You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion and Human Rights
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
Humans have decided to act a certain way. They set up rules.
A hockey player has the right, according to the rules or hockey, to slam someone into a wall as hard as they can. However they do not the right to hit them with their stick in certain ways. This can get them put in a penalty box.
Human agree or dont on certain rules. But there are no objective rights - as the laws of various countries should heavily imply.
I guess its a matter of definition and philosophy.
objective:
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
Subjective:
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
The point was not that someone else would do it. The point is that the rights in themselves do not exist. If they do, what are they made of. If we say a certain person has a right, where does he or she have it? Is it in the endocrine system? the muscle tissue?
When we reach a level in our thinking, wherein, we have no rights then also we have no law. The rights established through law belong to the civilization making them. Rights are not tangable until enforced.
Human beings behave AS IF rights exist and their behavior is objective. Just like human beings behave as if God exists and this leads to objective behavior. When you use the example of someone having a right to a lawyer and then point to them getting one as evidence, this is like pointing to someone praying and saying that it is evidence of God.I guess its a matter of definition and philosophy.
objective:
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
Subjective:
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
People believe in the hallucinated entities and behave accordingly. I would need to see data from some lab showing the material existence of rights.
I am an arightist.
This is arguing that the consequences are bad so the idea must be wrong. Something monotheists tend to do around atheism and morals, by the way.When we reach a level in our thinking, wherein, we have no rights then also we have no law.
IMO, your opinion about no rights is subjective ...
in my opinion, my opinion about X is subjective--but i may very well be right!
This is arguing that the consequences are bad so the idea must be wrong. Something monotheists tend to do around atheism and morals, by the way.
Your right not to be murdered will be enforced even if you're not around to do it yourself. Someone would pay for violating that right.
When we reach a level in our thinking, wherein, we have no rights then also we have no law. The rights established through law belong to the civilization making them. Rights are not tangable until enforced.
and rights are not tangible when they are enforced. rights, the notion, is an entity, but not a physical thing.
IMO, your opinion about no rights is subjective,
It's not an opinion. It's a fact.
...while I exercise my right to have a lawyer in a court of law. Of course rights are enforced by people, who else would do it?
What you are doing is utilizing behaviors that other humans have agreed to. Without that laywer, or the judge, or the baliff, etc... you have no rights. In other words, reality itself doesn't grant you any rights. People invent them.
It's not an opinion. It's a fact.
People exercise their rights no matter where they come from and this is observable, making the observation a fact.
Now your turn, how is no rights a fact? I can define a fact just fine.
What you are doing is utilizing behaviors that other humans have agreed to. Without that laywer, or the judge, or the baliff, etc... you have no rights. In other words, reality itself doesn't grant you any rights. People invent them.
When I have no rights then I no longer exist. Within reality rights do exist and are exercised by the living, individually. The non-living have no rights. When humankind go extinct then the rights they have established have no meaning and are no longer applicable.
Last edited:
People exercise their rights no matter where they come from and this is observable, making the observation a fact.
This observation is incorrect. It's an abstraction. What is observed are people behaving in agreed upon ways.
Now your turn, how is no rights a fact? I can define a fact just fine.
Go to the middle of a forest and try to "exercise your rights". What you will quickly discover is that reality doesn't grant them. What this means is that people whom agree to grant/enforce your "rights" are required. It's a human invention that does not exist intrinsically in reality.
This observation is incorrect. It's an abstraction. What is observed are people behaving in agreed upon ways.
Go to the middle of a forest and try to "exercise your rights". What you will quickly discover is that reality doesn't grant them.
You speak as though reality is an entity and has the presence of mind to grant rights. All I can say is that is your philosophy.
From your explanation history books are an abstraction and not fact.
You speak as though reality is an entity and has the presence of mind to grant rights. All I can say is that is your philosophy.
Actually that's the implication of the way you speak, not I. Evidence:
Within reality rights do exist and are exercised by the living, individually.
More importantly, reality isn't sapient. It doesn't have the capacity to grant you rights let alone enforce them. That's why they don't objectively exist. They subjectively exist in the minds of people and people behave accordingly.
More importantly, reality isn't sapient. It doesn't have the capacity to grant you rights let alone enforce them. That's why they don't objectively exist. They subjectively exist in the minds of people and people behave accordingly.
Well, its been fun, IMO, the exercising of rights are the object of perception or thought.
Well, its been fun, IMO, the exercising of rights are the object of perception or thought.
"Exercising of rights" is an abstraction of observable human behaviors within the context of specific agreements. The observable human behaviors are quite objective.
While it is true that ambrahamic religions (especially Islam) can have very harmful effects, human rights don't objectively exist. They only exist when there are a group of people who will enforce them.
I think it is objective when someone experiences pain and suffering directed upon them by another.
But, it's more along the lines of enforcing the 'violations' of human rights as opposed to the rights themselves. The rights are simply a collection of that which allows each person not to be forced to experience pain and suffering brought on by another. It has more to say about the human condition than it does of those who violate that condition.
I think it is objective when someone experiences pain and suffering directed upon them by another.
But, it's more along the lines of enforcing the 'violations' of human rights as opposed to the rights themselves. The rights are simply a collection of that which allows each person not to be forced to experience pain and suffering brought on by another. It has more to say about the human condition than it does of those who violate that condition.
But if those human rights violations aren't enforced/punished, then what good is the list of "human rights"? What good is a law if it's not enforced in some way?
I believe that India leads the list in human rights violations, yet India is still considered a legitimate world government, and is often in world conferences like the Copenhage thingis just recently, etc. See? Human rights violations don't mean squat because it's not enforced or punished. ...just a bunch of silly, liberal words.
Baron Max
I think it is objective when someone experiences pain and suffering directed upon them by another.
That is objective indeed.
But, it's more along the lines of enforcing the 'violations' of human rights as opposed to the rights themselves.
I would have to agree that the act of enforcment is objective.
The rights are simply a collection of that which allows each person not to be forced to experience pain and suffering brought on by another. It has more to say about the human condition than it does of those who violate that condition.
Yes they are a collection of ideas. They require people to enforce them because reality won't.
It is true that people in general don't want to experience pain. It is true they invent complicated methods of trying to make that happen. Reality itself wont protect people from that in any way. Only humans do (sometimes).
No. Other humans may act like I have that right. I do not have it. It's not in my pockets. It's not in my body. I do not have it.Your right not to be murdered will be enforced even if you're not around to do it yourself. Someone would pay for violating that right.