The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an anarchist commentary on

[apathy maybe]

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is available from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html )

Anyway, I just wasted a lot of time point by point critiquing the, so called, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). I then went and did something, which resulted in my word processor crashing, taking out everything that I had done, as well as all other open documents. (And because I am not used to such crashes any more, I have gotten out of the habit of reflexively saving every five minutes I had when I used MS Windows.)

So, from the point of view of an anarchist without adjectives, here is a quick and dirty summary of problems with the UDHR. It isn't a complete list of course, and not all the articles are problematic. And some could be interpreted more then one way (some problematic, some not so).

There are a number of reoccurring key themes in this document that cause problems. One is the reference to laws, 'tribunals', states, nations and similar. Another, is the persistent non-gender neutral terminology (his, him etc.), and an assumption that man is the "breadwinner" and that he looks after his "family" (which is recognised as being "the natural and fundamental group unit of society"). There are a number of "liberal" (in the classical sense of the word, not in the bastardised sense so often used by "leftists") rights as well, including a right to property and religion.

So yes, there are a number of problems with this document from an anarchist perspective. I would suggest that as leftists we could use this as a starting point to develop our own "rights document", but that to use this one is a bad idea.

Anyway, meh.

[BobKKKindle$]

I've never encountered a clear explanation of what a "right" actually is. On what grounds can we claim the existence, and universal applicability, of a "right" to free speech? Rights seem to be metaphysical constructs which don;t have any basis in material reality.

[apathy maybe]

Of course they don't have any basis in "material reality". Just like all abstract concepts, they are products of a mind.

The existence is claimed, for the benefit that it brings. The universal applicability is given for at least the idea of fairness.

[Luís Henrique]

Of course they don't have any basis in "material reality". Just like all abstract concepts, they are products of a mind.

So the products of mind have no basis in material reality? I thought they were the result of interactions between particles?

Luís Henrique

[apathy maybe]

Please note the quote marks around "material reality". You cannot go out and find a particle that says "right to life" or similar. In this regard, they are purely products of the mind. This is all I meant...


And while I have not yet got back to that thread, I do intend to.

[BobKKKindle$]

The existence is claimed, for the benefit that it brings. The universal applicability is given for at least the idea of fairness.

Emphasis mine. You seem to be arguing from a utilitarian perspective - that is, judging the morality of an action based on the material consequences, instead of whether it is consistent with universal moral axioms. This is something I broadly agree with. However, the utilitarian conception of ethics is in conflict with the idea of universal "rights". I'll try and explain.

The "right to life" is widely understood to be the most basic "right" and the "right" from which all other "rights" derive. Infringing on someone's "right" to life (by killing them or imposing grievous bodily harm) is thus immoral, for those that uphold the idea of "rights". For the Utilitarian, however, if killing someone served the interests of the whole (that is, resulted in greater net utility) then there would be no problem killing such an individual - it could even be considered immoral not to kill them!

In short, if we are going to assume a utilitarian perspective, clearly the idea of "universal rights" is absurd, because sometimes the infringement of "rights" is beneficial, in utilitarian terms.

It is, by the way, possibly to justify freedom of speech on utilitarian grounds, without reference to abstract morality. It should be noted that our conceptions of moral ideals change over time, as they are part of the ideological superstructure and are thus influenced by and are dependent on the mode of production.

[Luís Henrique]

Please note the quote marks around "material reality". You cannot go out and find a particle that says "right to life" or similar. In this regard, they are purely products of the mind. This is all I meant...

And while I have not yet got back to that thread, I do intend to.

And mind is not part of "material reality"? What do you mean, that mind has a non-material existence, or that it does not exist at all?

Luís Henrique

[apathy maybe]

Luís: I'm not sure if you are deliberately being ignorant to annoy me, or if you are seriously stupid. I suspect the former though...
I never said that mind is not part of material reality. It obviously is (being the structure of certain parts of the brain).
Let me draw an analogy. We could say that this picture :rolleyes: is not "real", it is not part of "material reality". However, it is obviously existing, and depending on which particular version you are talking about, it could either consist of electrons, magnetic particles or other computer storage.
In the same way, ideas are "stored" in the brain (and in other media), but they are stored as links between neurons, not as words or whatever. So, they obviously have an existence in material reality, but for the purposes of this discussion, they don't have an existence in "material reality" (there is no "right to life" particle...). The distinction may escape you, but seeing as you aren't interested in discussing the actual topic at hand, I don't care.

Now, what do you think of the actual topic? Do you think that the UDHR is a good document? Etc.

bobkindles: Sure. So what do you think of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I've never encountered a clear explanation of what a "right" actually is. On what grounds can we claim the existence, and universal applicability, of a "right" to free speech? Rights seem to be metaphysical constructs which don;t have any basis in material reality.
Murdoch's Dictionary of Irish Law (4th ed) defines right, quite simply, as

An interest recognized and protected by the law, respect for which is a duty, and disrgard for which is a wrong.

As for what should be a right, it's a very interesting question and one on which different people have different opinions. I for one think that all rights should derive from freedom, that is, humans should initially have the absolute freedom to do anything they want, and governments and other artificial constructs should only seek to limit this freedom in order to ensure the freedom of others, so that everyone has a reasonable amount of freedom to do what they want. I think that in order to accomplish this we need to separate different kinds or aspects of freedom into what we call rights, which are then respected by law. This is just my opinion though.



The "right to life" is widely understood to be the most basic "right" and the "right" from which all other "rights" derive. Infringing on someone's "right" to life (by killing them or imposing grievous bodily harm) is thus immoral, for those that uphold the idea of "rights". For the Utilitarian, however, if killing someone served the interests of the whole (that is, resulted in greater net utility) then there would be no problem killing such an individual - it could even be considered immoral not to kill them!

You are confusing rights and protections. Protections are not the same as rights, they are granted by some higher power and thus may be taken away by some higher power when it sees fit. Rights are not to be disregarded when it appears to be convenient to some, protections can be however. The right to life could potentially be violated to protect other rights, however this is not the same in my opinion as the utility argument. If you are saying that it is justifiable to deprive someone of life because killing them would be more useful than not killing them ("that is, resulted in greater net utility") then this right to life is not a right at all, as there is no regard given to its protection.


Now, what do you think of the actual topic? Do you think that the UDHR is a good document? Etc.
I think that the UDHR is a good document and think it should be adhered to more. I can see your problem with the document form an anarchist perspective considering the references to states etc., but the fact is that states exist today under capitalism, and while they exist we should be pressing them to further respect human rights. Pretending they don't exist is foolish. Also, I personally believe that a state will still be necessary post-revolution.

Your objections regarding the lack of gender-neutral words is really a pedantic quibble in my opinion, there was never any question that these rights applied to women as well as men. I personally am inclined to overlook such tiny flaws which have no effect in material reality.

Regarding the granting of liberal rights like property or religion, I don't see how these rights are incompatible with leftism. Property rights is a controversial issue amongst the left, and gies rise to long-winded philosophical and semantical discussions. My short answer would be that after the revolution I would still want to own clothes, books etc., and I would still like some space in which to live. Thus, I would still like the right to "own" and use goods (ownership here simply meaning the entitlement to use on a regular basis, and a guarantee against having the "property" taken from me without consent or notice). Of course property rights, like all rights, can be qualified and limited in accordance with the common good. As for the right to a religion, well I don't see why any leftist, particularly an anarchist, would have a problem with that. Who are you to tell people what they do or do not think?

[apathy maybe]

Obviously not all the liberal rights are problematic. But the fact remains that some of them could cause problems. I actually had discussed the "right to property" in the full version (that I lost...), how it could be interpreted etc. The same with religion. Religion is fine, but teaching it to kids? What if people want to practice their religion, and it involves ritual slaughter of virgins? Etc.

As for my "pedantic quibble" regarding gender-neutral words, that was one part of that flaw. The other being that there was an underlying understanding that men were the bread-winner, and the head of any family. Surely you should object to that...

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Obviously not all the liberal rights are problematic. But the fact remains that some of them could cause problems. I actually had discussed the "right to property" in the full version (that I lost...), how it could be interpreted etc. The same with religion. Religion is fine, but teaching it to kids? What if people want to practice their religion, and it involves ritual slaughter of virgins? Etc.
Just because a right could be interpreted in different ways doesn't mean that the right is invalid; indeed, virtually all rights can be interpretted in different ways, some of which are problematic and some of which are not. I don't think there is any right enumerated in the UDHR which cannot possibly be interpretted in harmony with leftist principles.

As for the virgin-slaughtering religion, well the right to a religion would in that case obviously conflict with the right to life of the virgins, and the conflict could only be resolved by protecting the virgins' right to life at the expense of the worshippers.



As for my "pedantic quibble" regarding gender-neutral words, that was one part of that flaw. The other being that there was an underlying understanding that men were the bread-winner, and the head of any family. Surely you should object to that...
Well I object to the idea that men are the breadwinners/heads of any family. Just like I believe that working women should unite as well as working men, that doesn't mean I reject Marx and the Communist Manifesto. The fact of the matter is that these gender-biased terms are but empty words, and have no actual effect in reality.

[jake williams]

About the metaphysical nature of "rights"... I agree that this is typically muddled and befuddled, but I think you're explaining what you consider rights to be by "declaring" them - these are principles that societies have agreed on, at least, you know, in theory.

[Luís Henrique]

Luís: I'm not sure if you are deliberately being ignorant to annoy me, or if you are seriously stupid. I suspect the former though...

Neither. I am trying to understand what do you mean when you say something "has no material basis".


Let me draw an analogy. We could say that this picture :rolleyes: is not "real", it is not part of "material reality". However, it is obviously existing, and depending on which particular version you are talking about, it could either consist of electrons, magnetic particles or other computer storage.
In the same way, ideas are "stored" in the brain (and in other media), but they are stored as links between neurons, not as words or whatever. So, they obviously have an existence in material reality, but for the purposes of this discussion, they don't have an existence in "material reality" (there is no "right to life" particle...).

Nor are there "car particles" or "computer particles", but those objects have a very material existence (made of steel, sillicium, carbon, etc, particles).

What you seem to be trying to say, however, is a different thing: that some ideas have no material basis outside of our brains (the idea of "brick", for instance, being based in the material existence of objects called "bricks" externally to our minds; the idea of "ghost" lacking such kind of material basis). It seems that your intention is to class the idea of "rights" among such ideas.


The distinction may escape you, but seeing as you aren't interested in discussing the actual topic at hand, I don't care.

Of course I am interested, but if your ideas aren't clear, discussing them might require some previous methodological discussion.


Now, what do you think of the actual topic? Do you think that the UDHR is a good document? Etc.

First of all, I think it is quite solidly based in material reality. Most especially, in the material reality of capitalism.

Luís Henrique