[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 16 KB, 433x374, UN_Flag (1).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1532431 No.1532431 [Reply] [Original]

Does /lit/ think that there are any universal human rights?

>> No.1532433

No.

But we should act like there are.

>> No.1532436
File: 11 KB, 238x250, 1288680017450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1532436

>>1532433

>> No.1532440

>>1532433

Why don't you think so? Surely freedom of speech must be a universal right?

>> No.1532439

>>1532433
>we should act like there are

Just like God right

>> No.1532447

Do you mean rights that all people currently have, or rights that all people SHOULD have?

Because I would say the only right that people currently have is the right to live (that is until someone kills you, etc.)

If you mean rights people should have, then there's lots.

>> No.1532448
File: 40 KB, 600x448, 1278545884062.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1532448

>> No.1532449

Not from Arts faculty; but yes. Men have fundamental rights.

I have seen the charter by UN. I think it is highly exaggerated and impractical.

>> No.1532456
File: 6 KB, 251x193, 1288188341615.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1532456

>>1532440

>> No.1532465

>>1532439

No, the belief in the existence of God does more harm than good.

>>1532440

Of course it should be.

But that doesn't mean you are objectively entitled to it.

Concepts like rights and justice must be constructed and invoked by people, and if they are invoked by people they can be taken away by people.

Therefore, we should act as if these rights are almost supernaturally inherent in all people, even if we know they are not.

>> No.1532468

>>1532447

OP here. I mean rights that we should have. For example, should all people have the right to freedom of speech? The rights that we enjoy today have not always been considered so. It's not so long ago that slavery wasn't considered immoral.

>> No.1532470

I don't think that there are intrinsic human rights, in the sense of things that have a moral claim to be guaranteed by the simple fact of personhood. I think rights are a construct essential to building a good political order, and I think fighting on the basis of a universal conception of human rights is a damn good thing. But are the intrinsic objective things? no.

>> No.1532472

>>1532465
hi William James, that shit goes both ways in case you haven't heard

>> No.1532479

>>1532465
>more harm than good
How the fuck exactly did you reach this conclusion?

>> No.1532477

>>1532465
Ah.

Put a bit illogically to my taste but equivalent to what I too believe as:

"Man cannot rule man"

>> No.1532490

There are no intrinsic human rights, they are a human invention. Having universal human rights, like freedom of speech, right to return, right to necessities (food, clothing, shelter) etc. would be a positive thing, but in practice it would seem to be wrought with problems. Right to return being a case in point for the Israel/Palestine issue.

>> No.1532491

>>1532468
I think it's important to clarify what we mean by 'right'. The common conception of a 'human right' is a right, inherent in the human condition, which entitles any human person by virtue of that person hood to some thing - in this case, to non-interference with his speech (circumscribed by whatever legal limitations). Under this view any political system which does not protect this right is inherently unjust, and political systems ought to be more or less founded on the recognition and protection of rights. Rights are something approaching recognizable facts, which cry out. That's I think the most common view of human rights, and there's a strong argument that no such objective human rights exist.

>> No.1532506

>>1532472

I prefer to think of it as necessary truth, if human rights were exploited civilisation could never progress, and I would only invoke it in this scenario.

The belief in God thing is not nearly as necessary.

>>1532479

Because I took history.

And I know that for all the charitable work the catholics and such do, their advocacy for keeping women bound to an animalistic cycle by disallowing contraception and abortion creates more poverty than can be remedied with charity.

>> No.1532519

>>1532506
>their advocacy for keeping women bound to an animalistic cycle by disallowing contraception and abortion creates more poverty than can be remedied with charity.
>creates more poverty than can be remedied with charity

Can you actually prove that?

>Prove what?
1) Catholic church does not allow women to be employed?
2) Somehow the Church's policies towards women generate poverty that can't be balanced by their charity?

>> No.1532522

>>1532506
>if human rights were exploited civilisation could never progress
how utterly naive

>> No.1532538

>>1532522

I agree. Human rights have always been exploited and still are.

>> No.1532541

Dude we should like change things.

>> No.1532549

>>1532519
If you are aware of the issues of the catholic church and contraception, this should be easy:
>No contraception means women are more likely to get pregnant
>This makes it harder to find/keep employment, and increases cost of living
>Less women in jobs

Charity cannot replace earnings from employment (employment gives a sense of ownership and takes up free time too). Also, consider that becoming a priest is often THE route for being educated. If only men can become priests, only men in the community become educated.

>> No.1532567
File: 36 KB, 300x348, mustacheman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1532567

No.

>> No.1532565

>>1532522

Perhaps you'd like to turn on the world news and then try and tell me that progressive societies can exist under a authoritarian regimes.

>>1532519

>1) Catholic church does not allow women to be employed?

It does allow women to be employed (not as priests, that is do ho ho).

Anyway this wasn't my point, my point was that by trapping women in motherhood and forcing them to become mothers to large numbers of children at a young age of course stops them from being able to reach higher education and decent jobs.

The cure for poverty has been known for quite some time now, and it is the liberation of women as a labour force. And it has worked in countries which have shaken off their ridiculous religious prejudices. They have managed to ascend from poverty, where places like indonesia haven't.

>> No.1532564

>>1532549
I agree, women should never get pregnant, it's terribly anti-feminist

to advance a slightly more nuanced argument, the catholic church's opposition to contraception, while bad, is hardly the only force - or even the most strong - in keeping women down. cultural and social expectations and ingrained attitudes do exist, it's not like there's a massive catholic conspiracy to keep women pregnant all the time, you know. arguably, the negative effects of contraception have more to do with overpopulation than with an effect on women's education and job access.

>> No.1532577

>>1532565
>Anyway this wasn't my point, my point was that by trapping women in motherhood and forcing them to become mothers to large numbers of children at a young age of course stops them from being able to reach higher education and decent jobs.

although it's certainly a bad thing, lack of contraception is probably not the only thing keeping women from education and jobs, and the catholic church / religion in general is not the only thing keeping contraception away

>The cure for poverty has been known for quite some time now, and it is the liberation of
women as a labour force

pretty sure it's industrialization, but you had a good shot

>And it has worked in countries which have shaken off their ridiculous religious prejudices

you seem to be arguing that there's an intimate relationship between misogyny and religion. that is, frankly, batshit insane

>> No.1532598

>>1532564
Or just recognize that the stance on contraceptives is a force? Way to go misreading a point to put forward a "nuanced argument". If you look at Uganda, you'll find in the very south, and in a couple of places in the north east, a fair amount of matriarchy. They're also the places that haven't had as many missionaries fucking about.

>> No.1532604

>>1532598
How is the concept of Matriarchy any less 'evil' than that of patriarchy?

>> No.1532609

if they cant control their stupid whore urges they deserve to get pregnant. fucking animals.

>> No.1532610
File: 101 KB, 357x360, fpos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1532610

>progressive societies can exist under a authoritarian regimes.
Ye best start believin in progressive societies under an authoritarian regime, Miss Turner. Yer in one.

>> No.1532613

>>1532604
>matriarchy
The preferred term in current scholarly journals is "pussy power".

>> No.1532615

>>1532577

> lack of contraception is probably not the only thing keeping women from education and jobs

It's not a lack of contraception, it's the illegality of contraception which reduces the power of women. And your right, there are cultural problems too.

But I don't see a single religion that supports these measures, do you?

>pretty sure it's industrialization, but you had a good shot

You think industrialisation cured poverty? And you are trying to be patronising about it?

>intimate relationship between misogyny and religion
>bullshit

dohohoho okay bro.

>> No.1532618

>>1532604
It's not that one is more or less evil, it's just that a lot of people in the west like to assume everywhere else is basically the same, but less refined. In the south, it's a mixture of matriarchy, patriarchy and neither, and if you were to go back 100 years, you'd find a mix of different social hierarchies.

>> No.1532619

>>1532615
if there's one thing i've learned in my time on 4chan, it's that you'll never seen an atheist who's a misogynist.

>> No.1532622

>>1532610

I lol'd, but you have to acknowledge the differences between a western european democracy and somewhere like Egypt.

>> No.1532627

>>1532622
That we haven't had other countries assassinating our progressive leaders and installing dictators?

>> No.1532644

>>1532627

You realise that Mubarak was actually wounded during the assassination of El Sadat?

>> No.1532647

morality is a social construct. there are no universal human rights.

>> No.1532659

>>1532644
That's really meaningful, and I totally see an awesome point which you are totally making there.

>> No.1532677

>>1532659

If Mubarak was going to be 'installed' by the malicious alliance of democratic countries why would they have shot him too?

I even know why I'm trying to reason with you. Please delude yourself with your juvenile speculation elsewhere.

>> No.1532686

>>1532677
>If Mubarak was going to be 'installed' by the malicious alliance of democratic countries why would they have shot him too?
To make it more believable, geeezzz

>> No.1532705

>>1532677
To be fair, the assassination was carried out by Arabs who were butthurt about Egypt making peace with Israel invaders. I don't think Mubarak was installed, but his political passivity was certainly a boon for Western countries who feared a trans-national Islamic political alliance.

>> No.1532716

The only right anyone has is free will.

Nothing else is guaranteed nor, necessarily, even afforded.

>> No.1532725

Human rights are an Occidental construction that emphasize individuality in the Liberal tradition ala JS Mill. They are nothing but the co-opting of left-wing language by ruthless bankers to advance an exploitative free market capitalism into lawless or legally ambiguous territory. Note how human rights have been used to frame the casus belli of the invasion of Iraq. Recently human rights have been muttered to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan (women's rights). Collective wage bargaining is conspicuously missing from the list. Just an example, but conceptions of community (such as the Islamic umma) are left little room to breathe in these models.

I'm pushing a pretty radical point of view here which is definitely not the complete picture, but I think it's worth a look.

>> No.1532731

>>1532725
Sorry, a major clarification:

Human rights were discussed AFTER it was shown Iraq did not possess WMDs.

>> No.1532741

Certainly.

The one's I've read of in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seem reasonable, and I think I might be able to argue that to disagree with any of the given rights would be to be at odds at nature.

If you understood that sentence on the first try, you're amazing.

>> No.1532771

It's what sets us apart from the animals.