similarminds.com

[Rasputin]

Lenka, I understand what you are saying, but it seems that you are giving an illustration about the concept of right being used to placate the masses rather than providing an argument that the concept of rights is reduceable to this.

Just because the concept of rights is used in a certain way by society does not mean that rights have no objective existence. I can use my computer monitor as a shelf, if I want to, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed to project digital images. For centruries, society taught that the earth was flat. That didn't change the fact that it is round. The persepctive you are presenting is socially relative. There is an objective reality to things, regardless.

Would you go so far as to say there are no "shoulds" in life? Think about all the times in your life when you feel that something should not have been done or should have been done. Are you saying there is no objective basis for that? So, objectively speaking, the person who goes out and kills people versus the saint who works with sick and poor people are on equal footing?
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)

[Romana]

We can objectively prove that the world is round. Taking into account that future developments may allow us to prove things that cannot be proven with today's knowledge, do you really think some day we will be able to prove objectively the existence of some innate, fundamental human rights?

The idea of basic rights is highly subjective, and must be understood in relation to society. The fact that many, if not most, societies share some basic rights (e.g. right not to be murdered) does not make the situation any less subjective. Perhaps some day, psychologists will determine that some basic set of rights, or perhaps principles, are hard-wired into our brains, like the survival instinct and the mating instinct. This would be close to objective proof. (The "fairness" experiments discussed earlier fall short of such a standard.)

There are plenty of "shoulds" in life, but these, too, are socially relative. Lenka's - or anyone's - basis for feeling she should do something is strongly influenced by her upbringing and the culture(s) in which she was raised and now lives.

In some sense, the murderer and the saint are on an equal footing, since they are both human beings, and . . . entitled to whatever a society defines as fundamental human rights! Even the definitions of murderer and saint, however, are socially relative.
_________________
Romana
INTJ

“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim

[Rasputin]

Romana, I'm not saying that there is any proof. Actually, I agree that there's not. But I don't think there needs to be proof. Even if it is hardwired into the human brain, that doesn't make rights objective. The only thing that can make them objective is a standard outside the confines of the physical universe. At least, that's how I see it.

There's no proof of anything. According to the scientific method, the best we can do is generating a most probably hypothesis to explain a phenomenon and predict future phenomena. That's basically what I'm doing with rights, only it's not a scientific matter, since it's something that science really can't address. It's too abstract, there is no sense data to support a hypothesis for or against the objective existence of human rights.

The bottom line is that I believe mankind is more than a physical animal. I also believe we have a spiritual nature, which cannot be explained in terms of the physical world, including genetic hardwiring and instinctual drives. The existence of non-physical reality is another thing science has nothing to say about, as it is confined to sense datum from which to draw hypothesese. This is why the scope of science is the physical universe, for which we greatly need it. But if we want to address issues of spirituality, under which human rights falls, then we must turn to other methods of inquiry.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)

[Innovative Trailblazer]

Human rights must be based upon logic, and not conventionalism. That is the only way they can be unchanging. Only by being unchanging can they truly be fundamental.

[Rasputin]

Yes, I would agree with this. Human rights are often attempted to be applied in social systems, but such applications are not human rights themselves, and should not be mistaken for such. One could say that human rights are the standard by which to judge the worth of a social system.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)

[Lenka]

edit- must rethink.
_________________
Mercy, INFP, RLUEI, INFj.... Aries and Dragon.... and such stuff.

[Rasputin]

Lenka, actual human rights and the state of human society are distinct entities, even if the two intersect, in the form of human society accurately applying human rights. You're still not presenting an argument against the existence of human rights.

edit - Yes, think through that and get back to me.

edit2 (substantially later) - you think about that real thoroughly, now....
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)

[Innovative Trailblazer]

Anything that can be proven to be absolutely logical would be proven to be a fundamental human right. Anything which cannot be proven to be absolutely logical would be unproven to be a fundamental human right. Anything which can be proven to be illogical would be dis-proven to be a fundamental human right.

[Rasputin]

I somewhat agree with what you said, but I'd ammed that to say that (as I pointed out above to Romana) there is not proof for the objective existence of human rights.

1. There is no sense data associated with human rights.
2. If there were sense data, then we could approach it with the scientific method, but even then, there is no proof, only most probable hypothesese.

Further, something can be completely logical and not be true. In a rationalistic sense, I can come up with a variety of logically valid arguments that are all totally false and which also disagree with one another. But something must be logical to be true. So, we must have both a logical basis for the existence of human rights and some basis for saying that logical assertion is true.

None of this means it can be proven. The basis for the truth of our assertion must be found in a spiritual inquiry, though, not a scientific inquiry.

I wonder if you meant "proof" in the scientific sense or in the general sense.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)

[Innovative Trailblazer]

What is in the ultimate best interests of humanity in terms of it having the highest possible quality of life for the longest possible period of time is logical. The word logical could be interchangeable with sustainable.

[Kyle]

Simple pleasures?

[Innovative Trailblazer]

As far as proof in the scientific or the general sense, I would have to say the general sense, because scientific experiments can often be engineered to prove about anything you try to get them to prove.

[Rasputin]

Trailblazer, it sounds like we're talking about different things. I'm talking about the objective existence of human rights, not how those rights play out. Which are you talking about? If you want, we can talk about how those rights play out, but that's a whole nother discussion.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)

[Kyle]

[Innovative Trailblazer]