Do Human rights exist?

[droid]

There is human morality and then there are political and economic systems and there is a huge gap between these things. If psychopaths take control of the latter then they have the ability to create immoral outcomes for everybody, and unfortunately, psychopaths are extremely good at gaining power, primarily because they are not constrained by morality.

 

[Benny Bunter]

I think a key word used here is that humans rights discourse is an 'attempt' to make things better, and I don't want to knock it - could it be misguided though? It hasn't really worked so far has it?

 

[maxi]

It definitely has made things better. like the magna carta which peter hitchens cites in that article. the alternative is saying there are no human rights and there should be no laws attempting to protect human rights. how would that make anything better?

 

[droid]

We have laws against murder and people still get murdered. Should we get rid of the laws since they clearly arent working?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I think a key word used here is that humans rights discourse is an 'attempt' to make things better, and I don't want to knock it - could it be misguided though? It hasn't really worked so far has it?

how is it misguided, exactly?

the argument against human rights seems to be 1) they don't work 2) they harmfully serve as a substitute for improving other laws or political processes

numerous concrete advancements in human rights have been cited. none of them are perfect, but they are still real accomplishments.

and if human rights do harm, show how they do more harm than not having any concept of human rights would

things being imperfect is an argument for improving them, not doing away with them altogether in favor of something worse

 

[Benny Bunter]

It definitely has made things better. like the magna carta which peter hitchens cites in that article. the alternative is saying there are no human rights and there should be no laws attempting to protect human rights. how would that make anything better?

I meant the much more modern conception of them, not really things like the magna carta or all laws in general.

Also I don't really have any firm opinions on the whole issue, it's just interesting to ask questions and see what people say is all.

 

[Clinamenic]

I meant the much more modern conception of them, not really things like the magna carta or all laws in general.

Also I don't really have any firm opinions on the whole issue, it's just interesting to ask questions and see what people say is all.

Yeah I'm inclined to think human rights discourse has had a net positive impact, even if its just in terms of nudging cultures and societal conversations in directions which are more considerate of basic human safety and dignity, i.e. even if not everyone agrees over the course of such discussion, the fact that such discussion garners these things more attention I think is pretty clearly a net positive over the course of human civilization.

 

[Clinamenic]

The counterargument is probably a Rousseau-like argument, whereby we'd be better off in a more primordial state of affairs without human institutions or standards, no?

 

[Benny Bunter]

Sorry to just post links to long articles, (lame I know) but I thought this was quite a good read and more what I had in mind when it comes to criticising them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the guardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights

 

[Benny Bunter]

Since when will Dissensus not let you post links to the grauniad! probably for the best.

 

[version]

Since when will Dissensus not let you post links to the grauniad! probably for the best.

Sufi called it a "Bible of the Dark Arts" and forbade its posting.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Since when will Dissensus not let you post links to the grauniad! probably for the best.

I've posted tons since then using tinyurl.com, just to spite him.

 

[Benny Bunter]

The counterargument is probably a Rousseau-like argument, whereby we'd be better off in a more primordial state of affairs without human institutions or standards, no?

I don't think so. The Peter Hitchens argument would be totally against things like the French revolution and more about conserving institutions if anything

 

[maxi]

there's a lot of conflation here between "human rights" and "human rights law"

 

[Benny Bunter]

there's a lot of conflation here between "human rights" and "human rights law"

Or maybe just between "human rights" and "the law". I think it might be the human rights bit that's slippery and where the problems come in. Or maybe it's all just semantics, I dunno

 

[maxi]

I meant the much more modern conception of them, not really things like the magna carta or all laws in general.

Also I don't really have any firm opinions on the whole issue, it's just interesting to ask questions and see what people say is all.

yeah of course I wasn't trying to come across angry

the more modern conception of human rights comes post-World War II with things like the UN, the Geneva convention, international humanitarian law, etc.

these are all good things that have made things better too. e.g. perpetrators of the Bosnian genocide wouldn't have been prosecuted without them. torture has reduced significantly because every country has agreed to formally ban it, thanks to the modern conception of human rights. obviously there's still torture, but there's less of it.

if there wasn't any human rights discourse, things like Abu Ghraib wouldn't even be controversial or make the headlines. who cares if there's no such things as human rights?

put it this way, if all states had totally free reign without the constraint of at least having to attempt to justify their adherence to human rights, a hell of a lot more people would be dead or suffering than currently are, even if there's still loads of death and suffering

 

[Benny Bunter]

I suppose it comes down to whether you think things are generally better now that they were before. You could equally argue that things are just as bad if not worse, and that is a result of the failure of the human rights approach.

 

[Benny Bunter]

Foreign interventions justified by human rights (sincerely or not) haven't exactly been successful have they?

 

[Clinamenic]

there's a lot of conflation here between "human rights" and "human rights law"

Would you say its fair to call the former a social convention in the broad sense, and the latter a legal convention as a (more solid) type of social convention?

 

[vimothy]

law => formalisation of rights, duties etc
morality => (one of the) grounds upon which that formalisation exists and is justified

human rights is an attempt to establish a universal set of moral precepts which apply everywhere (irrespective of local laws or customs).

human rights laws are an attempt to formalize and establish those rights via treaty / agreements, international institutions etc.

two problems with this. firstly, what are those universally agreed upon moral precepts. and secondly, how are they to be enforced, given that there is no top level sovereign to appeal to.