Philosophy Now Forum

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118/Th ... man_Rights

I wonder why this discussion has been removed twice from "Articles in Philosophy Now"?

I don't believe that Philosophy Now mentioned the fact that the Holocaust during WW2 helped create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

spike wrote:I don't believe that Philosophy Now mentioned the fact that the Holocaust during WW2 helped create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3 Cheers for the holocaust

spike wrote:I wonder why this discussion has been removed twice from "Articles in Philosophy Now"?

Hi Spike,

A thread about the article appeared in that section because somebody clicked the "Discuss" link at the top of the article itself. This caused an automatic post in a new thread in the "Articles in Philosophy Now" section. However, when after 24 hours nobody had replied to that initial post to start a discussion, the thread automatically disappeared. That's the way it works in that section (unlike all other sections of the forum).

It's explained here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6810

spike wrote:I don't believe that Philosophy Now mentioned the fact that the Holocaust during WW2 helped create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We didn't say so in so many words, but there is a little about the history of the Declaration in the article about Sartre, and also I said at the end of my editorial:

"The most famous such agreement – and nearly all of the articles in our special section refer to it – is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its adoption by most of the world’s nations in 1946, in a period riven by paranoia and ideological conflict, is surely one of the most astonishing and impressive achievements in the entire history of world diplomacy. We have printed the text of that Declaration in full. It is very short, and everyone on this planet should read it. Know your Declaration rights!"

Possibly I should have explicitly drawn a link to the Holocaust, though given that the Declaration was in 1946 I thought most folk would make the connection anyway. Was I wrong? I might have been.

RickLewis wrote:

spike wrote:I don't believe that Philosophy Now mentioned the fact that the Holocaust during WW2 helped create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We didn't say so in so many words, but there is a little about the history of the Declaration in the article about Sartre, and also I said at the end of my editorial:

"The most famous such agreement – and nearly all of the articles in our special section refer to it – is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its adoption by most of the world’s nations in 1946, in a period riven by paranoia and ideological conflict, is surely one of the most astonishing and impressive achievements in the entire history of world diplomacy. We have printed the text of that Declaration in full. It is very short, and everyone on this planet should read it. Know your Declaration rights!"

Possibly I should have explicitly drawn a link to the Holocaust, though given that the Declaration was in 1946 I thought most folk would make the connection anyway. Was I wrong? I might have been.

Rick, thanks for your thoughts to me.

RickLewis wrote:

spike wrote:I don't believe that Philosophy Now mentioned the fact that the Holocaust during WW2 helped create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We didn't say so in so many words, but there is a little about the history of the Declaration in the article about Sartre, and also I said at the end of my editorial:

"The most famous such agreement – and nearly all of the articles in our special section refer to it – is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its adoption by most of the world’s nations in 1946, in a period riven by paranoia and ideological conflict, is surely one of the most astonishing and impressive achievements in the entire history of world diplomacy. We have printed the text of that Declaration in full. It is very short, and everyone on this planet should read it. Know your Declaration rights!"

Possibly I should have explicitly drawn a link to the Holocaust, though given that the Declaration was in 1946 I thought most folk would make the connection anyway. Was I wrong? I might have been.

Although the final drafting of the UDHR was contemporaneous with Nuremberg trails, and the knowledge of the Holocaust was becoming clear at that time, the fact of human rights thinking had already a long history going back 100s of years. So from a year zero perspective maybe that's all you need to think about, but all the concepts predate 1945 and the UDHR is just a formalisation.

It is really difficult to understand the Declaration of Human Rights. But Human Rights with the UN definitely changed the world. Human Rights have stopped worlds from complete wars as in the past. The battles that are fighting the Arab/Muslim world will it time add Human Rights there.

Hope you people make some sense. And will others try to make sense of this?

I believe that the growth of Human Rights has improved the world and humanity more than any other group. The Arab/Muslim world will slowly improve with its development of Human Rights.

Human Rights have advanced the world's development more than any other. Its coming next and finally to the Arab/Muslim world.

Syria will in the future fail because Human Rights will someday grow.

God, I wish I could make more sense about the importance of Human Rights and its importance of the years.

If human rights whose essence is based on treating humans as humans regardless of differences then a UN declaration of such codified into numbered articles will be almost ineffective as already confirmed in places where it's most required and merely resolves into a bureaucratic argument of abstractions.

Dubious wrote:If human rights whose essence is based on treating humans as humans regardless of differences then a UN declaration of such codified into numbered articles will be almost ineffective as already confirmed in places where it's most required and merely resolves into a bureaucratic argument of abstractions.

This doesn't make any sense.