4 ms·
I'm always curious how diplomats and politicians regard the "rights" in the U.N. declaration of human rights. They don't conform to a defensible set of natural
by Veen 5y ago
I'm always curious how diplomats and politicians regard the "rights" in the U.N. declaration of human rights. They don't conform to a defensible set of natural rights (even if it's agreed that such things exist), so are they considered a goal or a declaration of how the UN thinks people should live? Does it matter that few UN members conform to them? Or that they represent quite a specific ideological viewpoint in many cases. Or that some rights seem to conflict with other rights? In short, what's the point of a lengthy declaration of "rights" that almost none of the members seems committed to.
- user3939382 5y ago> Does it matter that few UN members conform to them? Does anything the UN does matter? I don't mean that in a flippant/sarcastic way. The "teeth" of the UN is ostensibly the UN Security Council, which runs on vetoes by interests that are practically never aligned. It seems to provide cover for US policy, and when it can't serve that purpose the US does what it wants anyway either with NATO or by itself.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago> In short, what's the point of a lengthy declaration of "rights" that almost none of the members seems committed to. The stated point of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to prevent the need for constant Declarations of Independence through violent revolution.