The case against human rights

[Deleted]

I know this is old stuff from 2014 but I think it deserves a discussion.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014...t-human-rights

...

The truth is that human rights law has failed to accomplish its objectives. There is little evidence that human rights treaties, on the whole, have improved the wellbeing of people. The reason is that human rights were never as universal as people hoped, and the belief that they could be forced upon countries as a matter of international law was shot through with misguided assumptions from the very beginning. The human rights movement shares something in common with the hubris of development economics, which in previous decades tried (and failed) to alleviate poverty by imposing top-down solutions on developing countries. But where development economists have reformed their approach, the human rights movement has yet to acknowledge its failures. It is time for a reckoning...

Here's my take on it:

I think people refer to human rights constantly in an attempt to try to show off their morality as being superior to that of others who don't agree with the human rights. What they fail to realize is that the human rights aren't universally accepted by people, not in the west nor other parts of the world. Especially not in other parts of the world. It's a form of eurocentric imperialism where we try to make those countries meet impossible goals for them, because we think everyone shares our ideas of the west in regards to how a society should be built and then when they can't meet the goals, we criticize them, we might even impose sanctions on them due to them failing to the meet the goals. Many of them could never meet the goals in the first place, they were set up for failure from the very beginning because their societies are fundamentally different from ours, yet we try to act as if they should be behaving like we do.

The first mistake is assuming that people share our values and would see that they are the best, this is not the case.

The second mistake, we're expecting low-trust societies to act as high-trust societies, which makes for quite some problems in respecting human rights as people are behaving fundamentally different in a low-trust society compared to a high-trust society. In a high-trust society, people rely on the state for solving disputes. In a low-trust society people can very well take matters into their own hands because they don't trust the state for solving disputes, either due to incompetence or outright corruption.

The third mistake, we're expecting developping countries to be able to meet the goals of the human rights that are reliant on economical stuff, as if those countries have the same infrastructure as we do in the west, as if they have the same resources. They are far from us in developmental stage yet we expect them to behave and meet those goals as if they are at the same developmental stage as we are.



What's your take on human rights and how people use the term today?

[Azadina]

The most important thing is to let others live their life in peace without hurting or harassing them. This for some reason seems to be a very, very difficult concept for some part of the society.

[Deleted]

Here's my take on it:

I think people refer to human rights constantly in an attempt to try to show off their morality as being superior to that of others who don't agree with the human rights.

Opposition to rape, torture and infanticide is common in even the most primitive cultures and in all decent human beings. You have a very poor understanding of human nature if you think this is a liberal middle-class issue, that borders on the sociopathic.

[Deleted]

Opposition to rape, torture and infanticide is common in even the most primitive cultures and in all decent human beings. You have a very poor understanding of human nature if you think this is a liberal middle-class issue, that borders on the sociopathic.

You can be in opposition to it without supporting human rights. Just because human rights also includes it, it doesn't mean you can't be opposed to it if you don't support the human rights. That's just an absurd way of thinking you possess there.

And I said nothing about "liberal" nor "middle-class".

[Deleted]

I think "human rights" should be restricted to white people and asian (and by asian i mean japanese,chinese, korean etc. not the euphemism when media use to describe pakistanis or afghanistanis whenever they commit a crime in the UK)



Kappa.

[Zecora]

What's your take on human rights and how people use the term today?

The Human Rights is a goal to work towards, and while they are not perfect, they are the best (and indeed, the only) set of guidelines as to what you, as a human being, should have in the way of rights.

So no, so long as there is no real alternative to the current Human Rights, there is no real case against them.

[Ghostpanther]

The most important thing is to let others live their life in peace without hurting or harassing them. This for some reason seems to be a very, very difficult concept for some part of the society.

Exactly. Like freedom of speech. Some like to exercise theirs by trying to prevent those they disagree with from exercising their freedom of speech. The rights we have in the US Constitution are basic human rights which the founding fathers felt all were entitled to.

[Espe]

What's your take on human rights and how people use the term today?

Someone was triggered.

As for my "take" on human rights, it should go without saying that they are a good thing.

The most important thing is to let others live their life in peace without hurting or harassing them. This for some reason seems to be a very, very difficult concept for some part of the society.

And it appears to be a concept that some people from other societies struggle with as well.

[morpen]

I think human rights should be reserved for those who actually act like humans...

[Espe]

The rights we have in the US Constitution are basic human rights which the founding fathers felt all were entitled to.

Well, they felt some people at the time were entitled to some rights, in any case. I still think it is important to include them in our history textbooks, despite them being written out in the south.

As for the freedom of speech bit I know you're not talking about the US.

[Deleted]

Someone was triggered.

...? What.

[Espe]

I think human rights should be reserved for those who actually act like humans...

I agree, hairless beasts should be put out of their misery so that they don't suffer anymore.

[Kuntantee]

This post screams eurocentrism that you seem to criticize. Human Rights is not embodiment of Western Values. It is a product put forth only after an unimaginably barbaric act in West. In fact, what you think to be "Western Values" as of today wasn't the case for no longer than 30-40 years ago, when sexism was widespread in Western societies.

I think going from superior (not really) European culture of WWI-WWII eras to today's European culture is a proof that things can change drastically, even for cultures that are utterly incompatible with human rights.

You don't understand what is the problem here. Is the problem existence of Human Rights as a set of virtues, or is it uselessness of international law? If it's former, I think you are high. If it's latter, then do not derail your point with random bullshit and just say "international laws are stupid".

Finally, criticizing other countries for violation of human rights, imposing sanctions when they are broken is a fairy tale that I do not know where did you get from. This has never been the case for countries unless it serves some agenda. I mean Turkey's HR records are going downhill since last 3-4 years, it's relations with Europe and West is like as it always been.

[Deleted]

I don't see what is wrong with being eurocentric at all.
We all need each other and we are the most powerful, so we have the right (/might) to lay down some basic rules.
And if a country doesn't like them, they are always welcome to go F themselves.

Then why have you chastised me in the past for it?

[The Boomking]

It sounds like with universal human rights you're questioning both the implementation and the goal. The contrast was made with development economics trying to alleviate poverty, where they had implementation issues.

However, the goal of ending poverty was never changed, they just modified their approach, so I don't think it works very well as a comparison to human rights, if you're also arguing that the goal is flawed.

[Deleted]

Finally, criticizing other countries for violation of human rights, imposing sanctions when they are broken is a fairy tale that I do not know where did you get from. This has never been the case for countries unless it serves some agenda. I mean Turkey's HR records are going downhill since last 3-4 years, it's relations with Europe and West is as it always been.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/glob...-eu-sanctions/

[Kuntantee]

http://www.euractiv.com/section/glob...-eu-sanctions/

Probably because it had little to no economical impact over Europe. There may be a coup in Turkey soon if Erdogan tries is chance too hard.

[Deleted]

Probably because it had little to no economical impact over Europe.

You just said it was a fairy tale...

[Kuntantee]

You just said it was a fairy tale...

I made a mistake by exaggerating. This happens in two cases: 1) If it serves some agenda and 2) if there is no real impact over sanctions. Obviously this is hardly ever the case for overwhelming countries in the world, people tend not to give a fuck. So, yes, it's not a fairy tale (I thought I made it clear by second sentence) but very very rare.

[Mihalik]

Welcome to Bizzaro realm. Where xenophobic nationalist lunatics and regressive leftists agree on something and both criticize "eurocentrism".

Criticizing "Human Rights" (altough you seem to use the term a bit oddly as you seem to confuse and convolute International Law and a set of guiding principles), as the new fad both used by extreme left and right. One does it in the name of multiculturalism and the other does so in the name of sovereignty.

First of all you have to accept one simple reality. The year is 2016. You can't undo this. Industrialization, globalization and communications created a world intrinsically interconnected. We all depend on it. We depend on commerce, travel, global security and so on and on.

A devastating civil war in the Middle East floods Europe with refugees. A drug war and economic struggles flood the US with migrant workers. European and American companies have huge presence on every inhabited continent on Earth.

The principles laid in down in Human Rights treaties protect us all, at home and abroad. They provide a set of guidelines that if followed provide a relatively safe environment for commerce, travel and national security. The better the principles are observed the greater the common benefit is. Those principles don't just protect the "filthy muslims" but also protect YOU when you travel for fun or for work. They protect your investments and your welfare at home.

Now regarding cultural relativism that extreme left wingers seem to be fond of. To put it bluntly, there is such as a thing as "Better cultural values". Better cultural values provide the greatest benefit to the largest amount of people while minimizing suffering as much as possible.

But it is important to also treat both International Law and human rights in a realistic manner. These things are to be encouraged and not forced. The principles become irrelevant if you trample all of over them in the name of protecting them. (Iraq War for example or Western intervention in Syria against Assad.)

Claiming that these principles didn't improve our lives collectively is being historically ignorant.

The world, collectively speaking, was a much much much worse place a meager 70 years ago. Just because something wasn't a spectacular 100% success story, it doesn't mean it did nothing, or it isn't worth it.