4 ms·

> It certainly isn't a human right. Freedom of expression is in Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-de

by guelo 8y ago

> It certainly isn't a human right. Freedom of expression is in Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

arthur_pryor 8y ago
why downvote this comment? i'm not saying you have to agree with it, but this seems like as universally accepted an answer to "what are basic human rights?" as any that might be given (i'm assuming there is actually no universally agreeable definition, but this seems like one of the more respectable and frequently cited sources).
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  I don't think the downvotes were warranted given that the comment introduced something worth discussing, but my thoughts might be in line with some of the downvoters. Human rights are not objective truths. The entire concept is something we made up based on beliefs that we formed through the course of history and we formalized the ones that a bunch of us were able to agree upon. They are a figment of our imaginations that we buy into because they're useful tools for structuring a society that isn't absolute chaos. As a result, citing a list that the UN formalized as some sort of factual evidence is, to me, on par with citing religious texts to promote their corresponding belief systems as "correct". That's not to say the list doesn't have value, only that it's open to debate and represents beliefs rather than facts.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    You can claim that morality is a fiction, but that doesn’t make it so. It’s not the most common or most plausible view.
    - longerthoughts 8y ago
      You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. I would wager that most people have never bothered to ask the question because morality is useful either way. Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument. I’m not saying morality has no place, only that it’s not a physical reality and you can’t point to a list as definitive proof of what is and is not moral.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        > You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. You're right. But if it's a question of evidence, I can certainly provide it. The fact that most people in the world adhere to one of the major religions [1] [2], which have moral duties, a fortiori implies that your view isn't the most common. Even this is vastly under-counting, of course, since it excludes humanists and non-humanists who adhere to secular ethics. I think the uncommonness of your view is quite clear and it would be disingenuous to deny that. Second, your view isn't the most common even among professional philosophers whose raison d'etre is precisely to ask and analyze these questions. Specifically, your view is the most common neither among those who study meta-ethics nor among the general population [3]. > Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument. I didn't say its uncommonness makes it untrue. I said it's neither the most common (which may or may not warrant a higher burden of proof) nor the most plausible. [1] http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/ http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-relig... [2] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... [3] https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
        longerthoughts 8y ago
        Thank you for the survey results - these are genuinely fascinating. I acknowledge that you weren't arguing that my view is incorrect, only that it's not a given, and I was debating a point that you weren't making. I buy your argument and agree that most people, if asked, would probably give an answer more closely aligned with moral realism than not. What's the case for moral realism that makes it so compelling? On a separate note, I take issue with the suggestion that an individual identifying with a major religion qualifies as adherence to its principles. This is nitpicking and doesn't impact the larger point you're making, but I think it's an important distinction in general.
purple_ducks 8y ago
Not debating whether or not it is a right but the UN isn't the world's moral authority. I view them as an un-elected advisory group.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  In that case you can't say if someone is or isn't a moral right. Its up to opinion and its easy to see how many people consider it a moral right.
- pimmen 8y ago
  No, but China does recognize it as a human right since it has ratified the declaration and they enjoy permanent membership on the Security Council (after having gotten that position from Taiwan, and they did it under the condition that they would uphold their decisions). I posit that breaking the very morals you believe in yourself, and lying about it, is immoral.
badrabbit 8y ago
I wasn't refering to what the UN thinks but what is universally accepted as rights humans have. For example liberty isn't a human right,neither is equal treatment. But food,shelter,dignity are human rights. These are rights humans get just for being human this includes prisoners,soldiers and the like. If you say freedom of expression is a human right,then how come no soldier or prisoner is afforded that right? Did they forfeit their humanity? If so,by what authority did they forfeit their own humanity?
- guelo 8y ago
  You're saying your definition of human rights is more universally accepted than the UN's?
  - badrabbit 8y ago
    Not my definition but whatever is actually universally accepted. You'd find a large majority of people outside the west don't think free speech is a human right. Human right as in rights you have for being a human,not a membet of a specific nation or group but rights you are born with. UN defines human rights based on what member states agree is a human right based on voting and electiond. Universally means by nearly every sane and rational human,not by a simple majority. Good example: most people agree rape is wrong because it's a terrible thing to happen to person and it isn't acceptable. However,the right to not get raped is not a right you have simply for being a human but rather socieities agrees it shouldn't happen to anyone. You'd find marital rape is unprosecutable in some countries and perfectly legal in the west even in the last few centuries. I.E.: people decided it wad bad. Otoh: a person can eat(if they find food),sleep,and be alive because they're human.

by guelo 8y ago

arthur_pryor 8y ago

why downvote this comment? i'm not saying you have to agree with it, but this seems like as universally accepted an answer to "what are basic human rights?" as any that might be given (i'm assuming there is actually no universally agreeable definition, but this seems like one of the more respectable and frequently cited sources).

longerthoughts 8y ago
I don't think the downvotes were warranted given that the comment introduced something worth discussing, but my thoughts might be in line with some of the downvoters. Human rights are not objective truths. The entire concept is something we made up based on beliefs that we formed through the course of history and we formalized the ones that a bunch of us were able to agree upon. They are a figment of our imaginations that we buy into because they're useful tools for structuring a society that isn't absolute chaos. As a result, citing a list that the UN formalized as some sort of factual evidence is, to me, on par with citing religious texts to promote their corresponding belief systems as "correct". That's not to say the list doesn't have value, only that it's open to debate and represents beliefs rather than facts.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  You can claim that morality is a fiction, but that doesn’t make it so. It’s not the most common or most plausible view.
  - longerthoughts 8y ago
    You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. I would wager that most people have never bothered to ask the question because morality is useful either way. Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument. I’m not saying morality has no place, only that it’s not a physical reality and you can’t point to a list as definitive proof of what is and is not moral.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. You're right. But if it's a question of evidence, I can certainly provide it. The fact that most people in the world adhere to one of the major religions [1] [2], which have moral duties, a fortiori implies that your view isn't the most common. Even this is vastly under-counting, of course, since it excludes humanists and non-humanists who adhere to secular ethics. I think the uncommonness of your view is quite clear and it would be disingenuous to deny that. Second, your view isn't the most common even among professional philosophers whose raison d'etre is precisely to ask and analyze these questions. Specifically, your view is the most common neither among those who study meta-ethics nor among the general population [3]. > Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument. I didn't say its uncommonness makes it untrue. I said it's neither the most common (which may or may not warrant a higher burden of proof) nor the most plausible. [1] http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/ http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-relig... [2] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... [3] https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
      - longerthoughts 8y ago
        Thank you for the survey results - these are genuinely fascinating. I acknowledge that you weren't arguing that my view is incorrect, only that it's not a given, and I was debating a point that you weren't making. I buy your argument and agree that most people, if asked, would probably give an answer more closely aligned with moral realism than not. What's the case for moral realism that makes it so compelling? On a separate note, I take issue with the suggestion that an individual identifying with a major religion qualifies as adherence to its principles. This is nitpicking and doesn't impact the larger point you're making, but I think it's an important distinction in general.

purple_ducks 8y ago

Not debating whether or not it is a right but the UN isn't the world's moral authority. I view them as an un-elected advisory group.

baroffoos 8y ago
In that case you can't say if someone is or isn't a moral right. Its up to opinion and its easy to see how many people consider it a moral right.
pimmen 8y ago
No, but China does recognize it as a human right since it has ratified the declaration and they enjoy permanent membership on the Security Council (after having gotten that position from Taiwan, and they did it under the condition that they would uphold their decisions). I posit that breaking the very morals you believe in yourself, and lying about it, is immoral.

badrabbit 8y ago

I wasn't refering to what the UN thinks but what is universally accepted as rights humans have. For example liberty isn't a human right,neither is equal treatment. But food,shelter,dignity are human rights. These are rights humans get just for being human this includes prisoners,soldiers and the like. If you say freedom of expression is a human right,then how come no soldier or prisoner is afforded that right? Did they forfeit their humanity? If so,by what authority did they forfeit their own humanity?

guelo 8y ago
You're saying your definition of human rights is more universally accepted than the UN's?
- badrabbit 8y ago
  Not my definition but whatever is actually universally accepted. You'd find a large majority of people outside the west don't think free speech is a human right. Human right as in rights you have for being a human,not a membet of a specific nation or group but rights you are born with. UN defines human rights based on what member states agree is a human right based on voting and electiond. Universally means by nearly every sane and rational human,not by a simple majority. Good example: most people agree rape is wrong because it's a terrible thing to happen to person and it isn't acceptable. However,the right to not get raped is not a right you have simply for being a human but rather socieities agrees it shouldn't happen to anyone. You'd find marital rape is unprosecutable in some countries and perfectly legal in the west even in the last few centuries. I.E.: people decided it wad bad. Otoh: a person can eat(if they find food),sleep,and be alive because they're human.