnguy

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.

Generally speaking, you don’t force a right on someone, you prevent other people from forcing others to act against their will. Rather than forcing people to be bound to some perspective, you in fact allow people to adopt different perspectives.

To me that seems really wrong, and probably ineffective. People generally don’t like having things forced upon them.

And what, exactly, is being forced on people in your examples?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@cdnguy

Guess I wasn’t clear enough, or misunderstood me (My money is on the former). I was actually agreeing with you. It would be better to have a pool of your own professionals to draw from. Still I don’t see how you get from parents withdrawing their children from school due to lack of religous teachings to a complete derth of qualified professionals. I know that in both the US and Canada we have religous schools, both public and private, that manage to teach both. Aren’t a number of famous American colleges associated with religous orders, and no I’m not talking about Bob Jones U, was thinking more of Georgetown. Isn’t it a Jesuit school?

Understood. I may be wrong, but I’m under the impression that the madrasas (sp?), or religious schools, are strictly religious schools and only that. While the fundamentalist Christian bent of Bob Jones might color the instruction in certain subjects, they still seem to offer a standard array majors. You can major in pre-med, engineering, German, or English. That’s not true of the madrasas. It’d be like replacing regular public and private general schools with Sunday school five days a week.

[clairobscur]

@erislover

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.

I would suspect that this “feeling” comes from the rights you’re accustomed to benefit from and from your political inclination. It could be easily argued that to receive medical care or to have a shelter is more fundamental than a political participation. If you were dying from cancer in a gutter, it’s unlikely that you’d be very worried about your right to vote.
I generally find the distinction between “inherent” and “non-inherent” rights quite arbitrary and your definition of inherent rights (“which are rights we consider in the formation and structure of a government”) seems even less clear to me. If I form a communist government, I’m definitely going to consider collective property of the means of production in the formation of the the government, which will imply specific rights that you probably wouldn’t include in your list, and exclude others that you’d probably include).

[clairobscur]

@cdnguy

. So why bother having a Universal declaration of such? .

Probably for the same reasons there are constitutionnal rights despite them being occasionnally violated.

Anyway, the wide majority of countries, western or not, signed the convention, hence aknowledged these rights.

[clairobscur]

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
. But then if somebody else believes they shouldn’t have those rights, or should have different rights, how do you arbitrate between them?

[quote]

It’s no different with the Us consitutionnal rights. If someone disagree with these rights or think people should have different rights, how do you arbitrate. Did anybody ask you whether you personnally approved them or not?

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.

You can’t find an objective definition of rights. They will always be merely the result of a consensus. You’re benefitting from right X or Y in your country because there’s a general consensus that you should. Were you born 150 years earlier, there would be no consensus that you have the right not to be enslaved, hence you wouldn’t have this right, regardless how you feel about it. Assuming that you’re american, you don’t benefit from my constitutionnal right of not being executed, and I don’t benefit from your constitutionnal right of selling “Mein Kampf”. Our individual opinions on these issues have no bearing on the matter as long as we don’t manage to have the consensus changing.

In the case of the UDHR, the consensus is between nations, not between individuals, that’s the only difference. The issue you’re mentionning is a generic one, not particularily related to this convention. Indeed, barring a religious basis, your rights and obligations have a political basis. They aren’t defined in some demonstratively objective way, and they can’t.

I would note that if they’re defined by religious teachings, they aren’t any less arbitrary. The “will of God” is 100% arbitrary too from our point of view. There’s no objective reason we could discern for not having the right to work on Saturday.

[clairobscur]

@cdnguy

Do none of you think the west is at all arrogant in the way we do things as to human rights? You believe that we are right, and people who disagree are wrong?

I do think intellectually that our definition of rights is arbitrary and that there isn’t any objective reason why they should be necessarily accepted. But still, I do feel we’re right and they’re wrong, indeed. And generally, feelings have more importance than abstract thoughts.
For instance, our conception of rights are based mostly on individual freedom. However, it isn’t absurd at all to argue that the rights of an individual shouldn’t prevail over the general interest or the collective will. And actually, we do apply this principle in many cases. Like taking your property away to build a road. Like not granting you the right to a due process of law if you’re an ennemy combattant. Or an ennemy of the people. We draw a line which is arbitrary in nature, and once again based on a general consensus.

I know that. It doesn’t change my feelings that individual freedom should be protected…to an extent which strangely enough match quite well the protection offered in western countries and their limits.

[clairobscur]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

I Living in an open democracy, you are free to abjure television, music, alcohol, or whatever else your personal convictions dictate, but you don’t have the right to impose your strictures on your neighbor.

So, for instance, I’m free to have a same-sex or bigamous marriage? I’m free to take a sunbath in the nude on my lawn, in plain view? I’m free to have consensual sex with a 14 y.o. who is himself free not to attend school or to vote for whoever he wants? I’m free to enter or leave the US when I want to, despite not being a US citizen? I’m free to smoke pot? No one is going to impose his strictures on me in these cases?

[clairobscur]

@SolGrundy

It can only be read two ways once you are able to come up with any possible explanation of how gay marriage and gay rights discriminate against religion in any way.

Nope. It can be read two ways plainly because the wording allows both interpretations.

[erislover]

@clairobscur

I would suspect that this “feeling” comes from the rights you’re accustomed to benefit from and from your political inclination. It could be easily argued that to receive medical care or to have a shelter is more fundamental than a political participation. If you were dying from cancer in a gutter, it’s unlikely that you’d be very worried about your right to vote.

On the other hand, nothing intrinsic to mankind’s character really forbid men from voting all this time, but the same cannot be said of health care which, frankly, is a fairly modern convention in the form any of us at these boards would readily accept.

I generally find the distinction between “inherent” and “non-inherent” rights quite arbitrary and your definition of inherent rights (“which are rights we consider in the formation and structure of a government”) seems even less clear to me. If I form a communist government, I’m definitely going to consider collective property of the means of production in the formation of the the government, which will imply specific rights that you probably wouldn’t include in your list, and exclude others that you’d probably include).

Actually, that’s quite the point I tried to make in my first post, that we have to sacrifice meaning or restrict the group we’re talking to in order to achieve any real consensus. But I think most people would have things they consider “rights that the government must recognize” irrespective of previous organization, and “rights that should exist by virtue of our situation”, like a wealthy country supplying health care or welfare. Whether we would all agree on what should fall in any particular category, I don’t think I’d really ever say yes, but I think most people could get an idea of the difference.

Nothing forbids a tribe from allowing a fair trial by his peers, but without technical specialization, organized labor is pretty useless. Are they both “rights”? Well, to me, yes, but they are not of the same character.

I make the distinction only because it is hard for me to suggest that health care is a right in the same way that freedom of speech is a right. Without some kind of distinction, we only have the rather arbitrary practical (enforcement/protection) definition to fall back on. Personally, I don’t usually find it very convincing, but YMMV.

[Zagadka]

@clairobscur

So, for instance, I’m free to have a same-sex or bigamous marriage? I’m free to take a sunbath in the nude on my lawn, in plain view? I’m free to have consensual sex with a 14 y.o. who is himself free not to attend school or to vote for whoever he wants? I’m free to enter or leave the US when I want to, despite not being a US citizen? I’m free to smoke pot? No one is going to impose his strictures on me in these cases?

What a silly argument. “Becuase I have one right, I should have all rights” is slippery slope in the extreme.

Is the UN UDHR “western”? Yea. Does it put restrictions on people? Yea. Does that make it bad? No.

Is it a document whose purpose is to give us a “reason to attack the Taliban”? Yes, and no. Its reason is to protect people’s basic rights as we as a global society view them. If the Taliban restricts those rights, it does so at its own responsibility. You have to remember when this document was written - “human rights” were not thoguht of, and the horrors of Nazi Germany had just been revealed.

A question we will forever be asking is, “what rights do we have, and what rights do we not have?” Asking whether or not we have basic human rights is, to me, like asking if oxygen exists. I can’t put my head around it. It is utterly stupid. That is why I am not participating in this debate.

[clairobscur]

@Zagadka

What a silly argument. “Becuase I have one right, I should have all rights” is slippery slope in the extreme.
.

Nope, it isn’t silly because it was in response to an argument according to which the peculiarity of our western societies would be that all options are open to us (presumably as long as it doesn’t infrige on other people’s freedoms, though it wasn’t mentionned) and that though we can opt out of these options, while nobody can impose his strictures on us. As a consequence, I mentionned several examples where such strictures were actually imposed on us.
Besides, none of the examples I gave were particularily extreme or silly. Taking them one by one :
-Is it silly to allow gay marriages? A lot of people on this board seem to think it isn’t. If it isn’t why would it be silly to have a bigamous marriage with two persons I love?

-If it is silly to allow me to take a sunbath in the nude on my property (I would note that you’re not obligated to look at me) because you find it offensive, why would someone allowed to wear a short skirt on her lawn if I find this similarily offensive? Why is my penis objectively more offensive than your ankles, apart, as I said, because the general consensus says so? If it is objective, how comes women legs are offensive in Saudi Arabia while they aren’t in the US, women breasts offensive on US beachs and french streets but not on french beachs, women pubic area on french beachs but apparently not in some german public parks?

-If it’s silly to allow an adult to have consensual sex with a 15 y.o. in the US, why does it stop to be silly in France? If it’s silly to allow a 17 y.o. to vote, why isn’t it silly to allow a 18 y.o., or a 21 y.o. to do the same thing?

-If it is silly to allow a french citizen to enter the US at will, why isn’t it silly to allow him to enter Germany?

-If it is silly to allow me to smoke pot, why isn’t it silly to allow me to drink alcohol (which was precisely an example given by the poster I was responding to to back his statement that other people can’t impose their strictures on us)?

Can you tell me what objective arguments would allow you to state that these aren’t strictures arbitrarily imposed on me?