Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:12 pm My honest question is do atheists get to have God given rights, and if they do, how does that work?
A fair question, and perhaps a natural one: does an Atheist have to know he has rights, in order for him to have the rights?

Certainly, if the Atheist does not even believe he has rights, he's not likely to claim them. And maybe he won't even accord them to others...though I think that's questionable, because I've met plenty of Atheists who do claim rights, and who think others deserve human rights...though I find that they can never provide a reasonable explanation as to why they think that...Their belief ought to rule against it. Thank God, it doesn't always.

In any case, yes, they have all the basic human rights, just like everybody else. Every human being has those rights, whether they claim them or not, and whether they know them or not. That's because the rights are intrinsic, not merely dependent on what they think.

Take, for example, what happened with the abolition of slavery. A lot of the theological rationale for elimination of slavery was to the effect that black people are equally created by God, equally endowed with the dignity as bearers of His image, and equally deserving of freedom as anybody else. Likewise, the rationale for women's rights. And nobody had to ask, "Yeah, but do all slaves believe in rights?" or "Do all women believe in God or rights, or are some of them Atheists?" Because belief has nothing to do with whether or not one deserves the rights; it only changes whether or not the same person has a rationale for why they ought to have those rights.

So a Theist is a creature made for relationship with God. An Atheist is a creature made for relationship with God. The former knows it, and the latter may not. But their ontological status, that is, what they really are, doesn't change: both are human beings, created by God, loved by God, and with whom God desires relationship. As such, they all have rights...equally, regardless of their knowledge.

Fair enough?
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by commonsense »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:58 pm
commonsense wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:12 pm My honest question is do atheists get to have God given rights, and if they do, how does that work?
A fair question, and perhaps a natural one: does an Atheist have to know he has rights, in order for him to have the rights?

Certainly, if the Atheist does not even believe he has rights, he's not likely to claim them. And maybe he won't even accord them to others...though I think that's questionable, because I've met plenty of Atheists who do claim rights, and who think others deserve human rights...though I find that they can never provide a reasonable explanation as to why they think that...Their belief ought to rule against it. Thank God, it doesn't always.

In any case, yes, they have all the basic human rights, just like everybody else. Every human being has those rights, whether they claim them or not, and whether they know them or not. That's because the rights are intrinsic, not merely dependent on what they think.

Take, for example, what happened with the abolition of slavery. A lot of the theological rationale for elimination of slavery was to the effect that black people are equally created by God, equally endowed with the dignity as bearers of His image, and equally deserving of freedom as anybody else. Likewise, the rationale for women's rights. And nobody had to ask, "Yeah, but do all slaves believe in rights?" or "Do all women believe in God or rights, or are some of them Atheists?" Because belief has nothing to do with whether or not one deserves the rights; it only changes whether or not the same person has a rationale for why they ought to have those rights.

So a Theist is a creature made for relationship with God. An Atheist is a creature made for relationship with God. The former knows it, and the latter may not. But their ontological status, that is, what they really are, doesn't change: both are human beings, created by God, loved by God, and with whom God desires relationship. As such, they all have rights...equally, regardless of their knowledge.

Fair enough?
That makes good sense—thank you.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:46 pm
Age wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:41 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm
If everything in the univers is natural, then the word is utterly meaningless.
WHY do 'you' PRESUME and SAY this?

What would you like to put forward as being NOT NATURAL?

Oh, and by the way, a LOT of what 'you', adult human beings, have said throughout human history IS MEANINGLESS.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:18 pm
Distinctions as to what is and what is not called natural is usually cultural.
So, in other words, you will NOT elaborate on YOUR CLAIM that, "Rights are not natural", correct?
I just did you fucking moron.
You wrote and claimed;
"RIghts are not natural".

And now YOUR WAY of elaborating on this CLAIM was to just then say;
"Distinctions as to what is and what is not called natural is usually cultural."

Who cares? This is NOT an elaboration on the CLAIM 'you' MADE.

Look, you are under the BELIEF that there are some things, in the Universe, which are NOT natural.

So, in which culture are 'rights', supposedly, "not natural". You did, after all, make the CLAIM that, "rights are NOT natural".

Also, in "my" culture there is NOTHING, which is "not natural".

In "your" culture what do you now claim are 'things', which are "not natural"?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:09 pm
Age wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:10 am
uwot wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:28 pm And in the christian story, "Jesus is lovely" got us to exactly the same place.
At least there is MORE Truth in the "christian" story, then there is in the "scientific" story that the Universe began, and is expanding.
Well, that's the thing with stories; any number of them can explain exactly the same facts.
VERY, VERY True.

But considering thee FACT that thee 'Universe' IS NOT and CAN NOT expand, then ANY story that implies or infers that thee Universe is expanding is OBVIOUSLY just False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

The SAME applies to ANY story that implies or infers that thee Universe began. Considering thee FACT that thee Universe DID NOT and COULD NOT have begun., then ANY story that implies or infers that It did begin is just False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
uwot wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:09 pm
Age wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:10 amThe ACTUAL 'evidence' PROVES that the Universe could NOT begin and could NOT expand, which is IRREFUTABLE PROOF, by the wa. But, because of the pre-existing BELIEFS existing within some, so called, "scientists", they are NOT able to SEE and RECOGNIZE this Truth.

But, soon enough, this will become COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
You've been saying as much since Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:17 am, when you joined. Still not seeing any actual evidence.
This is because I am still waiting for those who are CURIOUS ENOUGH to ask me CLARIFYING QUESTIONS about this, or for those who Truly WANT to CHALLENGE me on this.

'I' am NOT here to tell 'you', people, what is Right and Wrong in Life. That is just TO EASY. I am here looking for those who truly want to discover and learn what is actually Right and Wrong in Life, by "themselves". I can and will just show how 'you' can do this "yourself".

This heuristic approach only works for those who have a True DESIRE to learn and discover.

And, in this process those who are Truly OPEN will be TEACHING me how to communicate better, with 'you', human beings.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:35 am 'I' am NOT here to tell 'you', people, what is Right and Wrong in Life. That is just TO EASY. I am here looking for those who truly want to discover and learn what is actually Right and Wrong in Life, by "themselves". I can and will just show how 'you' can do this "yourself".

This heuristic approach only works for those who have a True DESIRE to learn and discover.

And, in this process those who are Truly OPEN will be TEACHING me how to communicate better, with 'you', human beings.
Age, I asked you an honest and open question in this thread about your view of a human right to not be abused. You haven't answered it so far. If you want honest and open discussion, I suggest starting there.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Sculptor »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:29 pm What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?

For example, can we all agree that anyone accused of a crime should receive a fair trial?
Can of worms number one.
Indeed, however... What is and what is not a crime is no always easy to agree upon, and anything defined as a unfair crime, could never receive a fair trial if the crime is not a fair one.
Escaped slaves comes to mind. What about when homosexuality was a crime? Since you are making the person themselves illegal, no homosexual could get a fair trial.
Now for well considered crimes - what would "fair" look like?

If not, what would be some problems with the above right whereby it should not be a basic human right?
Not sure what you mean by "basic".

What other rights can we pretty much all agree to?

What about a right that, no one should be denied a fair means of providing basic necessities for themselves or their dependent loved ones, in order to live. Or perhaps a right to fair compensation for one's labor?
What happens when there is no work? How far is a person allowed to go to make that happen? And here is a general problem with the concept of rights: it is easy to state what a right is, but meaningless unless someone is empowered to make sure that right is carried through to people who need the help to make the right work.
Take the Universal Declaration of HRs. A wonderful thing to have, but just about every item on the list is commonly flouted. This is due to action and inaction.
As for fair compensation for Labour. I'm all for it. But who is going to put their hands in their pockets to make that happen?

What rights do you think can be made basic to everyone?
It is perfectly within the capacity of the world economy to easily enact and enforce all rights listed in the UN's UDHR. But there seems precious little efforts to make that dream a reality.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:19 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:46 pm
Age wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:41 am

WHY do 'you' PRESUME and SAY this?

What would you like to put forward as being NOT NATURAL?

Oh, and by the way, a LOT of what 'you', adult human beings, have said throughout human history IS MEANINGLESS.



So, in other words, you will NOT elaborate on YOUR CLAIM that, "Rights are not natural", correct?
I just did you fucking moron.
You wrote and claimed;
"RIghts are not natural".

And now YOUR WAY of elaborating on this CLAIM was to just then say;
"Distinctions as to what is and what is not called natural is usually cultural."
exactly!!!
You are too dull witted to waste words on.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:35 am
uwot wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:09 pmWell, that's the thing with stories; any number of them can explain exactly the same facts.
VERY, VERY True.

But considering thee FACT that thee 'Universe' IS NOT and CAN NOT expand, then ANY story that implies or infers that thee Universe is expanding is OBVIOUSLY just False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
If it is very, very true that any story can explain a given set of facts, why must every story about an expanding universe be wrong?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:57 am
Age wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:35 am 'I' am NOT here to tell 'you', people, what is Right and Wrong in Life. That is just TO EASY. I am here looking for those who truly want to discover and learn what is actually Right and Wrong in Life, by "themselves". I can and will just show how 'you' can do this "yourself".

This heuristic approach only works for those who have a True DESIRE to learn and discover.

And, in this process those who are Truly OPEN will be TEACHING me how to communicate better, with 'you', human beings.
Age, I asked you an honest and open question in this thread about your view of a human right to not be abused. You haven't answered it so far. If you want honest and open discussion, I suggest starting there.
Lol Are you really that IMPATIENT that you could not even WAIT until I get to that post of yours where you asked my that question?

I will answer it when I get to it, okay?

Also, what is a 'honest' question?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:13 am Also, what is a 'honest' question?
A question asked politely and considerately in order to understand something better.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:13 am Lol Are you really that IMPATIENT that you could not even WAIT until I get to that post of yours where you asked my that question?
Sure. Take your time, then. But for someone who professes to be "looking for those who truly want to discover and learn what is actually Right and Wrong in Life, by themselves." you seem to be wasting a lot of energy posting in response to people who are expressing a lot of skepticism toward your position and seem more interested in them than in someone who was politely asking for clarification.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Here's the question again for your convenience.
Gary Childress wrote:
Age wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:23 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:52 pm Innocent till proven guilty, yeah, another obvious notion that it seems everyone would agree with.

But, nowadays, we don't.

So, yeah, I laugh at the question...

What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?

...cuz we can't.
Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?
When you say that there should be a basic human right to not be abused, what is an example of "abuse" that you would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused? For example, if someone responds to something you say with mockery or derision, do you consider that "abuse" and therefore conduct that defies a basic human right not to be abused? Or are you referring to physical abuse such as being beaten or tortured? Or maybe if you give an example or two of the kind of "abuse" you are referring to (which is against a basic human right not to be abused), then we could maybe better understand what you mean by a human right not to be abused.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:23 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:52 pm Innocent till proven guilty, yeah, another obvious notion that it seems everyone would agree with.

But, nowadays, we don't.

So, yeah, I laugh at the question...

What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?

...cuz we can't.
Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?
When you say that there should be a basic human right to not be abused,
I do not recall saying this.

Did I say, 'There 'should be' a basic human right to not be abused'?

If yes, then where?

But if no, then does that make what the rest, of what you said here, moot?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmwhat is an example of "abuse" that you would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused?
An example of 'abuse' that I would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused is ANY 'misuse' of a human being.

But in order to KNOW what is the 'misuse' of a human being, one would have to, first, learn and KNOW what the 'purpose' is of, and for, the 'human being'.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm For example, if someone responds to something you say with mockery or derision, do you consider that "abuse" and therefore conduct that defies a basic human right not to be abused?
Not at all.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmOr are you referring to physical abuse such as being beaten or tortured? Or maybe if you give an example or two of the kind of "abuse" you are referring to (which is against a basic human right not to be abused),
ANY physical, emotional, sexual, or mental 'abuse' will suffice. Or, ANY other 'abuse' one can think of.

What does the word 'abuse' mean to 'you'?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmthen we could maybe better understand what you mean by a human right not to be abused.
Do you agree, or do you disagree, with:

Do not abuse each other?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:23 am

Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?
When you say that there should be a basic human right to not be abused,
I do not recall saying this.

Did I say, 'There 'should be' a basic human right to not be abused'?

If yes, then where?

But if no, then does that make what the rest, of what you said here, moot?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmwhat is an example of "abuse" that you would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused?
An example of 'abuse' that I would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused is ANY 'misuse' of a human being.

But in order to KNOW what is the 'misuse' of a human being, one would have to, first, learn and KNOW what the 'purpose' is of, and for, the 'human being'.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm For example, if someone responds to something you say with mockery or derision, do you consider that "abuse" and therefore conduct that defies a basic human right not to be abused?
Not at all.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmOr are you referring to physical abuse such as being beaten or tortured? Or maybe if you give an example or two of the kind of "abuse" you are referring to (which is against a basic human right not to be abused),
ANY physical, emotional, sexual, or mental 'abuse' will suffice. Or, ANY other 'abuse' one can think of.

What does the word 'abuse' mean to 'you'?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmthen we could maybe better understand what you mean by a human right not to be abused.
Do you agree, or do you disagree, with:

Do not abuse each other?
Age, the way you word things sometimes tends to be misleading. When I look at your response to Henry above you say "Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused." it sounds as though you believe there already is or ought to be such a human right. If not, then you should use the word "a" as in "Do you disagree with a basic human right to not be abused?"
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:23 am

Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?
When you say that there should be a basic human right to not be abused,
I do not recall saying this.

Did I say, 'There 'should be' a basic human right to not be abused'?

If yes, then where?

But if no, then does that make what the rest, of what you said here, moot?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmwhat is an example of "abuse" that you would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused?
An example of 'abuse' that I would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused is ANY 'misuse' of a human being.

But in order to KNOW what is the 'misuse' of a human being, one would have to, first, learn and KNOW what the 'purpose' is of, and for, the 'human being'.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm For example, if someone responds to something you say with mockery or derision, do you consider that "abuse" and therefore conduct that defies a basic human right not to be abused?
Not at all.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmOr are you referring to physical abuse such as being beaten or tortured? Or maybe if you give an example or two of the kind of "abuse" you are referring to (which is against a basic human right not to be abused),
ANY physical, emotional, sexual, or mental 'abuse' will suffice. Or, ANY other 'abuse' one can think of.

What does the word 'abuse' mean to 'you'?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmthen we could maybe better understand what you mean by a human right not to be abused.
Do you agree, or do you disagree, with:

Do not abuse each other?
I agree that people should not be beaten or tortured. As far as "ANY" emotional abuse, that's a difficult thing to gauge. We all can suffer emotionally from things others say to us. There tends to be a natural inclination for humans to shape each other according to how each believes others ought to be. And that shaping sometimes takes the form of behavior that can be emotionally hurtful to various degrees. Also competitiveness can breed emotional hurt for those that lose at something. The idea of "micro-aggressions" comes to mind. I've seen the term used and abused when dealing with others. I don't think there can be a right against "micro-aggressions." If there were, we'd all be guilty of it just about all the time.
Post Reply