Andy G

This question has been bothering me for a while. If human rights are natural then surely all humans at all times must have had them, but this is patently false. Going back down the evolutionary chain it seems absurd to say that neanderthal man had a right to anything at all.

It would seem that our 'rights' arise through the formation of societies. Shouldn't we therefore accept that humans don't have rights; Perhaps we should say that a Just Society is obligated to provide and maintain certain fundamental services and conditions for those people who choose to accept that societies rule.

However, taken further this seems to lead to posible conflict between societies, different moral codes, etc.

Yet it seems equally clear that there is a fundamental morality common to all of us.

I can't break the connection between society and morality (I don't accept the Divine Morality theories). I don't know how to reconcile the idea that rights and morality arise through societies with the idea that some of morality, at least, must be more fundamental than this.

madmax2976

I agree. I have no reason to believe that "human rights" were or are "natural" - whatever that means.

Humans rights are defined by humans and held up as a standard by humans.

<strong> Actually I suspect he would have had a much more basic and limited sense of "human rights". Far different from our sense of them. But then the world was quite different then which would account for this.

<strong> Your confused I think. "Have rights" is a metaphor. Obviously people don't have an object called "rights" sitting in their pockets. Thus what does "have rights" really mean? It means that we have agreed upon a basic standard of conduct and socialization. It means we have agreed that all people should be treated in regards to that basic standard. But this happens only because most of us have agreed to it.

<strong> Its only "obligated" because we have agreed that it is.

<strong> Yep. If we can't agree, we war.

<strong> Since we're all human and have simliar weaknesses, hate pain, we like freedom and opportunity, etc., this is not suprising.

<strong> I guess I don't understand your dilemma so I can't answer it. Certain morals are very fundamental to us - particularly the ones which deal with pain and sorrow. As I said, we're all human and have the same basic fears, wants, desires and weaknesses so this is not suprising at all.

John Page

"Human rights" development is an evolutionary response to support egalitarian societies because that's what seem to work best. Besides, it makes us feel good.

Andy G

I'm still confused. I realise that my last post did nothing to clarify the point of my confusion (perhaps this shows how confused I really am!!).

I think a distinction needs to be made between morality and rights. While I can understand a moral code arising as the result of evoultion, I still fail to see how this makes necessary the concept of rights. Let me clarify slightly. Madmax says -

I realise that there isn't an object called 'rights', just as much as there isn't an object called 'personality'. However, by 'having natural rights' I am refering to something which we posess inately by virtue of our being human. We can have 'rights' just as we can have 'personality'.

I don't think that 'Rights' are made necessary by any underlying moral schema. A moral code tells us how we should behave, whereas a 'Right' gives us an entitlement (eg. a right to healthcare, and a right to life). It is these entitlements that I am questioning.

I agree with madmax when he states that

But this is the point. Are there any rights that can be derived from an evolved moral code. Just because we agree that something should happen does this mean that we are entitled to it. I still can't see any obviously direct connection.

I suppose a better formulation of the original question would be, what is the connection (if any) between a moral code and human rights? And how are these rights imbued on us by virtue of our humanity rather than by virtue of our living in civilized times?

John Page

I'm not sure imbued is the right expression, rights are either "taken" or "assumed" by those that have them and "given" or "granted" by those permitting the rights.

As to the second point, isn't "civilized" a term used to describe societies that are more advanced in human terms? In this sense the rights result from mutual, civilized, human activity so I don;t see any conflict.

Cheers, John

Bill

Viewed memetically, the concept of human rights is a successful meme. It pleases most people to believe that they have inherent value, and that this inherent value automatically entitles each of them to certain human rights. The question then becomes: is this true, or not?

Memes compete against each other for survival. The societies which believe in human rights have generally succeeded far better than those societies which do not believe in human rights. This success is virtually a function of the widespread belief in human rights because the respective populations of the competing societies have distinct changes in their motivations based upon their personal evaluation of the desireability of the respective memes of having or not having human rights.

So, it can ultimately be demonstrated that a widespread belief in the existence of individual human rights makes a society stronger. And, somewhat obviously, knowing that those rights will be enforced by the society as a whole (as opposed to knowing that the rights are illusiory) adds to the strength of the society as a whole. Eventually, the society (as a whole) comes to agree that the real recognition of universal human rights is so beneficial to the society (as a whole) that these rights become actualized by the desire of the society (as a whole) for its own survival.

=====

We are, right now, going through one of those times when it is inconvenient (or maybe undesireable) to grant universal rights to those who we ought to believe are entitled to them. We have at least two American citizens who are being held "incommunicado" in military prisons and denied those rights we normally associate with American citizenship. This is being done under the "enemy combatant" definition, which would seem to give the President the unfettered power to lock people up indefinitely by declaring those people to be "enemy combatants." I continue to hope that the majority of Americans will eventually see this as being wrong, just the way that we eventually came to the idea that it was wrong to imprison Japanese-Americans during WW II.

=====

But to summarize in brief, human rights come from the objective fact that societies that recognize human rights appear to motivate their citizens to greater levels of achievements, and are therefore "more fit" on some sort of "societal fitness scale." Thus, it becomes advantageous for any society to not only acknowledge some form of universal human rights, but to actualize those rights "when push comes to shove."

== Bill

abe smith

Apposite to this subject; and fascinating besides: Alan Derschowitz's recent collection of papers {Little Brown 2002} *Shouting Fire*; wh discusses the origin of human rights, the distinction between positive & "natural" law; whether there IZZ "natural" law. {Derschowitz is a self-labelled at-least "agnostic".} Members at EyeEye here who are interested in law, Constitutional issues, civil liberties, the Supremes et t.c. would enjoy this book.

Vorkosigan

I continue to hope that the majority of Americans will eventually see this as being wrong, just the way that we eventually came to the idea that it was wrong to imprison Japanese-Americans during WW II.

Except for about 11,000 Japanese who were interned, and another group of Japan supporters, no Japanese were imprisoned. You have confused two programs, the internment program for enemy citizens and sympathizers, and the relocation program. In fact, the program against German and Italian citizens was much more brutal. See Hopwood, who has been a crusader on this issue.

<a href="http://www.pnorthwestbooks.com/docs/jai_summary.html" target="_blank">Short summary</a>


<a href="http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1999/mojohopw.htm" target="_blank">Reply to MoJo</a>

<a href="http://www.internment.org/ja_faq.shtml" target="_blank">Hopwood's FAQ</a>

Vorkosigan