What is meant by human rights?

[HinduWoman]

I think it is a problematic term.

I can agree that everyone deserves to have sufficient food, shelter, medical treatment needed to lead a healthy life.
Good law and order situation where no one is favoured over another.
Everyone will start with equal opportunities to succeed in life.

But beyond that do 'human rights' have any concrete meaning?

[Berthold]

Well, this is pretty much, if you expand on it.

[DMB]

I think the UDHR (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) is a good start.

[reddhedd]

I just skimmed it as I am off to run in a minute, but what on earth does article 15 have to do with anything?

"Everyone has a right to a nationality.":dunno:

Does that mean I have the right to declare myself a citizen of Australia and enjoy the privileges of that citizenship? Or am I reading (skimming) it wrong?

[Berthold]

"Everyone has a right to a nationality.":dunno:

Background may be that certain states were in the habit of unilaterally dismissing certain citizens from their nationality (Soviet Union and its allies come to my mind).

[reddhedd]

Do you mean something like exile?
I was a child when USSR was in its "heyday" so I am unaware of the example you cite...please explain further?

[Berthold]

Yes, there were regime-critical people who were expatriated against their will, see e. g. Wolf Biermann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Biermann). (This is a Wiki link).

[dancer_rnb]

I just skimmed it as I am off to run in a minute, but what on earth does article 15 have to do with anything?

"Everyone has a right to a nationality.":dunno:

Does that mean I have the right to declare myself a citizen of Australia and enjoy the privileges of that citizenship? Or am I reading (skimming) it wrong?

Look at the breakup of the Ottaman Empire, or of Yugoslavia to see what it really means. Ethnic cleansing.

[dancer_rnb]

Article 12.

* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.


Article 14.

* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.



From 12--nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

Lay off the pope and catholic priests, people!


From 14--This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions ........... from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

This one makes a big assumption about the UN : that it won't act in a tyrannical manner.

[dancer_rnb]

Article 29.

* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


Number three is a problem.

So I have no right to say the UN is so bad in actually performing what it sets out to do that no one should take them seriously?

[DMB]

Article 29.

* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


Number three is a problem.

So I have no right to say the UN is so bad in actually performing what it sets out to do that no one should take them seriously?

I don't think that is at all what it means. You need to go back to the Charter to see what the UN is supposed to be about.

[dancer_rnb]

Article 29.

* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


Number three is a problem.

So I have no right to say the UN is so bad in actually performing what it sets out to do that no one should take them seriously?

I don't think that is at all what it means. You need to go back to the Charter to see what the UN is supposed to be about.

SUPPOSED to be about, as you say. Unfortunately the UN is run by fallible human beings, with all the weaknesses thereof.

[Mung Dynasty]

Article 12.

* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This one is a problem. Exactly what constitutes an "attack upon his honour"? This could be read as encouraging honour killings, and undoubtedly would be read that way by some people.

[David B]

Article 12.

* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This one is a problem. Exactly what constitutes an "attack upon his honour"? This could be read as encouraging honour killings, and undoubtedly would be read that way by some people.

If anyone says or implies that because I don't believe in any gods I deserve to go to hell, than I view that as an attack on my honour.

David

[Mung Dynasty]

Yes. Saying that someone is guilty of committing an offence against some absolute, divine moral standard would also be an attack on their reputation.

[epepke]

Largely, what people mean by "rights" are whatever they can convince people to let them have.

[Preno]

I tend to view the language of "rights" as somewhat counter-productive, because it's explicitly context-independent. No sane person actually believes that under no circumstances should someone's reputation be attacked. Imo inserting that kind of vague, unachievable, undesirable non-sense only serves to devalue the document.

[HinduWoman]

But some of the 'human rights' are too vague --

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Even serial killers?

Article 8.
* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
But there are no same fundamental rights all over the world.

Article 9.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

What is meant by arbitrary if the govt decides the law?

Article 12.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

As others posted before me you can then never criticize someone.

Article 16
# (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
And what exactly does that mean?

Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
The nature of religion is not specified --- what if it believes in human sacrifice and the members of the cult willingly gave up their lives?

It does not even deal with basic things like whether death penalty is ok or abortion or giving up a child for adoption for money.

[Valheru]

Serial killers, like everybody else, are products of their makeup multiplied by their environment.

Killing a deranged serial killer is like the system arbitrarily deciding that certain results of the equation (makeup * environment) are not desirable, and specifically for the death penalty, are not part of the human condition.

[Alex]

I think it is a problematic term.

I can agree that everyone deserves to have sufficient food, shelter, medical treatment needed to lead a healthy life.
Good law and order situation where no one is favoured over another.
Everyone will start with equal opportunities to succeed in life.

But beyond that do 'human rights' have any concrete meaning?

Is there any difference between human rights and natural rights? Is the doctrine that there are natural rights defensible? Which rights are natural and which are merely local? Can a natural right always veto a legal right that conflicts with or denies it?

[Bright Life]

"Human Rights" has been the latest code phrase for GLBT rights.

[Eudaimonist]

But some of the 'human rights' are too vague --

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Even serial killers?

You should read up on the philosophical ideas behind human rights. You won't get this from a document of the sort you are reading. This should get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Danhalen]

Largely, what people mean by "rights" are whatever they can convince people to let them have.I tend to agree with this assessment. Rights are basically guaranteed privileges provided by the state (privileges the constituents have convinced the state to provide). I think most people tend to assume a right is innate, but I see no justification for such a claim.

[dancer_rnb]

What the hell is "the state"?:evil:

[DMB]

With a lot of the UN HR instruments there are vague references to "the law", and I regard them as a great weakness if we really want to develop any sort of universal standards of HR. After all, "the law" can encompass Shari'a.

[Danhalen]

What the hell is "the state"?:evil:The state is the form of government tacitly endorsed by the people of a given geographic location for the express purpose of providing the people within it protection from harm.

[Alex]

Rights are basically guaranteed privileges provided by the state (privileges the constituents have convinced the state to provide). I think most people tend to assume a right is innate, but I see no justification for such a claim.

Do you think, like Jeremy Bentham, that natural rights are "nonsense on stilts"?

[Danhalen]

Do you think, like Jeremy Bentham, that natural rights are "nonsense on stilts"?I do. That's not to say I think we ought not to have rights.

[DMB]

I think pragmatically speaking, we need to do our best to agree basic HR. Without them, ordinary people have little protection against a tyrannical state or even a tyrannical majority mob (population).

[HinduWoman]

Rights are basically guaranteed privileges provided by the state (privileges the constituents have convinced the state to provide). I think most people tend to assume a right is innate, but I see no justification for such a claim.

Do you think, like Jeremy Bentham, that natural rights are "nonsense on stilts"?

Don't know about the stilts part, but nonsense yes. :)

It is neccessary to have them if we are to have a decent civilization. But as Is aid, beyond certain basic things it is too vague.

For example, should property ownership be an inalienable right? Even in USA the state overrides it by 'eminent domain' (defined as 'theft by the state). :eek:
Bernard Shaw: all property is theft. :cool:

[Alex]

It is neccessary to have them if we are to have a decent civilization. But as Is aid, beyond certain basic things it is too vague.

For example, should property ownership be an inalienable right? Even in USA the state overrides it by 'eminent domain' (defined as 'theft by the state). :eek:
Bernard Shaw: all property is theft. :cool:
There is a wish list of human rights - which is a label to represent the idea of natural rights and to win sympathy for that idea in the political atmosphere of the modern world.

Most advocates of human rights neglect to answer the questions I asked in a previous post, and end up with lists of rights that are either too wide to be entirely defensible or too narrow to be universally applicable.

[Eudaimonist]

For example, should property ownership be an inalienable right? Even in USA the state overrides it by 'eminent domain' (defined as 'theft by the state). :eek:
Bernard Shaw: all property is theft. :cool:

Do you think the government should be able to take someone's property for any reason whatsoever?

If not, you just might be a supporter of human rights.

I think you are under the misperception that rights have to be "absolute" (i.e. admitting of no context or exceptions). I think you should question that premise.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[DMB]

I have never seen any list of HR that did not contain within itself possibilities for conflict between one right and another.