/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6221621]

I tried asking fucking /pol/ and got 0 (zero) replies, here goes nothing.

Any lawfags in? Can we talk about the hypocritical nonsense that are human rights? At least in their current conception?

It makes no sense to develop a theory of inherent rights under the scope of a State, an entity not inherent to mankind. The same goes for "rights" for things that are clerly not inherent either, like education, healthcare, and access to clean water; I am not discussing the validity of the State in itself, or of said "rights", but that they simply make no sense under a system based of supposed "inherence".

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6221626]

What are you, some kind of humanist retard?

[Anonymous No.6221627]

it sounds like you're almost ready, comrade

[Anonymous No.6221633]

It makes no sense to assert rights at all. It's silly, like declaring that you own the moon.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6221642]

>>6221633
I don't see how that's silly if it can be substantiated in more than words.

[Anonymous No.6221646]

>>6221642
The moon or human rights?

[Anonymous No.6221649]

>>6221621
just get dialectical and bracket your sense of inherent and that shit will be inherent, faggot, and then we can all just keep moving.

[Anonymous No.6221650]

probably my favorite pic of Sasha grey

[Anonymous No.6221653]

>>6221626
I am not advancing a position. I am just saying that the currently accepted conception of human rights is self contradictory.

>>6221627
pic related

>>6221650
she's a qt

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6221667]

>>6221646
Both

>>6221653
>am not advancing a position. I am just saying that the currently accepted conception of human rights is self contradictory.
That's not really an issue, the technical origin of natural rights doesn't matter insofar as they function.

[Anonymous No.6221668]

>>6221621
I'm not sure I quite follow your argument, but you seem to be saying that the idea of inherent rights makes no sense because these rights may or may not exist. That is to say, that it makes no sense to say that humans have a right to EG access to clean water, because in the state of nature there is no clean water. This seems to me wholly to misunderstand what is meant by the idea of a natural right. It doesn't mean that something falls or attaches naturally to man; it means that man has a legitimate or a moral claim to such and such a thing. So when we say that man has a right to access to clean water, what we mean is that every human being as such has a legitimate claim to clean water. Regardless of whether, in actual existence, such a claim is likely or even possible to be given actual existence.

So in the specific instance of politics, human beings have legitimate claims to such-and-such things simply by virtue of being human, and the legitimacy or not of a given state can be judged on those criteria. I mean, I don't think that a state is necessary to conceptualize inherent political rights.

I don't know. I really don't know what conception of rights you're arguing from. But I think this is usually what people mean. Whether or not you think those rights claims are actually legitimate, I don't think the line of critique you're taking makes much sense.

[Anonymous No.6221676]

>>6221668
like i said:>>6221649

[Anonymous No.6221678]

>>6221667
>Both
Historically the only right that has ever been substantiated is the rights of the conquerer over the conquered.

[Anonymous No.6221687]

>>6221678
No one talking about rights is talking about the way that they expect things to go, or the way they think things will automatically go in every instance, or anything like that. That's not what anyone who talks about 'rights' means when they talk about rights. Maybe some people who believe in progress and an end of history would agree with that in the sense that we're moving towards a world where it becomes the case, but no one who talks about rights is making the argument that they should be based on the existing patterns of behavior of human history. Where the fuck does this idea even come from?

[Anonymous No.6221692]

>Lawfags

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6221706]

>>6221678
That's edgy bullshit, within the conquerors there are rights that they decide on and deliberate together, they don't just chimp out on each other.

[Anonymous No.6221715]

>>6221667
>That's not really an issue.
Even though it is, because right now many governments and international organisms are fumbling about trying to balance all these bullshit rights that result from this contradictory reasoning, whether or not it is an issue or not is not the issue object of this thread, the issue object of this thread is the ilogical grounds in which arguably the biggest movement in law today is based.

>>6221668
>but you seem to be saying that the idea of inherent rights makes no sense because these rights may or may not exist.
Not at all, what I am saying is that, if you are going to hold inherent rights as the ultimate value, it makes no sense to subordinate them to a non-inherent entity like the State.

>So when we say that man has a right to access to clean water, what we mean is that every human being as such has a legitimate claim to clean water
I cannot take that as an inherent right, if you said, "Each human has the right to try to aquire clean water", then I'll be ok with it, as it would be within the scope of things that a man can do with his inherent control over his body, but what actually happens when access to clean water is treated as a right is that the meaning becomes "Each human has a right to have clean water provided to him by someone else, or by the state after it takes it from someone else."

>human beings have legitimate claims to such-and-such things
Like what things? I cant accept the claim of an "inherent human right" to something that is not inherent to man.

>I don't know. I really don't know what conception of rights you're arguing from.
I'm just following the language and reasoning used by authors like Ferrajoli.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6221725]

>>6221715
>>That's not really an issue.
>Even though it is, because right now many governments and international organisms are fumbling about trying to balance all these bullshit rights that result from this contradictory reasoning, whether or not it is an issue or not is not the issue object of this thread, the issue object of this thread is the ilogical grounds in which arguably the biggest movement in law today is based.
I don't see it. Could you give some news articles which illustrate this?

[Anonymous No.6221726]

>>6221706
This is a good point.

>since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must

It'd be nice if people could make these arguments in a way that was familiar with the history of the subject instead of being edgemeisters about it.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6221732]

>>6221726
And in ancient Greece, the strong were often times the masses, which is what the weak called "mob rule"

[Anonymous No.6221743]

>>6221715
>Not at all, what I am saying is that, if you are going to hold inherent rights as the ultimate value, it makes no sense to subordinate them to a non-inherent entity like the State.

Ah. That's an interesting argument. But I don't think proponents of rights would argue that they're subordinated to the state. Rather, I think they would argue that they can only be instantiated in a state but the rights are still prior to the state and superior to it.

>Like what things? I cant accept the claim of an "inherent human right" to something that is not inherent to man.

Okay. I'm still really not sure of your understanding of what is 'inherent' to man and whether it makes sense. But perhaps it can be understood through the lens of moral standing generally. In the same way that some would argue that an individual human being has some kind of moral standing and that's why it's wrong to murder him, some would say that for the same reason man has an inherent right to political representation or the exercise of free speech. It flows from his basic nature.

[Anonymous No.6221754]

>>6221621
>It doesn't mean that something falls or attaches naturally to man; it means that man has a legitimate or a moral claim to such and such a thing. So when we say that man has a right to access to clean water, what we mean is that every human being as such has a legitimate claim to clean water

I'm curious to what the justification for these claims are though. How do we find logical entailment from "someone is a human" to " they deserve x" in general. I can get it from a Christian perspective because it is part of God's Telos that we act a certain way towards others, and since he is by definition the best being possible what ever he wants ought to be the best thing possible. I also can get right claims within states as a contractual sort of deal; that you are entitled along with all others in the agreement that you will not act in a certain way and no one will act against you in a certain way.

But global human rights meant to exist pre-legally or outside of a particular political system seems quite baseless from a secular perspective. If you are not Religious then all rights are are the dictates that either a large quantitative mass or the men with guns can force others to abide by.

[Anonymous No.6221763]

>>6221754
Well, that's just the general is/ought problem of morality. And, yes, I think that's a pretty valid critique of the system. I don't think that any of the foundational bases for absolute legitimacy of rights claims or moral claims founded on human status as such.

But I don't think that makes those claims hypocritical and I would assume that anyone who's making them has some kind of basis on which they're founding those claims, whether or not I think it holds up.

[Anonymous No.6221767]

>>6221621

on what basis are you asserting that the state isn't inherent to mankind? is it not an institution invented by mankind? when man, in his nature as a social creature, set out to organize, his will created out of the flock a leader; in the modern state that leadership is merely diffused. by virtue of leadership deriving directly from the social and the will, themselves inherent qualities of humankind, i assert then that the state is also inherent; it has only to reveal itself under the right conditions.

this, of course doesn't justify either the state or the so-called rights of man. but, if you wanted to form such a defense, i suppose this might be good place to start.

[Anonymous No.6221769]

>>6221743
>But I don't think proponents of rights would argue that they're subordinated to the state. Rather, I think they would argue that they can only be instantiated in a state but the rights are still prior to the state and superior to it.

Of course they dont argue that, but that's what is de facto happening. If they were prior and superior to the state, then the state would have no power over them, unless you suscribed to the theory of a social contract, which has never happened.

>Okay. I'm still really not sure of your understanding of what is 'inherent' to man and whether it makes sense.
State of nature.

>How do we find logical entailment from "someone is a human" to " they deserve x" in general.
Im curious as well, I don't want to call spooks, but, you know, spooks!

>>6221767
>on what basis are you asserting that the state isn't inherent to mankind? is it not an institution invented by mankind?
Um, exactly? If man invented the state, that means that man once lived without it, which in turn it means that it isn't inherent.

[Anonymous No.6221778]

>>6221769
>Of course they dont argue that, but that's what is de facto happening. If they were prior and superior to the state, then the state would have no power over them, unless you suscribed to the theory of a social contract, which has never happened.

That's the same argument again, though. Rights are not natural objects and they don't have this kind of factitious quality that you seem to be demanding.

>State of nature... Im curious as well, I don't want to call spooks, but, you know, spooks!

Yeah, if those are your positions, then you're never going to agree with natural rights theories. But that doesn't mean they're incomprehensible or hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.6221785]

>>6221778
You don't understand, I am not trying to make sense of them from a spooky point of view. I am trying to play by their rules, their reasoning is faulty even if you assume that inherent rights are a real thing.

[Anonymous No.6221818]

>>6221769

let me approach the problem in reverse then: can you name for me something outside of man that birthed the state?

[Anonymous No.6221819]

>>6221785
No, their reasoning is faulty if you assume that inherent rights are a real thing but still hold to your specific understanding of what it means for something to be inherent.

They disagree with you on the concept of an inherent right, dude. What you're doing is essentially the equivalent of saying "They say an inherent right is x? But an inherent right is y! THIS MAKES NO SENSE!"

[Anonymous No.6221822]

>>6221621
Did babby just discover Humanism is ridiculous? Did he? A bloo bloo bloo.

[Anonymous No.6221988]

who is this pretty gurl

[Anonymous No.6221989]

>>6221988

She has done scary things.

[Anonymous No.6221994]

>>6221988
She did porn till she got AIDS and the industry rejected her. Now she thinks she can write.

[Anonymous No.6222287]

>>6221650
Same. Gosh she's so pretty

[Anonymous No.6222299]

>>6221988
pure innocent maiden

[Anonymous No.6222304]

>>6221988
She sucked a lot of dicks w/ her butthole

Doesn't mean she isn't a qt

[Anonymous No.6222309]

Human rights are a load of crock though since even the people up top are choosing to disregard them when it suits them.

I remember that fat woman talking about paying for an extra seat on a plane and saying something along the lines of 'We needn't have to fight for the basic right to a chair to sit down on.' I'm thinking where the fuck did the universe say 'YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SIT YOU ASS ON SOMETHING?'

[Anonymous No.6222311]

>>6221621
>access to clean water not a guaranteed right
Why would you want to live in that world?

[Anonymous No.6222314]

>>6221994
Are you potentially informing me that this cute girl might have revealing photos available on the internet?

[Anonymous No.6222315]

>>6222311
You hate yourself and thereby your fellow.

[Anonymous No.6222316]

>>6222315
I think that OP is dumb enough to think that just because rights are an abstraction, that they can't possibly exist legitimately.

[Anonymous No.6222317]

>>6222314
There was one floating around a few years ago but her publicist got it taken down pretty fast.

[Anonymous No.6222362]

Spooky thread op

[Anonymous No.6222367]

>>6222309
Where and when the fuck did the universe tell you that we wanted to read your uneducated opinion?

[Anonymous No.6223359]

ITT: Ideology, and lack of reading comprehension.

Also, fair maidens.

[Anonymous No.6223433]

Human rights only make sense if you're a theist.

[Anonymous No.6223452]

>>6223433
>Human rights only make sense if you're a theist.

[Anonymous No.6224508]

I like how nobody is discussing RTP, Foucault's knowledge/power, the second set of basic rights / second new deal, repressive desublimation, the inescapability of rights discourse in rape preventions, etc.

good work /lit/, you're underread cretins.

[Anonymous No.6224513]

>>6223452
They are based almost entirely on theistic and ideas similar to those.

[Anonymous No.6224519]

>>6221621
Yeah, it's just a sophism used to trick barbarians into playing along and to legitimise force against them if they do not.

[Anonymous No.6224527]

>>6224508
I like how you don't either except for namedropping.

[Anonymous No.6224556]

>>6224508
its because those are stupid things to talk about

[Anonymous No.6224583]

>>6224513
The idea of being nice to each other is much older than theism. Older than humanity, actually.

[Anonymous No.6224613]

The idea of rights is just some liberal bourgeois idea trying to make feudalism and capitalism sound fair. It has since then gotten picked up by edgy teenage leftists who want to play politics and put as many labels on themselves as possible.

[Anonymous No.6224663]

>>6224513

No. They are based on the natural compassion of humans from being social creatures. The fact Theism had been the preferred outlet for these ideas over the course of thousands of years only validates the desire to continue tradition, and too often has theism perverted the social contact.

[Anonymous No.6226291]

>>6224663
>social creatures
>using stale memes

[Anonymous No.6226330]

>>6224663
Well you're both just disagreeing on a base assumption, so I don't see how presenting the rationalization of your own is supposed to convince him of it.