Human Rights
- Thread starter Typhusoid
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just a handy definition of Human Rights courtesy of Wikipedia:
Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
I would contribute more, but my massive hangover dictates otherwise. I'll make a contribution in due course.
Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
I would contribute more, but my massive hangover dictates otherwise. I'll make a contribution in due course.
And the Pursuit of Happiness ^_^ And as for the OP's question, it depends on what part of the world you're in. I can't really answer the question properly since what rights people do and do not have differ from country to country. I live in the U.S. and I just want the rights we were entitled to in the beginning. Something must have gone horribly wrong because freedom of speech seems to be missing from our current rights and I would really like my privacy back.curlycrouton said:
ah the joys of being young enough to be able to drink large quantities with out getting crippling headaches 
.
I personally think people who be able to do whatever they want on their land with out the need for planning permission and to consume illicit substances, as they should be allowed to do what they will with their own body. also I'm not sure if this would even go under civil or human rights but the right to independence I don't think employers should be able to discriminate on peoples appearances, it doesn't matter if it isen't appropriate undertakers should be able to have bright pink mohekans if they so wish.
. I personally think people who be able to do whatever they want on their land with out the need for planning permission and to consume illicit substances, as they should be allowed to do what they will with their own body. also I'm not sure if this would even go under civil or human rights but the right to independence I don't think employers should be able to discriminate on peoples appearances, it doesn't matter if it isen't appropriate undertakers should be able to have bright pink mohekans if they so wish.
- Consumption of certain substances should become/remain illegal, assuming the substance in question does permanent irrepairable harm to the body and/or mind. So whilst Cigarettes should be gone, I would say alcohol (in moderation) is OK because to my knowledge its not as addictive as smoking and as such your more likely to be able to pace yourself, giving your body the time it needs to heal. I don't know enough about illegal drugs to have too much of an opinion, but it would seem to me that they impair judgement, there would assumedly be risks involved with that.zirnitra said:ah the joys of being young enough to be able to drink large quantities with out getting crippling headaches
I personally think people who be able to do whatever they want on their land with out the need for planning permission and to consume illicit substances, as they should be allowed to do what they will with their own body. also I'm not sure if this would even go under civil or human rights but the right to independence I don't think employers should be able to discriminate on peoples appearances, it doesn't matter if it isen't appropriate undertakers should be able to have bright pink mohekans if they so wish.
As for why I think people shouldn't be allowed to do what they will with their own bodies, its because people generally have family, family that will likely be affected if someone dies or loses mental or physical independance.
- Employers should be able to base their choices on appearance, to a degree. Maybe an undertaker would be alright to have a huge neon hairdo, someone placed at the front desk of a funeral parlour on the other hand would not. Business exist to make money, and as such they want to alienate as few people as possible,and believe it or not, most people want their loved ones' death ceremony to be organised by someone that looks professional.
And I'm inclined to disagree with you. People should have this right because it affects their own body and nobody else's and they and they alone should decide what they do with it. even if it has negative effects in fact voluntary euthanasia for any reason such as depression or boredom should be allowed. as for the reason of family being affected as to why people shouldn't well, it's that person decision. if that person does not feel the obligation to their family not to take substances that could possibly kill them and dramatically affect their lives then he should be able to even if it has damaging affects to the workings of the family (under your thoughts should affairs and divorce be illegal?) now as for the idea that this substance could physically mentally impair the person so that the family would have to look after them that again is a moral obligation it doesn't have to affect them in anyway.fletch_talon said:- Consumption of certain substances should become/remain illegal, assuming the substance in question does permanent irrepairable harm to the body and/or mind. So whilst Cigarettes should be gone, I would say alcohol (in moderation) is OK because to my knowledge its not as addictive as smoking and as such your more likely to be able to pace yourself, giving your body the time it needs to heal. I don't know enough about illegal drugs to have too much of an opinion, but it would seem to me that they impair judgement, there would assumedly be risks involved with that.zirnitra said:ah the joys of being young enough to be able to drink large quantities with out getting crippling headaches
I personally think people who be able to do whatever they want on their land with out the need for planning permission and to consume illicit substances, as they should be allowed to do what they will with their own body. also I'm not sure if this would even go under civil or human rights but the right to independence I don't think employers should be able to discriminate on peoples appearances, it doesn't matter if it isen't appropriate undertakers should be able to have bright pink mohekans if they so wish.
As for why I think people shouldn't be allowed to do what they will with their own bodies, its because people generally have family, family that will likely be affected if someone dies or loses mental or physical independance.
- Employers should be able to base their choices on appearance, to a degree. Maybe an undertaker would be alright to have a huge neon hairdo, someone placed at the front desk of a funeral parlour on the other hand would not. Business exist to make money, and as such they want to alienate as few people as possible,and believe it or not, most people want their loved ones' death ceremony to be organised by someone that looks professional.
Ok, and now you're just full of shit.zirnitra said:
You're really suggesting that we allow people to off themselves because of something that is curable. I'm sure glad your ideas are too ridiculous to be even taken seriously, but I had a family member who suffered from depression and whilst I don't think it ever reached that level I'm sure glad that euthanasia wasn't legally an option for them.
Then you go on to say that it doesn't matter how it affects family or loved ones provided you're not doing something to someone elses body... so parents shouldn't feel obligated to feed their children and stuff right? Its their money, their house, they aren't laying any hands on their child, so what's the problem?
Ok I'll admit thats a faulty argument, cuz you're still causing someone harm... on the other hand, what do you think is going to happen when lil Jimmy's parents spend all their money on drug x and spend every waking moment completely wasted, should lil Jimmy go fry himself up some vittles (taking into account he could be anywhere from 0-13 yrs old).
And the fact is, that this already happens with alcohol addiction, which also has the added benefit of causing violent behaviour in some individuals.
Finally divorce is better for a family than a loveless marriage, affairs are frowned on by society for good reason, I was of the impression that there are legal consequences for adultery, just not jail time or fines.
in that case scenario the children should be taken off of the parents if they do not reach a certain level of care. I said nothing about legalising child neglect. also you have to consider if these drugs were legal they'd be a lot cheaper and safer, in my experience serious alcoholic parents do have their children removed until they clean themselves up.fletch_talon said:
And yes people should have the right to be die if they want it's a lot better than the rules we have in Britain where once your deemed suicidal your just given mind bending personality changing treatments from lithium all the way to ECT and lobotomies involuntarily just because 'life is such a precious thing' and no one should have to right to take it (apart from certain governments and there "correctional facilities" obviously)
Rights are principles that define the scope of an individual's proper actions in the context of a society. In essence, they are the method for tying politics to ethics.Typhusoid said:
As such, rights are rights to *action*, not rights to results, and they place no obligation for positive action on any individual, merely the obligation to refrain from violating someone's rights. The fundamental right is the right to life (because without life there can be no action, no choice, and thus no morality).
Usually, two corollary rights to this one are added on: the right to liberty, and the right to property. Liberty simply means recognizing that life requires a sustained course of action (if you don't do ANYTHING, you'll die quickly of simple thirst), so in order to have the right to your life, you must also have the right to act to sustain it. The right to property comes from the recognition that you must act to gain and keep *things* in order to live, and thus you must have the right to retain the things you have acted to gain and keep.
Pursuit of happiness is a poetical phrase that doesn't really denote anything useful, but it is handy because it outlines the purpose of these rights: to enable you to seek and achieve happiness should you desire to do so and enact the requisite requirements.
Life, Liberty, and Property are sometimes called "negative" rights because the only obligation they incur on other people is that they refrain from killing you, imprisoning you, or stealing from you. Contrast these with the so-called "positive" rights to food, shelter, healthcare, whatever. What does *that* mean? If I have a right to food or a job regardless of whether I do anything at all, SOMEONE has to provide me with said food or a job--which means that they no longer possess any rights of their own. They cannot keep their property, they cannot act as they wish, and, if they refuse to obey, they may even lose their life as threats of violence are the only ultimate method for keeping them in line.
This is why the only real rights are rights to action--there cannot be any such thing as a right that *requires* the violation of someone else's rights, it's a contradiction in terms.
Totally agree with you there, I have long hair (male), and want to end up extremely tattooed and pierced up, but I know a lot of places wont let me work there if I do. My college wont even let me have more than one ear or nose ring/stud... I don't know how they cope with my plug but they hated my lip stud.zirnitra said:
Humans shouldn't have rights we are worse then most animals. I mean you don't see Giraffes running around fucking each other over.
You may take every action you deem necessary to live as you wish(as in wealthy, healthy, or not at all), so long as it in turn does not take a right from another.
Those rights you cannot take from another is defined lightly as "Life, Liberty, Property, and the 'Pursuit of happiness'."
Those rights you cannot take from another is defined lightly as "Life, Liberty, Property, and the 'Pursuit of happiness'."
I only need things while i use them, property rights are not necessary. But they are nice.JMeganSnow said:
The problem with this is that inaction is a choice, and thus you are responsible for that choice.
Allowing someone to die of lack of medical care or starvation when one could do something means that by your own choice they have died, which violates the right to life.
One right has to give either way, so either lives are more important than property, or my property is more important than your life.
Modern society tends to use the threat of loss of liberty(prison) rather than loss of life. To enforce any law your going to need some kind of threat, after all we wouldn't need laws if people weren't going to break them in the first place.
How are you going to make sure it's around for you to use if you don't have the right to control it?WhitemageofDOOM said:
Responsible for the choice. But how does that mean I'm responsibility for keeping other people alive if they won't do it themselves?
The right to life means you have the right to sustain your life *by your own effort* if you so choose to do so and no one has the right to force you to stop, just as you don't have the right to interfere with them--it's the right to an action, not the right to a thing, as I specified by explaining that rights that require the violation of rights are self-contradictory.
There's no way to define what someone "could" do, only what they have a right to do. If food and health care are so important to you, why didn't you do anything about it, and how does the fact that I *did* entitle *you* to what *I* produced?
The term "important" depends on the concept of value, and there's no such thing as value without answering the questions "value to whom and for what?" I would hope that your life is more important *to you* than mine is *to you*--I'm a stranger, after all. Parts of your property probably are as well. There's no intrinsic value in life or any particular piece of property. The value of a serial killer's life is, to me, an immense negative--as long as he's alive he's a threat to me and I would happily spend money to see him permanently removed.
It's complex and contextual, which is why it's so important to have the principle of rights to delineate obligations (i.e. my obligation to not kill you or steal from you.
Yes, and if you don't accede to the loss of liberty, they shoot you, which is as it should be. Only force can contain force.
And laws don't exist because we expect people to break them, but to make it possible for people to coexist peacefully, in other words, to set up an objective language of expectations that makes it possible for people *not* to violate each others' rights and to settle disputes.
The possibility exists for people to commit crimes, of course, which is why there needs to be a judicial/criminal *system* as part of the legal code, but settling disputes that don't involve any lawbreaking (yet) is an important function of law as well.
Yes I am aware that children will get taken away from their parents in these cases, and whilst its for their own good, the problem could be just as easily solved (and without separating families) if everyone had the common sense not to be morons, or (since that will never be the case) if the governments took it into their own hands and moderated the use of drugs.zirnitra said:
Basically I'm of the opinion that addiction is a mental disorder and people with mental disorders need help making certain decisions. And on that note...
That's a problem with the mental health system in your country (and others) when someone is suicidal because their girlfriend left them or they've lost all their money or a family member has died then there is obviously something deeper wrong with them. Most people manage to not feel the need to kill themselves in those situations. Depression is a mental disorder and needs to be treated as such, someone in that condition is not in the right frame of mind to make a decision as to whether they live or die. I hate the fact that depression seems to beuniversally treated with drugs as much as you do, but the solution is to treat it with therapy and aid, not to let them off themselves.
There certainly exists no rights all humans as a race share and while the principle of "rights all humans should have" is nice and heartwarming, these rights exist in practice only as long as powers opposing them dont gain the opportunity to remove them and only if the current wielders of power can enforce them. Pretty paper can say anything but it has no value if it has no basis on reality. It is a common illusion in the west that human rights are universal and permanent when in fact they are relative and temporary.
I can't, that should be obvious. Hence the part about property rights being nice, but they aren't necessary. Nor are they ever truly "just", but things being just is not the only thing one should keep in mind when making value decisions.JMeganSnow said:
People have been responsible for keeping others alive who won't do it for themselves for 10 thousand years, there called farmers.
Then kill either the right to life or the right to property. Technically one can still make harming others illegal without the right to life since you would be damaging someone Else's property.
You produced? You produced what exactly?
You speak of earning, and effort. But you have earned nothing, everything you have has been given to you. Your parents money supported you while you were helpless, your very existence given to you by them, and every opportunity you have is the result of the society you live in and your families status within it.
You and I were both born into a charmed life, earned generations ago through war and theft. You and I? We have earned nothing, and yet you expect to be given these unfair advantages you haven't earned and then scream bloody murder that it's unfair and taking your rights when someone wants to offer those same advantages to another.
It is not more valuable to me simply because you are a stranger, it's just one piece of thinking meat or another. Why should i feel more concern simply because one piece of meat is closer than to my subjective experience.
Then by your your own admission there is no reason to value your own life or a piece of property from a rational objective perspective.
On the other hand, i see things having an intrinsic objective value.
Said the person who wants to create a society with a lot of desperately poor people, and you know what poor people do when they get desperate? They use violence, because they feel every other way to help themselves is gone. Social mobility is a GOOD THING as it makes the poor less desperate, and social mobility requires an education, it requires people to be able to make long term decisions which means not dieing at 45 from lack of medicine, and it requires leisure time in which to learn new skills. You don't want the poor to have those things simply because there parents were poor.
Courts and police can't prevent crimes, only punish criminals. If you truly want to prevent people from committing crime, then attack the source of crime instead of simply punishing criminals.
