Universal human rights, A.K.A. garbage

[DavidGYoung]

Universal human rights are nonsense on stilts.

Change my mind.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Universal human rights are nonsense on stilts.

Change my mind.

Well, why do you think it is nonsense, and why do you want to change your mind?

[DavidGYoung]

If the law says you can do it or does not forbid you from doing it, then you have a right to do it.

That is all a right amounts to.

They are not universal because we have different countries with different laws.

The thinking behind universal human rights is as follows:

"I want it.
Because I want it, I need it.
Because I need it, I have a right to it.
A mob agrees with me, ergo it is one of my universal human rights."

Garbage.

[RabbiKnife]

Human rights are those to which every human is endowed by God.

The only one I can think of is free will.

All other actions are either exercise if that freedom or that freedom being restrained by others.

[Oscar_Kipling]

If the law says you can do it or does not forbid you from doing it, then you have a right to do it.

That is all a right amounts to.

They are not universal because we have different countries with different laws.

The thinking behind universal human rights is as follows:

"I want it.
Because I want it, I need it.
Because I need it, I have a right to it.
A mob agrees with me, ergo it is one of my universal human rights."

Garbage.

Okay, why do you want to change your mind on this position?

[DavidGYoung]

I understand 'change my mind' is a current catchphrase that means 'I'm interested in hearing a valid counter argument'.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I understand 'change my mind' is a current catchphrase that means 'I'm interested in hearing a valid counter argument'.

Yeah okay, fun. well, the truth is that I don't really disagree with your description of human rights in the sense that they certainly aren't so infused within the atoms of the universe or anything, i feel the same way about morality or any number of human concepts meant to describe things that are probably absolutely meaningless outside of the context of humans and how we are. I also agree that these rights stem from desires, mostly that deep drive within most of us to have things not suck so much for ourselves. I see it quite a bit, the idea that if something isn't baked into the universe by a God or some scrutable biological imperative, then it is less real, or in your vernacular, garbage. I think the main thing wrong with your quote is that it really kind of fails to emphasize the "everyone should" or the universal aspect of universal human rights. I guess in the cynical view you can say that they are only asserted as universal so that the supporters get what they want and the fact that other people may benefit is sort of beside the point. That is probably true of enough people touting this or that right that you aren't completely wrong. I mean heck my country was founded by a bunch of enlightened jokers who wrote in the founding document that all men are created equal, but also owned slaves....and don't even let me get started with enlightenment europe's hypocrisy and cynicism.

Anyway, I am fool enough to believe that people can and do think about human society and human thriving and come up with very enlightened universal ideas about what we should and should not do in order to eliminate the negative and accentuate the positive. I mean unless you are of the opinion it is impossible to look at a society and determine that some things are working better than others in order to achieve the outcomes that this society/culture espouses as goals. Likewise I do not think it is impossible to note the goals of a culture or society that work against each other or are likely to cause conflict with other groups of humans. It you take these  things to be genuine possibilities then I do not think that it is impossible to say that there are some resources that are universal in that they work so well with the facts of what humans are that impeding access to them will in all likelihood lead to undesirable outcomes for humans. Removing all access to clean water to the city of vancouver somehow, would cause problems, removing it from only neighborhoods with zoning codes ending in 3 would also likely cause problems. At every scale we can say cutting off access to fresh water is bad. Not just in the sense that humans eventually die without it, but they will fight over it, kill, steal or torture for it. You cannot predict the details of how the desperate acts of thirsty people will play out, but of the things that you can reasonably predict, it will be predictably undesirable for many. Does this mean that fresh water is a basic human right, or universal, I mean I find it expedient to say yes. I think what I really mean is that we probably have the means to provide fresh water to the vast majority of humans so that would be a worthwhile project to put our resources into collectively.

I guess all that to say that, I know where basic human right's heart is and I don't disagree with the sentiment.  I agree with the pursuit of finding better ways to live and to live with each other. I agree with learning from the past and applying those lessons to future human endeavors. I agree with the idea that there is true stuff that can be applied to humans as a whole even if we are all unique and beautiful butterflies. So yeah, it's an imperfect abstraction layer for much more wonky ideas that are true enough in one sense and couldn't possibly be true in another.

[DavidGYoung]

Would this be an accurate description of your view on clean drinking water?

It would be a good thing to create laws which guarantee people have access to clean drinking water.

If that is a misrepresentation, how should I correct it?

[Oscar_Kipling]

Would this be an accurate description of your view on clean drinking water?

It would be a good thing to create laws which guarantee people have access to clean drinking water.

If that is a misrepresentation, how should I correct it?

Haha, I think I just put it is as we probably have the means to provide fresh water to the vast majority of humans so that would be a worthwhile project to put our resources into collectively. Laws that protect the world's drinking water from various types of pollution and things like corporate monopolization and such make a lot of sense to me yes. Laws are applicable where law is a good way to approach a problem, but this problem is not tractable through laws alone, planning, building and even changing behaviors and ideas are other components that cannot or maybe should not necessarily be addressed by lawmaking. Slavery in the american south was outlawed a very long time ago, but that didn't really solve the problem. people did not want to live in a new paradigm where former slaves were now just regular old fellow citizens and the law was varying degrees of effective and counterproductive in this regard. I know that many people do not like to believe that we are still dealing with the legal and non-legal ramifications of slavery centuries later, but i think we are. The tremendous progress that was made cannot be credited to law alone and sometimes not to law at all, it took changing behaviors, views, ideologies...it took human growth.  The basic right that we are all "created" equal is an ongoing project, it is not true, it is something that we are, at least some of us, trying to bring into reality. Yeah through law, but also through discourse and our own behaviors and through what we pass along to those coming up behind us.

Not for nothing, I feel like you want to boil this down to the ugly authoritarian aspect that is intrinsic to the thread within universal human rights that is "we should all do such and such". It's not like I don't agree that there is the obvious tension there, I mean if everybody should be doing this thing then forcing everyone to do this thing is what is best for everyone. Of course we've seen this repeat itself throughout history, lopping off heads and running pikes and bayonets through people in the name of righteous ideals. Perhaps even more insidiously we've seen whole systems of laws implemented that are ostensibly meant to protect rights end up having the exact opposite effect. I tend to think that this is not because people were so arrogant as to ponder what might be best for humanity, but instead may be the result of having a narrow view of how to get humanity to move, blood of the patriots and all that. I think there is also the impatient spirit that comes with seeing what should be happening, but realizing how long the project would take without cracking heads and enforcing behaviors through force or at least force of law. I don't think there are many people today that believe that women have the right to vote would suddenly change their minds if the 19th amendment was repealed. The ideas have changed, the culture has changed the amendment was a reflection of that, but the right was enshrined in the minds of the following generations as truly basic. haha, i'm rambling now...anyway yeah water law, I think there should be some but laws aren't going to get us to clean fresh water for most of humanity, people have to believe that it is worth doing.

[DavidGYoung]

My interpretation of the idea of universal human rights is not "We should all do this." It is "Someone must provide this for me."

This has severe implications if "Someone must provide me with clean drinking water" is an absolute.

It costs money to build the infrastructure to purify and supply water. Where does the money come from? What happens if the money runs out? What happens if the population exceeds the ability for the infrastructure to obtain water in sufficient quantities, no matter what you do to the infrastructure?

[RabbiKnife]

A right is a freedom one exercises, nit something given to another or demanded from another

[DavidGYoung]

Here is an extract from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the United Nations:

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit."

That is definitely something given to another and demanded from another.

[Oscar_Kipling]

My interpretation of the idea of universal human rights is not "We should all do this." It is "Someone must provide this for me."

This has severe implications if "Someone must provide me with clean drinking water" is an absolute.

It costs money to build the infrastructure to purify and supply water. Where does the money come from? What happens if the money runs out? What happens if the population exceeds the ability for the infrastructure to obtain water in sufficient quantities, no matter what you do to the infrastructure?

I guess. Sure again, there are almost certainly people that look at basic rights as something that someone else should provide for them as opposed to something that they also work to build toward. I have a tough time buying into your position that this is the only mentality that exists, because as quiet as it's kept, some folks are actually willing to work and even pay to benefit people beyond themselves and their immediate circles. I go so far as to say that under the right circumstances you would be willing to work and or pay in order to benefit people that you will never meet or be thanked by or who might not even be born yet.

What could possibly be absolute about it, I mean I feel like we both agree that we are actually just talking about what is within human capacity to do or more realistically strive toward so there is no real danger that we will create an absolute incontrovertible universal law that prioritizes fresh water over everything. What you are really talking about is the fear that we'll try and then suffer for our efforts and end up actually worse of than when we started. Yeah that could totally happen, but like it could be the case that we do nothing at all and we suffer the consequences of our inaction. Is it better to be paralyzed by the fear of unforeseen consequences of working toward a goal that we can reasonably expect to provide desirable outcomes for humans than to actually you know, figure out a way forward and then act on it?

Money, what even is that really? It doesn't actually cost money to do anything, it costs resources, time energy and effort. money is how we abstract the value of these things so that I don't have to directly trade my IT work for eggs or whatever. I feel like the question you are asking is , where do the resources , time, energy and effort come from, do we have enough excess of those things to engage with this project in a way that will not be overall detrimental. If we build a supercritical water treatment plant in zimbabwe, does that mean that your grandkids won't get quite as good an education or worse? Do we run the risk of running out of the stuff that gets stuff done? I mean honestly, I don't actually know, but if it can't be done then we can rest assured that it won't be done. The answer is that if we fail, we fail. I don't like failing any more than anyone else, but I do like that I keep trying stuff and I do keep learning from my failures. I think we can generalize this out to humanity too, if we failed at new world water, we tried, and we learned a whole bunch. I guess if the failure was spectacular enough we may drive ourselves to extinction for our efforts, but i'm of the mind that we are probably doing that anyway and all for the lofty ambition of accumulating money.

At the end of the day I don't think it's so much about the details of what can or cannot be accomplished, because even if you think yourself reasonable, rational and pragmatic, the fact is that you don't have any idea what people are actually capable of accomplishing, moreover luck or chance is an under credited aspect of all human endeavors and everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face and all that. Is the the idea of expending the stuff that gets stuff done on working toward ideas that put a floor on human suffering too dangerous, unprofitable and unwieldy to even seriously consider? Is the danger that your charity and selflessness will be taken advantage of by those who have no interest in climbing up the rope while you pull and instead just kinda wait for you to finish pulling them up so great that you needn't bother even thinking about making a rope? I think it's probably, trust, and faith in humanity that might separate us most, and maybe also that at least in principle the fact that I might be let down by my fellow man isn't reason enough to not try to do what I think is right...err you know, think what I think is right.

of course, maybe you don't think fresh clean water for all is right in the first place, well, that is your cross to bear my friend.

[RabbiKnife]

Here is an extract from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the United Nations:

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit."

That is definitely something given to another and demanded from another.

Which is one reason education is not a right.

[DavidGYoung]

It is contained in a document called 'The Universal Declaration of Human Rights', therefore it is an example of what is called 'universal human rights'.

Incidentally, bringing God into the argument is irrelevant as the declaration makes no reference to such an entity.