There are no human rights.
Discussion
Here's a point for discussion.
I've been thinking about this for some time and I've come to the conclusion that there are no human rights. There are only human responsibilities.
The world is not fair. The world doesn't care about any individual. It's a planet orbiting the sun and will continue to do this long after the human race is gone.
We only have the "right" to what we can get by dint of our own efforts.
What we DO have is a responsibility to treat all other human beings in the manner we would like to be treated ourselves.
If we tore up the human rights rulebook and simply stated what the responsibilities are of anyone who wants to live in our society - would this be a good thing? Could we persuade more of our society to behave in a more selfless, humane manner? I think so.
"Do not ask what your country can do for you. Ask what YOU can DO for YOUR country." etc (To paraphrase the great man.)
I've been thinking about this for some time and I've come to the conclusion that there are no human rights. There are only human responsibilities.
The world is not fair. The world doesn't care about any individual. It's a planet orbiting the sun and will continue to do this long after the human race is gone.
We only have the "right" to what we can get by dint of our own efforts.
What we DO have is a responsibility to treat all other human beings in the manner we would like to be treated ourselves.
If we tore up the human rights rulebook and simply stated what the responsibilities are of anyone who wants to live in our society - would this be a good thing? Could we persuade more of our society to behave in a more selfless, humane manner? I think so.
"Do not ask what your country can do for you. Ask what YOU can DO for YOUR country." etc (To paraphrase the great man.)
Don said:
If we tore up the human rights rulebook and simply stated what the responsibilities are of anyone who wants to live in our society - would this be a good thing? Could we persuade more of our society to behave in a more selfless, humane manner? I think so.
whilst I agree with your post find me a politician who was prepared to do that thoughG'kar said:
Mattygooner said:
I don't think humanity can be trusted to govern themselves.
The alternatives are somewhat limited unless you believe in imaginary friends or little green men.As has been said, man is inherently selfish (every living thing is, whether consciously or not) so the rights aspect is there to protect the less fortunate from abuse by the more fortunate.
If you want to have just "responsibilities" then EVERYONE has to sign up to it...not realistic IMO.
Human rights are a smokescreen.
There are no god given rights.
All there is is Power......you have to be equipped to protect yourself in this world; by learning to be strategic in one's playing of the game of Power.
Nothing else matters.
Kill or be killed (figuratively or metaphorically) is the way of the world.
There are no god given rights.
All there is is Power......you have to be equipped to protect yourself in this world; by learning to be strategic in one's playing of the game of Power.
Nothing else matters.
Kill or be killed (figuratively or metaphorically) is the way of the world.
Humanity only exists successfully because of our ability to co-operate, collaborate and communicate. Tear up the rule book, rule by absolute power and your turn the masses into slaves. You want to be a slave - because however powerful you are, there will be someone willing to take what you have off you?
Martial Arts Man said:
Human rights are a smokescreen.
There are no god given rights.
All there is is Power......you have to be equipped to protect yourself in this world; by learning to be strategic in one's playing of the game of Power.
Nothing else matters.
Kill or be killed (figuratively or metaphorically) is the way of the world.
Absolutely. There are no god given rights.
All there is is Power......you have to be equipped to protect yourself in this world; by learning to be strategic in one's playing of the game of Power.
Nothing else matters.
Kill or be killed (figuratively or metaphorically) is the way of the world.
Anyone demanding a service from the public using the justification of their human rights is in absolute contravention of this. The fact that we, the public, decide to offer a service to assist those less fortunate is us expressing our humanity - not us following some divine dictat that says these people have "rights".
You only have the "rights" others are willing to give you.
Don said:
Mattygooner said:
I don't think humanity can be trusted to govern themselves.
So who is going to govern us if not ourselves? There is no-one else.Don said:
You only have the "rights" others are willing to give you.
So...let's say "the public" decide/are influenced to not give rights to a section of society...dunno...Jews for instance...is that an OK situation? Even if they've not done anything wrong?(not wishing to invoke Godwins law or whatever)
G'kar said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Humanity only exists successfully because of our ability to co-operate, collaborate and communicate.
Thankfully,for all our sakes, we were less inclined to stop, collaborate and listen.
Edited by DrTre on Wednesday 25th March 11:18
Don said:
We only have the "right" to what we can get by dint of our own efforts.
Whilst the treatment of the legal concept has opened up a paradox which for example, allows the physical tolerance of various unsavoury characters and potentially societally harmful ideologies, the purest form of 'human rights' as an enshrined acknowledgment within 'advanced' nations is probably a laudable mark of civilisational progress - I'm thinking more along the lines of Geneva Convention transgression, etc.The difficulty arises when Norris from Logistics reports you to HSE for denying him his right to masturbate on the canteen floor during the vernal equinox because he's a New Pagan, man.
I think the situation can be summed up by a local ruffian I know who, dismayed at 'the system's' intolerance for settlement by fisticuffs expressed his frustration quite succinctly, a few years ago: "The problem is, you can't f@cking hit anyone anymore."
I know just what he means.
Martial Arts Man said:
G'kar said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Humanity only exists successfully because of our ability to co-operate, collaborate and communicate.
Thankfully,for all our sakes, we were less inclined to stop, collaborate and listen.
nice, nice baby
sleep envy said:
Martial Arts Man said:
G'kar said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Humanity only exists successfully because of our ability to co-operate, collaborate and communicate.
Thankfully,for all our sakes, we were less inclined to stop, collaborate and listen.nice, nice baby
DrTre said:
Don said:
You only have the "rights" others are willing to give you.
So...let's say "the public" decide/are influenced to not give rights to a section of society...dunno...Jews for instance...is that an OK situation? Even if they've not done anything wrong?(not wishing to invoke Godwins law or whatever)
Seems to me that Don's scenario is pretty much how things have always been prior to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 - if you consider the religious and secular taboos common to most societies, "Thou shalt not kill" is the responsibilities flip side of the rights "Everyone has the right to life".
Don said:
Martial Arts Man said:
Human rights are a smokescreen.
There are no god given rights.
All there is is Power......you have to be equipped to protect yourself in this world; by learning to be strategic in one's playing of the game of Power.
Nothing else matters.
Kill or be killed (figuratively or metaphorically) is the way of the world.
Absolutely. There are no god given rights.
All there is is Power......you have to be equipped to protect yourself in this world; by learning to be strategic in one's playing of the game of Power.
Nothing else matters.
Kill or be killed (figuratively or metaphorically) is the way of the world.
Anyone demanding a service from the public using the justification of their human rights is in absolute contravention of this. The fact that we, the public, decide to offer a service to assist those less fortunate is us expressing our humanity - not us following some divine dictat that says these people have "rights".
You only have the "rights" others are willing to give you.
There has been a muddying of the water of what is considered a right. There are certain things that should be sacrosanct, and unassailable. I believe that human rights legislation attempted to define what those are, however it was not drafted explicitly enough. This has allowed people to exploit it using legal weaknesses to include things that should not be considered a 'right' as such.
I see it that a document defining human rights should not be about services provided by the state, but rather a list of unconditional responsibilities the state has towards the individual. It is in effect a declaration of the type of society that we want - a recognition that although in literal terms there may be a choice in whether these things are upheld, to not do so is an undermining of that society. Responsibilities of the individual belong in other legistlation.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted in 1948 is a pretty good summary in my opinion.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff