3 ms·
Which, in turn, flies in the face of the original, Lockeian definition of "natural rights". I'm not saying this article is alone in diluting the meaning of a "
by gipp 9y ago
Which, in turn, flies in the face of the original, Lockeian definition of "natural rights".
I'm not saying this article is alone in diluting the meaning of a "right", it's been going on for years all around the world. That dilution, though, has made it basically useless as a concept.
- ska 9y agoThis stance that there has been some sort of dilution would make more sense in a world where Locke's formulation of rights was a) unique and b) widely accepted as canonical. As neither are true, it begs the question.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cmurf 9y agoThe UDHR emerged from WWII, just as did the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. and the Nuremberg war crimes trials. They're not useless. And they diluted nothing. Human beings learned something. But somehow from then to now failed to figure out a way to broaden the consensus, and hold partners accountable. It's hardly any different than a family member who has a gambling problem, or drug addiction. Do you kick them to the curb? Or do you persist in making the best of a crappy situation? In most families it's a back and forth between making the best and punishing them in a persistent passive aggressive struggle. And global politics is no different, no less messy. But having ethical standards is still not useless.