Human rights

[Trissy]

What is the metaphysical nature of human rights? Do human rights exist and can we conclusively establish what human rights are through either a priori or a posteriori methods?

If we take the view of Rousseau and Kant then human beings have inherent value because they are rational but how does this give us human rights? How do we define rationality and is the argument merely playing on our hopes and gut feelings?

If we take the view of Hume then should we commit human rights to the flames because it appears to neither be founded on a priori reasoning or a posteriori experiences? Are human rights just an attempt to enforce an equality that never truly existed onto mankind? Is it just the herd instinct in man?

On another note when do we nullify certain human rights (if we have any that is)? For example someone's freedom for relgious beliefs may include them calling for the stoning of all homosexuals which would breach their human right to live. Another example would be someone using there right to free speach to encourage the mass execution of Jews. Where do we draw the line?

I know there are a lot of questions raised in this post but I have a lot of questions whizzing around my mind right now.

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that, if Marx was right, then "human rights" are an ideological construct that would differ from one epoch of class society to another.

For a feudal lord, the right to the labor of "his" serfs would be a "human right". For a capitalist, the right to engage in private enterprise and make a profit would be a "human right".

Is there such a thing as a "human right" that exists altogether outside the real world of human relationships?

We often act "as if" we had some such notion -- one of the first sentences that small children learn to speak is "that's not fair!"

What is the real origin of that sentiment?

Beats me!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

I agree with a lot of what you said. The field of human rights is a very difficult one especially because so many differernt people have so many different views about which human rights we all have.

I have two theories about where human rights come from. The first stems from the Nietzchean idea of the rise of slave ethics in the forms of religions such as Christianity and Buddhism. The idea that we are all equal comes from a desire for the weak to restrain the strong, and so we attempt to equate all of our actions and decide what people can and cannot do. As such it can be seen as a nihilistic urge.

The other idea I think is similar but comes from Thomas Hobbes. This is the idea of a unspoken social contract that exists between individuals. By having an unspoken contract we forsake our ability to do certain things in order to achieve a safer and longer life (so the human right to life can be seen as forsaking the ability to kill in order to not be killed yourself). As such this can be seen as the denial of the Will to Power.

[redstar2000]

Enough detail has survived of Athenian and Roman history that we're pretty sure the first "law codes" originated in class struggle -- or, in Nietzsche's phrase, "slave ethics". Although these pre-date Christianity, they were clearly efforts of the "weak" to restrain the caprice of the "strong".

In fact, I question Nietzsche's evaluation of Christianity. Whatever speculations might be made of how Christianity functioned before it came to "public attention", it seems pretty obvious to me that it served to enhance the power of the strong by the time of Constantine's conversion.

If the ruler is put into place "by God", then his will -- whatever it might be -- has the "force" of "God's will" behind it...at least as long as he adheres to the "true faith".

I think Nietzsche was polemicizing against the much weakened Christianity of the 19th century -- the "do-gooders", "reformers", "sickly milk-and-water" types. He didn't live long enough to see the "muscular Christians" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- the people that started the Boy Scout organizations, etc. Not to mention the Christian fascists of 1920-1945.

I can see Hobbesian "unspoken social contract" theory making a certain kind of sense in a tribal context. You must not injure or kill other members of your tribe because that weakens the tribe as a whole. You must regulate sexuality within the tribe because sexual disputes weaken the tribe as a whole. And so on.

But whether these are really the origins of the idea of "human rights" is something I simply don't know...and don't know if it's even possible to know.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

Enough detail has survived of Athenian and Roman history that we're pretty sure the first "law codes" originated in class struggle -- or, in Nietzsche's phrase, "slave ethics". Although these pre-date Christianity, they were clearly efforts of the "weak" to restrain the caprice of the "strong".

In fact, I question Nietzsche's evaluation of Christianity. Whatever speculations might be made of how Christianity functioned before it came to "public attention", it seems pretty obvious to me that it served to enhance the power of the strong by the time of Constantine's conversion.

Well I think Nietzsche would point to two key periods in the rise of slave ethics. The first would be the dominance of the Apollian ideal over the Dionysian ideal that followed Socrates and his emphasis on reason. This encouraged the masses to slowly engage in philosohy on a larger and larger scale which would ultimately lead to the shackling of the noble man by the herd. The early Greek Poleis may have had certain laws but they weren't strictly inforced and the masses had no say in them. Only male citizens (and therefore a select few if you discount foreigners, women, slaves and the young) participated in the running of the state.

The second key stage would be the birth of Christianity following the death of Christ. The growth of Christianity lead to an inversion of noble ethics into slave ethics and thus certain noble actions became sins. We can take many examples from the social norm of homosexuality in Greece to the paganism of the 'savages. These became the sins of sodomy and worshiping false idols respectively. Noble charatceristics such as pride became sins and ignoble ones such as modesty became the virtues of being humble.

I don't think Nietzsche was too far off when he labeled Christianity a nihilistic urge because even if we take into account herdsmen such as priests, the Pope and the early Christian emperors we still see people shackled by the herd (although they are cleverer then the herd because they recognise the state of slave ethics and are prepared to sacrafice certain freedoms for power). If we use the Hegelian tale of the slave and the master it is the master who becomes dependant on the slave, who inturn slowly moves towards limited freedom. In this sense power is diluted and the weak in the form of the Church and its leaders hold back the strong as well as each other.


‘97. To become moral is not in itself moral – Subjection to morality can be slavish or self-interested or resigned or gloomily enthusiastic or an act of despair, like subjection to a prince: in itself it is nothing moral’ - Daybreak


He didn't live long enough to see the "muscular Christians" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- the people that started the Boy Scout organizations, etc. Not to mention the Christian fascists of 1920-1945.

Indeed sadly he did not because it would have been interesting to see his take on the matter. However he was very accurate in his predictions for the future and so we can but hope that the death of God begins to dawn on the world and ceases to be just the spec on the horizon that it is at the moment.


‘Well, I do not like it, this Heaven of the superfluous! No, I do not like them, these animals caught in the heavenly net!’ - Thus Spoke Zarathustra

[equalizer]

I support Chinas politic: Main goal give the people food,before free speach

[Trissy]

I support Chinas politic: Main goal give the people food,before free speach

That would be to say the people had a right to food (possibley even a human right to food) but not a right to free speech (or a right to food and then maybe a right to speech). The question is why is one a right and the other one not? If they're both rights but one is more important then the other one then we must also ask ourselves 'why?'.

[redstar2000]

This encouraged the masses to slowly engage in philosophy on a larger and larger scale which would ultimately lead to the shackling of the noble man by the herd.

If "engaging in philosophy" is an attribute or characteristic of "nobility", then wouldn't it really be a case of "the noble man" being "shackled" by "less noble men" but still men and not "beasts of the (unthinking) herd"?


The early Greek Polis may have had certain laws but they weren't strictly enforced and the masses had no say in them.

Yes, that's true. Both in Greek city-states and in the Roman Republic, class struggle continued and the law codes were revised not directly by the masses but in response to the demands of the masses. We have no way of knowing but it's reasonable to suspect that enforcement varied widely -- as it does in our own era.

But I think my main point is valid: when there was no written law but only custom and tradition, the "strong" were essentially unrestrained in their rule over the "weak".

Only when a "weak" but literate guy could point to a written law and say to the strong "you can't do that!" did the "balance of power" begin to shift.


The growth of Christianity lead to an inversion of noble ethics into slave ethics and thus certain noble actions became sins.

Perhaps it would be more useful to speak of "Christianities" in the plural. By the time of Constantine's conversion, Christianity had absorbed a mass of cultural traditions which shaped its practice and at least influenced its doctrines.

Thus it could and did generate the "meek and humble" monk or priest, but also the "mighty warrior of Christ" and even the "righteous emperor by the grace of God".

Technically, the "noble man" might be guilty of sin for displaying his characteristics...but if the display occurred in the course of propagating or defending the "true faith", forgiveness was quickly forthcoming.

I wonder if Nietzsche ever had occasion to comment on the order of Teutonic Knights...the ones that met defeat in the battle of Novgorod. Surely these conquerors would have been "noble men of strength" in his eye, right?

In other words, I think I understand Nietzsche's philosophical critique of Christianity -- I just don't think it's historically accurate.


I don't think Nietzsche was too far off when he labeled Christianity a nihilistic urge...

Presumably because he was using a "personal" definition of "nihilism"...that which inhibits or "shackles" the noble man can only be relentlessly destructive of nobility itself.

I wonder if he ever considered the possibility that a "noble man" cannot really be "shackled" by the herd; if his will is blocked in one direction, he will divert it to a weaker target and conquer anyway.

I think that would be consistent with his over-all outlook but would generate very different conclusions.


However he was very accurate in his predictions for the future...

This is quite a surprising observation. What predictions did he make that you consider "very accurate"?


...we can but hope that the death of God begins to dawn on the world and ceases to be just the speck on the horizon that it is at the moment.

If Marx was right, the ruling class should become more religious and the working class less religious as capitalism ages.

I have to admit that the evidence is still rather ambiguous at this point. Call it a 50-50 shot that Marx was right.

Note: correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression from your posts that you find Nietzsche an "attractive" figure, philosophically speaking. If you're willing to go to the trouble, I think it would be interesting if you could start a thread with a post outlining those parts of Nietzsche that you find most credible and why.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Solace]

If a human has the right to do something, it basically means that a force is able to assure that nothing will prevent the said human to do that something. Consequently, that same force is able to « punish » those who restrain that right.

Makes sense?

Legal rights are dicted by the law, moral rights are dicted by morality. And I don’t know for human rights. That force cannot be universal, therefore not natural.

If it goes against the human rights, it simply means that it goes against any pragmatical justification. There is nothing inside us, not pre-established criteria unless we put it ourselves.

But I wonder if we really understand what is the human right concept. Even if we still use the expression, I think we somehow lost our comprehension of this “morality”.

Just an interesting thing: In Japanese “right” is translated as “kenri”. It is written with 2 characters. “Ken” meaning political power and “Ri” meaning profit.

[Trissy]

If "engaging in philosophy" is an attribute or characteristic of "nobility", then wouldn't it really be a case of "the noble man" being "shackled" by "less noble men" but still men and not "beasts of the (unthinking) herd"?
Engaging in philosophy is not necessarily a noble attribute. The noble man is the creator of his own values and hence philosophy can be seen as noble or ignoble by the noble man. What I meant by my comments is that a sellect few members of the herd engage in thinking whilst not engaging in noble ethics. They then as members of the herd move to a slightly exalted position of herdsmen and as such they control the movement, thoughts and actions of the herd. The herd (under control from the herdsmen) inverted noble ethics and restrained the noble men. The herdsmen hence do not classify as 'less noble' because they did not folllow traditional noble virtues such as pride, nor did they invent their own, they just inverted the noble values and replaced system of noble ethics with its antithesis (i.e. slave ethics). The philosophical leaders of the proliteriate in Marxism-Leninism are similar to the herdsmen in stature (but not method). Also please don't think by that last comment I am comparing Nietzsche's noble men with the bourgeois as they're not the same. My take on Nietzsche is that he is for meritocracy not aristocracy (as Bertrand Russell I think incorrectly sees him in his book 'The History of Western Philosophy').


Only when a "weak" but literate guy could point to a written law and say to the strong "you can't do that!" did the "balance of power" begin to shift
Indeed and Nietzscheans would say this began the rise of slave ethics sadly...


Perhaps it would be more useful to speak of "Christianities" in the plural. By the time of Constantine's conversion, Christianity had absorbed a mass of cultural traditions which shaped its practice and at least influenced its doctrines
Well I speak of Christianity only because I see it as a weakness and hence a problem in all its forms. The sign of its weakness is vissible in the fact that it felt the need to encorporate numerous different ideas, beliefs and theories (such as pagan and oriental thoughts as well as some ideas from Aristotle and Plato) into its teaching in order to gain control and to survive. The human being evolves in order to survive, and as such we can see the Church as a parasite that needs new hosts to feed off instead of evolving.


Thus it could and did generate the "meek and humble" monk or priest, but also the "mighty warrior of Christ" and even the "righteous emperor by the grace of God".

It's interesting that some may see Christ as a warrior. He can also been seen as a con man and a weak man for he felt the need to promise his disciples and his followers the world and more when it was not his to give. They too can be seen as weak for needing to believe and protect such a thing in order to secure purpose in their lives. As for the Christian Emperors, I see that as more of a tactical move then a religious or moral one. After all we saw Saddam Hussien embrace Islam in order to help secure his failing regime, why then cannot it be said of the Emperors? Was it not better for them to embrace the inevitable growing tide and survive in a stronger format then to be overthrown and replaced?


'67. Price of believers - He who sets such a store on being believed in that he offers Heaven in exchange for this belief, and offers it to everyone, even the thief on the cross - must have suffered from fearful self-doubt and come to know every kind of crucifixion: otherwise he would not have purchased his believers at such a high price' - Daybreak


Technically, the "noble man" might be guilty of sin for displaying his characteristics...but if the display occurred in the course of propagating or defending the "true faith", forgiveness was quickly forthcoming

The noble man is never guilty of sin as such, he may merely possess some ignoble qualities. Good and evil are terms used by slave ethics. Forgiveness may indeed be forthcoming, but the weakness itself lies in the feeling the need to be forgiven...


I wonder if Nietzsche ever had occasion to comment on the order of Teutonic Knights...the ones that met defeat in the battle of Novgorod. Surely these conquerors would have been "noble men of strength" in his eye, right?

I'm not familiar with the Teutonic knights and so I cannot comment. I've never read of them in his work but that's not saying much as I still have the vast majority of his works to read. I prefer his aporistic books as I find I don't yet have the mind or the concentration to read page after page of philosophy. I like to keep my thinking short and sweet (although hopefully not shallow and superficial).


Presumably because he was using a "personal" definition of "nihilism"...that which inhibits or "shackles" the noble man can only be relentlessly destructive of nobility itself.

His definition of nihilism I believe to be one of the usual definitions (and I shall quote from an online dictionary) >>> "A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated". Why does he hold Christianity to be nihilistic? Well I think he does so for the following reasons. Christianity is a religion of equality, especially equality before the Lord. Equality as such means that we are all the same, and if we are all the same then we have no need for value statements. I am not stronger then my friend, nor is he a wiser man then me. We are the same. If this applies to the whole world and is followed through to its logical conclusion then the world no longer has need for values at all, and if everything is reduced to being the same then all we have boils down to nothing and hence nihilism. His point is that we need values to exist, and we need to acknowledge that we are not all the same therefore not all equal if anything is to ever come of this life. It is mere folly for people to think of themselves as equal. We are all different shapes and sizes, and we all have our own skills and weaknesses.


I wonder if he ever considered the possibility that a "noble man" cannot really be "shackled" by the herd; if his will is blocked in one direction, he will divert it to a weaker target and conquer anyway

I see the Will to Power as an existential battle for control over our own lives, more then a conquering of people weaker then ourselves. His point I think is that society, its religions and its laws hold back the strong by indoctrinating them with the belief in absolute values of right and wrong from slave ethics, and also by teaching them equality. Society as such fills us with the belief that we all have our place in society and as such we should stick to it. If we return to my view that Nietzsche was for a meritocratic society rather then people accepting their places in life needs to be addressed, and as such his desire to see the end of aristocracyis similar to Marx (although they both had different goals obviously).


This is quite a surprising observation. What predictions did he make that you consider "very accurate"?

Well I've mentioned before his idea of the death of God and this can perhaps be seen as his most accurate description. The world is in some ways a lot less conservative, pious and stuffy then when he was alive and in this we begin to consider that the noise in the distance is the funeral hearse contain the corpse of God getting ever closer. People now no longer die for their beliefs, they tend to kill for them. If their death happens to be involved in that then it matters not to them. The end of the rule of God's may not be as nigh as I would like it to be but I am confident that it creeps ever closer with each passing day.

He was also quite spookily accurate in predicting what could become of him. In his unconventional autobiography he seems to acknowledge that one day he may be linked to terrible things and that his name may be evoked by criminals (ergo his views being distorted for use by the Nazi party).


'I know my fate. One day there will be associated with my name the recollection of something frightful - of a crisis like no other before on earth, of the profoundest collision of conscience, of a decision evoked against everything that until then has been believed in, demanded, sanctified. I am not a man, I am dynamite' - Ecce Homo

'I have a terrible fear that I will one day be pronounced holy: one will guess why I bring out this book beforehand; it intended to prevent people making mischief with me...I do not want to be a saint, rather even a buffoon' - Ecce Homo

I'm sure their are other relevant predictions but I cannot think of them off of the top of my head. You'll have to let me get back to you on that.


Note: correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression from your posts that you find Nietzsche an "attractive" figure, philosophically speaking. If you're willing to go to the trouble, I think it would be interesting if you could start a thread with a post outlining those parts of Nietzsche that you find most credible and why

You could say that :lol: From the length of this reply it seems to almost guarantee your astute observation. I will start a thread latter once I have flicked through my library of Nietzsche books for some suitable quotes to emphasise my points. I've got a lecture in an hour or two and so I don't have the time at the moment but I shall look into it I promise.

[Wenty]

tristan, save your essays for uni, cor blimey those posts are long.

One point


The other idea I think is similar but comes from Thomas Hobbes. This is the idea of a unspoken social contract that exists between individuals

Isn't this more like locke's tacit consent idea? My understanding of Hobbes and the state is that at one point there was a war of all against all and then the people decided to give power to a soverign ruler, basically his justifcation for the divine right of kings etc.

bit off topic sorry.

[Trissy]

tristan, save your essays for uni, cor blimey those posts are long

Just answering various points raised by various people Adam. Sorry if it displeases you but I actually like to try and answer people's points and not just dismiss them.


Isn't this more like locke's tacit consent idea? My understanding of Hobbes and the state is that at one point there was a war of all against all and then the people decided to give power to a soverign ruler, basically his justifcation for the divine right of kings

Hobbes' notion of the social contract was mentioned before Locke's tacit consent idea and you're right it is how Hobbes justified the existence of the monarchy. Basically before societies man lived naturally and this life was basically surivival of the fitest. Human lives were short, tough and terrible. Socities were founded on a social contract where each person forfits some of their freedom in return for certain rights and this leads to a longer and better life. A monarchy is needed because the monarch will embody the will of all the people, and therefore be able to enforce the contract when people disagree (and hence the monarch plays a role in politics and in law). Unlike Rousseau the contract is unchangeable and any attempt to alter it would end up with society falling into chaos. As the French revolution proved he was partly right (revolutions tend to be a tad bloody and easily hijacked) and yet also partly wrong (constitutions can be changed sometimes).

*Note added 7.10pm 19th February 2004*
I have just been reading through the Universal Declaraion of Universal Rights and I came across the following intersting article.


Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


Now this appears to men to give gay people the human right to both marriage and adoption (given the necessary checks of course). As a gay person I don't pariticularly want to marry or have kids but I thought it was an interesting point to raise on the issue of human rights as I have seen this discussion elsewhere. The full document can be found on the following link.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)