Human Rights

[razboz]

I just wanted to ask the revleft community the following questions:

Firstly do human rights exist, or are they an illusory construct made up for some artificial purpose?

Are these Rights objective and universal or do hey apply differently to different people in different situations?

If these rights do in fact exist and are universal: where do they come from?

And finally: should these rights be conserved in a post-capitalist leftist society?

Declaration of Human Rights for information and reference purposes.

I have my own views and ideas on the topic but i first wanted to see what you all had to say.

[MarxSchmarx]

I wish I could take your questions at face value, but the dichotomies you seem to presuppose in the way the questions are asked just aren't there. But here goes.

Firstly do human rights exist, or are they an illusory construct made up for some artificial purpose?

They exist.

Are these Rights objective and universal or do hey apply differently to different people in different situations?

They are objective and universal.

If these rights do in fact exist and are universal: where do they come from?

Tradition, custom, and upbringing.

And finally: should these rights be conserved in a post-capitalist leftist society?

Yes ... er, Well, at least the universal and objective ones that exist and that derive from tradition.

[Ultra-Violence]

im a qoute man from the situation in nepal "Human Rights only exist in text books"

[razboz]

They exist.

While i understand that as a paradigm "Human rights exist" is generally accepted, it is not substantiated in any way or form. How do we know they exist? Where they wirtten in stone by Yahweh, or communicated to us by space aliens?

My personal opinion (note opinion) is that they were in fact made up by western intellectuals. Rousseau, then countless more philosophers and thinkers after him developed and worked upon these ideas that if adhered to should be the basis of a perfect society. After the Second World War and the establishment of the UN, these Rights were enshrined as having a quasi-sacred/spiritual quality and should be respected by all nations world-wide. however the Rights were never universal and were, until the mid-1900s, exclusive to the occidental world. Later the liberal democracy was identified as the only system of government that could respect appropriately Human Rights.

in fact MarxSchmarx says it very explicitly in his post:

(human rights come from) Tradition, custom, and upbringing.

...in other words some form of "society" or "culture"

We can see then that Human Rights as we know them today do not "exist" in some eternal and unchanging state. they are a recent cultural construct. From this follows my next question: if they do not exist in the eternal sense which i understand MarxSchmarx to mean, how can they be applied universally to all human beings, regardless of who they are? would this not presuppose the assumption that our cultural paradigms (our=occidental judeochristian cultures) are superior to other people's? here my opinion is that Human Rights are on part of our culture that should transcend all cultures and be applied universally regardless of where we come from. however i have trouble substantiating this opinion considering Human Rights are historically non-transcendental and come from one culture mostly ignoring other cultures.

Yes ... er, Well, at least the universal and objective ones that exist and that derive from tradition.

Including this one?

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

It derives form tradition sure enough, and seems "universal"...

I guess another question we could ask is: "should Human Rights be reconsidered and the Declaration re-written?"

"Human Rights only exist in text books"

This implies that Human Rights do not exist as some force of nature, soemthing which i am in entire ageement with. However i would propose that this is the same sitation as communism or anarchism which only exist in books (metaphorically). However we then have the responsability to transfer these ideas form books to reality.

Id appreciate if people could respond to some of my points.

[praxicoide]

Simply put, nothing exists in eternal, unchanging form.

Therefore, being universal or unchanging is not a requisite for something's existence or objectivity (objectivity itself is historical and evolving).

The same would apply to human rights.

This is one of the reasons why capitalism brings the seeds of its own destruction; including the creation of "freedom" and "equality" through the creation of judicial "persons" from property rights. The analysis of capitalism shows that these concepts are idealizations, and do not actually exist concretely except as approximations, undermining its own discourse.

Human rights can be said to be idealizations of capitalism, but, just like the idealizations of religion, they express human potential and serve as powerful tools of critique.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by razboz@October 02, 2007 06:00 pm


My personal opinion (note opinion) is that they were in fact made up by western intellectuals. Rousseau, then countless more philosophers and thinkers after him developed and worked upon these ideas that if adhered to should be the basis of a perfect society. After the Second World War and the establishment of the UN, these Rights were enshrined as having a quasi-sacred/spiritual quality and should be respected by all nations world-wide. however the Rights were never universal and were, until the mid-1900s, exclusive to the occidental world. Later the liberal democracy was identified as the only system of government that could respect appropriately Human Rights.

Made up by western intellectuals?

So Native American, African, and other societies didn't have notions of human rights?

[praxicoide]

Intellectuals didn't make them up, they articulated ideas that corresponded to the material conditions developing at the time.

[razboz]

Originally posted by blackstone+October 02, 2007 06:33 pm--> (blackstone @ October 02, 2007 06:33 pm)

razboz

@October 02, 2007 06:00 pm


My personal opinion (note opinion) is that they were in fact made up by western intellectuals. Rousseau, then countless more philosophers and thinkers after him developed and worked upon these ideas that if adhered to should be the basis of a perfect society. After the Second World War and the establishment of the UN, these Rights were enshrined as having a quasi-sacred/spiritual quality and should be respected by all nations world-wide. however the Rights were never universal and were, until the mid-1900s, exclusive to the occidental world. Later the liberal democracy was identified as the only system of government that could respect appropriately Human Rights.

Made up by western intellectuals?

So Native American, African, and other societies didn't have notions of human rights? [/b]

Good point, but while they did have the notion that " (most/some/the best) human have rights" they did not have the same idea of human rights as it is understood by most people nowadays.

Also most other societies did not have he idea of rights that applied to everyone, as articulated by the western intelectuals. I do say most, because honestly i dont know wether some other society had such an idea. I havent come by any as of now.

Intellectuals didn't make them up, they articulated ideas that corresponded to the material conditions developing at the time.

Wether they articulated some zeitgeist or invented them is irrelevant. the fact remains that their origin is the western system of tought and ethics, which in many respects is different and even incompatible with other systems of thought and ethics.

come on, im sure you can say more about the subject than that. also its an important topic to resolve in order to establish codes of ethics by which to abide.

[praxicoide]

I did say more than that.

Anyways, the point is that yes, human rights currently take the form that better suits the interest of capitalism, but it resonates further because it is a (warped and limited) expression of human potential (human potential also as a historical product, not as a never changing "alienated" potential).

Some religions also established human respect, undermining domination.

I would say that moral codes are articulations reached post festum of current practices, with its existing coercion mechanisms. Ethics, as the study of these codes and their material circumstances, does not have the goal of dictating morals but of clarifying the field, so to speak. Hopefully, people become aware of the material mechanisms behind morals and lessen their power.

[praxicoide]

I think the issue is to avoid becoming an idealist and take human rights something sacred to rule eternally, and instead pay attention at what makes them so appealing with the masses, to take them to their ultimate circumstances within the same framework to show the inconsistencies behind the whole system that claims to support them.

[MarxSchmarx]

Dear Razboz,

The problem here, and the basis of potential disagreements, seems to be at best one of semantics and at worst one of epistemology. So its worth spelling out how issues quite apart from human rights set the parameters for this discussion.

While i understand that as a paradigm "Human rights exist" is generally accepted, it is not substantiated in any way or form. How do we know they exist? Where they wirtten in stone by Yahweh, or communicated to us by space aliens?

How do I know YOU, let alone human rights and rocks and the Communist Party, exist? Why aren't you the result of some evil demon playing tricks on me?

I would submit, Razboz, that in fact it is substantiated as follows: rights (unlike rocks) can be willed into existence. If I "will" and decide that you have a right to pick your nose, than by golly that right exists.

If you will, consider the sophomoric description of Nietzsche's ethics: true morality lies in the morality which we create. I don't think human rights are substantivel different.

My personal opinion (note opinion) is that they were in fact made up by western intellectuals...

in fact MarxSchmarx says it very explicitly in his post:

(human rights come from) Tradition, custom, and upbringing.


...in other words some form of "society" or "culture"

And what is so wrong with that? The theory of gravity, much of mathematics, geology, the periodic table, econometrics were all made up by "western intellectuals", not to mention communism and socialism... And if it weren't for me being raised by a "western" society or culture, I doubt I ever would have heard of these ideas.

We can see then that Human Rights as we know them today do not "exist" in some eternal and unchanging state. they are a recent cultural construct. From this follows my next question: if they do not exist in the eternal sense which i understand MarxSchmarx to mean, how can they be applied universally to all human beings, regardless of who they are? would this not presuppose the assumption that our cultural paradigms (our=occidental judeochristian cultures) are superior to other people's? here my opinion is that Human Rights are on part of our culture that should transcend all cultures and be applied universally regardless of where we come from. however i have trouble substantiating this opinion considering Human Rights are historically non-transcendental and come from one culture mostly ignoring other cultures.

Why is "eternal" and "unchanging" the criteria for "objective"? Dinosaurs weren't unchanging (much less eternal) but we concede they are "objective". As far as being a "cultural construct", so are the pyramids. Are they therefore not objective? Why?

Rights can also be "applied universally," but that doesn't mean they're respected universally. Case in point? The "Freedom of Religion" was not respected in the Spanish inquisition. That doesn't mean there isn't a universal "right" to one's religious convictions.

And the Judeo-christian culture routinely applies "universal" values to all human beings "regardless of who they are." After all, this same culture condemns babies who never heard the gospel to purgatory.

As far as superiority goes, whenever you commit yourself to a particular moral outlook, you already commit to it being "superior." You probably consider it the "superior" option to "not kill innocent people" . Whether it is in fact superior or not seems to me beside the point. You commit to it, therefore it is, at least as far as you are concerned superior. And everyone else better consider it superior too, doggone it.

Yes ... er, Well, at least the universal and objective ones that exist and that derive from tradition.


Including this one?

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

It derives form tradition sure enough, and seems "universal"...

Fair enough. Although in defense of that particular article, if I recall correctly the soviets let it slide because of its vague wording. Is one's tooth brush "private property"? Who determines what ownable "property" is? After all, once upon a time other human beings were considered "property." The phrasing is vague enough that even the Maoists ratified it. I don't think the sentence implies endorsing capitalism.

I guess another question we could ask is: "should Human Rights be reconsidered and the Declaration re-written?"

Aha! And, according to whose standards?

[Volderbeek]

Firstly do human rights exist, or are they an illusory construct made up for some artificial purpose?

The latter. Nicely put BTW.

Are these Rights objective and universal or do hey apply differently to different people in different situations?

They're not objective or universal, but some are commonly subjective.

If these rights do in fact exist and are universal: where do they come from?

They're an expression of power over people by society. As such, they were created as a method of control by way of non-control.

And finally: should these rights be conserved in a post-capitalist leftist society?

Course not! In a liberated society, the will to power is subdued by the will to live.

[gauchisme]

In a recent essay, significantly entitled 'Kosovo and the End of the Nation-State', Vaclav Havel tries to bring home the message that the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia:

"places human rights above the rights of the state. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was attacked by the alliance without a direct mandate from the UN. This did not happen irresponsibly, as an act of aggression or out of disrespect for international law. It happened, on the contrary, out of respect for the law, for a law that ranks higher than the law which protects the sovereignty of states. The alliance has acted out of respect for human rights, as both conscience and international legal documents dictate." [New York Review of Books. 10 June 1999. p6.]

Havel further specifies this 'higher law' when he claims that 'human rights, human freedoms, and human dignity have their deepest roots somewhere outside the perceptible world ... while the state is a human creation, human beings are the creation of God'. If we read Havel's two statements as the two premises of a judgment, the logical conclusion is none other than that NATO forces were allowed to violate existing international law, since they acted as a direct instrument of the 'higher law' of God Himself - if this is not a clear-cut case of 'religious fundamentalism', then this term is devoid of any minimally consistent meaning.

Havel's statement is thus the strongest assertion of what Ulrich Beck, in an article in Die Suddeutsche Zeitung in April 1999, called 'militaristic humanism' or even 'militaristic pacifism'. The problem with this term is not that it is an Orwellian oxymoron - reminding us of 'Peace is war' and similar slogans from Nineteen Eighty-Four - which, as such, directly belies the truth of its position (against this obvious pacifist-liberal criticism, I rather think that it is the pacifist position - 'more bombs and killing never bring peace' - which is a fake, and that one should heroically endorse the paradox of militaristic pacifism). Neither is it that, obviously, the targets of a bombardment are not chosen out of pure moral consideration, but selectively, in accordance with unacknowledged geopolitical and economic strategic interests (the Marxist-style criticism). The problem is, rather, that this purely humanitarian-ethical legitimization (again) thoroughly depoliticizes the military intervention, changing it into an intervention in humanitarian catastrophe, grounded in purely moral reasons, not an intervention in a well-defined political struggle. In other words, the problem with 'militaristic humanism/pacifism' lies not in 'militaristic' but in 'humanism/pacifism' : in the way the 'militaristic' intervention (in the social struggle) is presented as help to the victims of (ethnic, etc.) hatred and violence, justified directly in depoliticized universal human rights. Consequently, what we need is not a 'true' (demilitarized) humanism/pacifism, but a 'militaristic' social intervention divested of its depoliticized humanist/pacifist veneer.

-- Slavoj Zizek, writing in The Fragile Absolute (2000 / p56-7).

_

"The reverence that people display toward human rights -- it almost makes one want to defend horrible, terrible positions."

-- Gilles Deleuze, here: http://www.makeworlds.org/node/97

[razboz]

I cant respond to all the points in the detail i would like, but ill go ahead and try to do what i can in the time i have.

First the issue is not one of mere semantics but is fundamentally important to the revolutionary left. It is essential to understand the nature of human rights, what consitutes them and in the event we find them to be valid, how we should respect. To give you a concrete example: how do we justify suspending human rights in the case of capitlists and oppressors? We need to find intelectual and philosophical validation to this kind of dilema, lest we fall into soem kind of mental simplicity, that would undermine the entire logic of revolutionary thought.

I would submit, Razboz, that in fact it is substantiated as follows: rights (unlike rocks) can be willed into existence. If I "will" and decide that you have a right to pick your nose, than by golly that right exists.

I disagree with this analysis of what a "Right" is. I could will and decide you have the right to fly. however this right would be non-existent because you cannot in fact fly. I would argue that rights exist outside of what we individually wish them to be. I see them as more of a social convention which we all agree exist. The diference between my argument and yours is that while in your rights exis only as whims of individuals and as such are not only changeable but also subective, in mine the weight of society provides both validation and support to the rights thus elevating them to 'realty', or some value of reality which can be agreed on by all memebrrs of a given culture/society.

And what is so wrong with that? The theory of gravity, much of mathematics, geology, the periodic table, econometrics were all made up by "western intellectuals", not to mention communism and socialism... And if it weren't for me being raised by a "western" society or culture, I doubt I ever would have heard of these ideas.

You imply two things in your statement: That Western culture is inherently superior, and that other cultures have no notion of the theory of gravity, mathematics, chemistry, econometrics or Commnism and socialism.

I cannot accept these ideas on a number of levels. Firstly the idea that western cultue is 'superior' is one which is highly debatable and cannot be proven other than by twisted (and erroneous) racialist 'logic'. Second I'm almost certain that non-Western countries have the strongest revolutionary movements. What's more is that most of these are homegrown, and not of the Ho-Chi Minh variety of 'imported' politics. What's more a high proportion of technological and scientific innovation come from non-western countries.

However i digress from the main point. Human Rights are fundamentally diferent from the 'Western' ideas and concepts you mention. Huamn Rights are not scientifically proveable. That is one can see them only as ideas, and not natural laws. What is so wrong about Hman Rights being intelectual constructs based perely on Western ideas is that imposing them on other cultures unashemedly ignores the validity of other paadigms and systems of thought.

Why is "eternal" and "unchanging" the criteria for "objective"? Dinosaurs weren't unchanging (much less eternal) but we concede they are "objective". As far as being a "cultural construct", so are the pyramids. Are they therefore not objective? Why?

We cannot apply the same intelectual tools to things which exist in the material world, and those which exist on a purely intelectual level. "Eternal" and "unchanging" are criteria for "objective" when it comes to things which are meant to be applied unwaveringly to all human beings, such as Human Rights. You misunderstand my meaning of "cultural construct": The pyramids are physical objects, and as such they exist objectively in all circumstances. Human rights however are not physical objects and as such need to be defined. they do no exist in all circumstances and are built from one culture, based on its paradigms. this is a cultural construct. Other such contructs might be religion or ethics.

As far as superiority goes, whenever you commit yourself to a particular moral outlook, you already commit to it being "superior." You probably consider it the "superior" option to "not kill innocent people" . Whether it is in fact superior or not seems to me beside the point. You commit to it, therefore it is, at least as far as you are concerned superior. And everyone else better consider it superior too, doggone it.

I mostly agree with this point, in that this is how 'most' people define themselves. However i would suggest that we challenge this perceived superiority in order to validate our claim to superiority using sensible intelectual tools.

Fair enough. Although in defense of that particular article, if I recall correctly the soviets let it slide because of its vague wording. Is one's tooth brush "private property"? Who determines what ownable "property" is? After all, once upon a time other human beings were considered "property." The phrasing is vague enough that even the Maoists ratified it. I don't think the sentence implies endorsing capitalism.

To what extent the Soviets and the Maoists conceded this point to gain validation in the international community is debatable. However the article specifically quotes 'private' property, as opposed to 'personal' property. Private property is explicitely incompatible with a really communist system, while 'personal' property is not. this is not the only Article which seems to contradict communist thought.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

This right is eplicitly forbidden in almost all forms of communist thought.

Aha! And, according to whose standards?

Our own, but taking into account the largest possible range of ideas and cultures. Ideally according to Leftist standards.

They're an expression of power over people by society. As such, they were created as a method of control by way of non-control.

I agree with this statement, but would qualify it by saying that there are and should be Human Rights upon which to base some kind of Univeral code of ethics, though clearly not the Human Rights as their current flawed state.

I'm not too sure what to say about the article, but i definitely agree with some of the ideas expressed in it.

i've run out of time to write more, and im sure noone wants to read anymore.

[MarxSchmarx]

Dear Razboz:

I think now we're explicating some of the assumptions that were implicit in your initial questions.

The diference between my argument and yours is that while in your rights exis only as whims of individuals and as such are not only changeable but also subective, in mine the weight of society provides both validation and support to the rights thus elevating them to 'realty', or some value of reality which can be agreed on by all memebrrs of a given culture/society.

I fail to see the distinction. First, an opinion is no less subjective simply because it is held by many people, much less "society". I may find a painting beautiful, a lot of people might find it beautiful too. But the valuation is still subjective. Indeed, none of this means the "beauty" of the painting is in any sense some "objective fact".

Second, putting the onus on "society" to come up with rights still means they are changeable - after all, once upon a time "society" said you had no right to the freedom of religion. So how is this opinion changing over the course of a few centuries in, say, Spain, any less whimsical than an individual changing their opinion over the course of a few years?

Thirdly, I utterly fail to follow why conferring society's blessing on rights make them any "more real".

Moreover, if we commit to your view, then you have the burden of delineating what constitutes a "given culture/society," as well as when that culture/society's right should be enforced. Whose view do we accept of when one "society" or "culture" ends and another begins? What about people from bi-cultural families? Do people in immigrant neighborhoods live in a different culture/society than other people in the city? Are families in a town all really from the same culture/society? And when do we say a "culture/society" has the err... "right" to delineate rights?

Therefore, it's not clear to me what you gain by shifting the "source of legitimacy" of rights to "cultures and societies" from individuals. But what is clear are the methodological nightmares awaiting those who undertake that shift.

I could will and decide you have the right to fly. however this right would be non-existent because you cannot in fact fly.

Nonsense. I just boarded a plane the other day.

I would have chosen a less ambiguous counter-example ("I could will that you have the right to give birth to a sea gull"), but your analysis still doesn't work. Rights exist to govern conduct between people. If you have "the right to X" then that means that no other person should prevent you from attaining X. Whether you in fact can attain X is beside the point.

Let me illustrate this point this way. I cannot speak Hawaiian. I have no intention of learning Hawaiian. But that doesn't mean I don't have "a right to speak Hawaiian". Even if I was, through some physical disability, unable to learn Hawaiian, none of that implies I "don't have a right to speak Hawaiian."

You imply two things in your statement: That Western culture is inherently superior, and that other cultures have no notion of the theory of gravity, mathematics, chemistry, econometrics or Commnism and socialism.

It implies neither. First, I said these things were "made up by western intellectuals", not that only westerners (do we include Turks? South Americans? Russians?) have some notion of these things. Of course people in Indonesia study these things. My point was that these disciplines, as they are practiced today, originated in the west. Every serious physics text book in the world discusses Newton's insight as foundational. It's not that the Chinese, for example, had no mathematics. It's just that the mathematics, as practiced in China today, almost universally employs the western, as opposed to some indigenous, approach.

Second, I do not imply western culture is "inherently" superior. Yes, socialism is a "superior" idea to the Hindu caste system, but that doesn't imply western culture is somehow "inherently" superior to Hindu culture. I would argue Hindu rice dishes are superior to "western" rice dishes. Does this mean I am a "Hindu supremacist"? Of course not.

We cannot apply the same intelectual tools to things which exist in the material world, and those which exist on a purely intelectual level.

Why not? We can apply some of the same "intellectual tools", like logic.

Human rights however are not physical objects and as such need to be defined.

Hmmm... well I'd argue that "human rights" are physical objects, insofar as they are mental constructs, and like all mental constructs, must be the effect of the way our brain cells are configured. But that's for another thread.

Huamn Rights are not scientifically proveable. That is one can see them only as ideas, and not natural laws.

The distinction is specious. One can't "prove" econometrics or physics. The best we can say is that they are methods (idealogical constructs?) that satisfy our subjective desire to predict certain observations. They are tools we use to achieve some end.

Human rights are also methods that satisfy our subjective desire to see a just world. They are tools we use to achieve some end.

What is so wrong about Hman Rights being intelectual constructs based perely on Western ideas is that imposing them on other cultures unashemedly ignores the validity of other paadigms and systems of thought.

First, I wouldn't say "purely" on Western ideas. For instance, I believe people have a "right" to sacrifice chickens to their gods, even if most of the west disagrees.

Still, I think "unashamedly ignoring the validity of other paradigms and systems of thought" isn't so awful. The Hindu caste system is a case in point (no pun intended). I have little qualms about imposing a western, unprovable, egalitarian "idea" of human dignity on the Brahmans. Now, whether this result should be accomplished at the point of a gun and under the Union Jack, or through inter-cultural dialog, is a different question. The means don't affect my (and I hope your) refusal to recognize "the validity" of the Hindu caste system as an abomination.

Aha! And, according to whose standards?


Our own, but taking into account the largest possible range of ideas and cultures. Ideally according to Leftist standards.

First of all, "taking into account the largest possible range of ideas and cultures" doesn't mean we adopt those their ideas and conventions and views on rights.

Second, isn't a desire to take "into account the largest possible range of ideas and cultures" a subjective whim?

And isn't "according to Leftist standards" also a subjective whim?

Finally,

I see them as more of a social convention which we all agree exist.

Now on this point, we are in agreement.

I think that covers most of the bases.

[KC]

Firstly do human rights exist, or are they an illusory construct made up for some artificial purpose?

Depends on what you mean by "exist". Human Rights are a concept - i.e., they exist as an idea within the human brain and not in the objective world. As for being an "illusory construct" it all depends on what you mean. Human rights are generally based in the desire of people to be free from oppression and exploitation; in this case it is on the most basic level - the physical level. The development of "human rights" are due to the class struggle.

[praxicoide]

Shmarx, you make good points, but unfortunately, your starting point is the abstract individual, which apparently chooses this or that on whims. From there you arrive to society as a collection of these abstract individuals who agree or disagree, forming a consensus on ideas but never breaking out of their subjectivity.

[MarxSchmarx]

but unfortunately, your starting point is the abstract individual, which apparently chooses this or that on whims. From there you arrive to society as a collection of these abstract individuals who agree or disagree, forming a consensus on ideas but never breaking out of their subjectivity.

I'll concede your point, praxicoide, but I fail to see the harm in this "methodological solipsism", if I can call it that.

[praxicoide]

Well, It is useful to look at appearance, especially at bourgeois appearance, with its illusions of "liberty" and "equality" (Cf. Grundrisse; start of the chapter on capital). But it is woefully inadequate to deal with anything closer to reality.

[jake williams]

Are rights inherent in people/animals/pebbles? Imbued by a creator? Or are they decided on, or do they arise out of some other property/ies of the universe? If so why and how?

I'm curious, because no one seems to talk about it much (it's common practice in most places to assert "rights"), but it's, as I think would be obvious, critically important.