The case against human rights

[Slant]

We should've made "no-fly" zones in Syria, maybe some UN soldiers to protect these zones.

That way we could've set up refugee centers in Syria for the Syrian refugees.

Merkle said she would support these zones but only recently.

She's adjusting her stance to pragmatical realities. Idealism is fine and dandy, but in the end it has to be feasible, too. I think we're about to find a proper compromise soonish.

[Ghostpanther]

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.

Which is why slavery was eventually abolished. It became hard to acknowledge that all men are created equal and you still allow slavery.

And yes, it happens in the US. Those trying to stop others from expressing their right to a peaceful assembly and to exercise their freedom of speech. They claim they have the right to do those things, yet are two faced when it comes to those they oppose.

[Espe]

And yes, it happens in the US.

If you're going to make wild assertions you need to provide some proof, champ. You don't get a pass just because you have no real argument and decided to play the victim once again.

[THE Bigzoman]

No, it's not. Given that "fairness" is a lot more subjective than various lists of human rights in different countries. You can compare them and see similarities and say "Ok, guess everyone agrees on that to be a pretty basic human right" (everyone being the countries you picked, mostly western). Whereas fair? Heck, I'd find it fair to give you 5 minute temp bans just for kicks and giggles. Doesn't mean it is actually fair. :P

idk.


I'd say most violations to human rights are unfair.

[BuckSparkles]

Some countries and religions have differing views on what is acceptable and what is not. Who are we to say that the western ideals are better or more correct than those of Sharia Law for example.

But we are better than Sharia Law.

[Slant]

idk.


I'd say most violations to human rights are unfair.

Sure. I never said anything to the contrary.

[THE Bigzoman]

Sure. I never said anything to the contrary.

I should've clarified. It was a bit vague.

Wouldn't that interconnectness mean that they are similar?

[Ghostpanther]

If you're going to make wild assertions you need to provide some proof, champ. You don't get a pass just because you have no real argument and decided to play the victim once again.

What proof? They did away with slavery.

The violent protesters at some rallies, whom some want to defend as having a right to demonstrate, are in fact interfering with those who also have the right to demonstrate peacefully and express their freedom of speech. Such as what has happened in Chicago and Cal recently. If you try to keep people from entering a building to hear someone speak, you are violating their rights.

[Slant]

I should've clarified. It was a bit vague.

Wouldn't that interconnectness mean that they are similar?

Nope. As I pointed out, the similarity ends with people using them as arguments. "That's against human rights" and "That's not fair". And as I elaborated, at least human rights are more objective than fairness, which really is a rather ambiguous and subjective term depending on your personal experiences.

[Powerogue]

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.

Problems tend to crop up when people think it's their holy duty to prevent others living in peace and to hurt or harass them in any way possible.

I'm not saying religion is the cause, but it's certainly the cause that is the hardest to reason people out of.

[kail]

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

Human rights are something we deem acceptable as a society. Have ethics play it's role in deciding who has the right to do what. Ultimately, rights should be extended to the point until it conflicts with others. Beyond that it's whatever the people decide and the trend is moving at a more openly accepted direction.

- - - Updated - - -

Problems tend to crop up when people think it's their holy duty to prevent others living in peace and to hurt or harass them in any way possible.

I'm not saying religion is the cause, but it's certainly the cause that is the hardest to reason people out of.

It's a cause in some cases, an excuse in others. Sometimes both.

[breadisfunny]

I'm pointing out that you abandon your principles as soon as it can get costly. If it really was that important then you wouldn't abandon it when it gets csotly.

you seem to be taking a all or nothing approach to this.

[Hooked]

I don't believe we should be pushing our social values on other countries. We don't even agree about them here but we want to tell other countries how they should or shouldn't treat their people.

[Macaquerie]

Honestly, at this point "human rights" is nothing more than a cudgel we wield and use as a pretext to smack down any country that we don't like to advance our geopolitical interests because, after all, every country is violating somebody's rights somewhere. To some degree, I feel like the idealists who genuinely cared about human rights ran into a brick wall and lost patience, because at the end of the day, most people's rights aren't being crushed under heel by some brutal dictator, but rather by local traditions, biases, and backward attitudes, and these aren't something you can fix with sanctions or coups.

[Theodarzna]

Honestly, at this point "human rights" is nothing more than a cudgel we wield and use as a pretext to smack down any country that we don't like to advance our geopolitical interests because, after all, every country is violating somebody's rights somewhere. To some degree, I feel like the idealists who genuinely cared about human rights ran into a brick wall and lost patience, because at the end of the day, most people's rights aren't being crushed under heel by some brutal dictator, but rather by local traditions, biases, and backward attitudes, and these aren't something you can fix with sanctions or coups.

Perhaps but then you return to the tricky territory of "White Mans Burden," and the unflinching concept of manifest destiny.

[Macaquerie]

Perhaps but then you return to the tricky territory of "White Mans Burden," and the unflinching concept of manifest destiny.

The whole idea of the "white man's burden" didn't fail because its proponents were too idealistic and tried to help societies that were beyond fixing, it failed because these people didn't actually have the best interests of the native people in mind and just used civilization as propaganda to further their own commercial interests. In any event, we're beyond that point now because the imperalists poisoned the well for any future intervention of this nature. We had one chance to go in, build trust, and do some actual good for these people, and blew it. That historical bitterness and suspicion has proven to be a barrier that the Western world is finding nearly impossible to overcome in our modern efforts to do good for the poor huddled masses of the undeveloped world.

[Theodarzna]

The whole idea of the "white man's burden" didn't fail because its proponents were too idealistic and tried to help societies that were beyond fixing, it failed because these people didn't actually have the best interests of the native people in mind and just used civilization as propaganda to further their own commercial interests. In any event, we're beyond that point now because the imperalists poisoned the well for any future intervention of this nature. We had one chance to go in, build trust, and do some actual good for these people, and blew it. That historical bitterness and suspicion has proven to be a barrier that the Western world is finding nearly impossible to overcome in our modern efforts to do good for the poor huddled masses of the undeveloped world.

The key is that many of them BELIEVED they did. Most of the missionaries, reformers and a great many actually bought into a lot of these strategies they attempted. For example mandating protestant Christianity, relocating people to model European style villages ect, which for example wiped out the Tasmanian natives.

How can we be certain this not the same thing in repeat? Surely these development goals always provide profit to someone, conveniently somebody in North America or Europe.

[Deleted]

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

What they fail to realize is that the human rights aren't universally accepted by people,

That Americanism aside, let us look at the fundamentals, starting with water ! Human rights

[May90]

I absolutely adore this kind of threads. Even though I do not always agree with you, it is good that you look at things from your own perspective, not blindly accepting what society wants you to believe.

Here is why I think human rights are absolutely necessary. Guaranteed human rights is the only way to guarantee that the government serves people, rather than people serve the government. If human rights are not guaranteed, then the government can take down the opposition by unlawful means and effectively usurp power. This alone already makes a very strong case for human rights.
Next, I think human rights do make people happier. How can one be happy when at any moment they can be put down by someone for whatever reason? They are like cattle in a slaughter house: they can live for long, but the clock is ticking, and eventually someone will come after them. And even if not, what kind of life is this, knowing that tomorrow might never come? All other things equal, a person with guaranteed human rights is way happier.

Now, human rights are not the only factor. It would be naive to believe that in any country with a decent human rights situation life is better than in any country with restricted human rights. Human rights in Botswana are considered to be better guaranteed than in UAE, but I cannot imagine anyone who would prefer living in the former under regular circumstances. However, the pattern is there: countries with the worst quality of life on this planet tend to be strongly totalitarian, while countries with the best quality of life are democracies, discounting oil nations and the unique phenomenon of Singapore.

Now, do we need to interfere in the matters of sovereign states with poor human rights situations in order to try to fix them? This is a better question, and the answer to it depends on personal morals and governmental goals. I think we should fix what we can easily, nudge harder cases, and possibly avoid trying to fix the worst cases - they tend to backfire badly, as we can see from what is happening right now in the Middle East.

[Deleted]

you seem to be taking a all or nothing approach to this.

Well, if you abandon the principles as soon as it gets costly, how strongly did you believe in them in the first place?