4 ms·

Some of the premises in your post are incorrect. -- > The argument seems to be that we have rights because the UN says so. That's not the argument. The reaso

by ratww 5y ago

Some of the premises in your post are incorrect. -- > The argument seems to be that we have rights because the UN says so. That's not the argument. The reasons we have human rights is because individual countries decided to implement them. The Universal Declaration itself is not legally binding. It's just an agreement that participating countries decided to implement into their own laws. UN can't force countries who didn't vote into it to implement. They can't even force countries who actually voted for it to implement it. However, individual countries have the freedom to complain or stop trading with countries who don't implement, or on countries that implement but don't follow. Out of the things that countries do to each other, this seems like a minor thing. -- > Who or what endowed the UN (or anyone else) with the prerogative to declare human rights? Nobody. Anyone can declare human rights. I've declared a few myself yesterday during tea time. The Universal Declaration carries its weight because it was made and approved by the countries themselves who took part in the UN at a certain time. It's not as if some crazy person at the UN has the power to change something in the document at their will. And even if they did, so what?

marginalia_nu 5y ago
Ok, if as you say, human rights can just be declared arbitrarily by anyone and have no special significance or legal power beyond being a fancy way of saying "I want this", why would anyone care about human rights in the first place?
- ratww 5y ago
  People care because they read the thing and thought it sounded like a bunch of good ideas to implement in their own neck of the woods. Some politician brings it home a copy and tries to make law, representatives vote. That's it. People routinely suggest new human rights and some people agree and others disagree. There is no higher court or secret world parliament deciding your life. You asked "How do rights become true or false?". Well, by becoming new laws in individual countries.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Returning to the post, if Tor is claiming "Privacy Is A Human Right", and Facebook (hypothetically) responds "No It Isn't", can either party be said to be correct? If neither is correct (or both simultaneously), is it even a meaningful statement about the world to declare a human right like Tor does?
    - ratww 5y ago
      > can either party be said to be correct Yes. Tor is correct and Facebook is wrong. I said it. Other people might say otherwise, but I'll say they're wrong. (and they are) In societies it is normal to have disagreements. What people do is discuss the issue and potentially reach an agreement. Maybe this will become a law somewhere. Maybe it will go into the Universal Declaration, and most countries will implement it. Maybe not. After becoming a law, people will either follow it or not. If they sort of break the law, a judge or peers will decide if they need punishment. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Who knows. Life is not a computer program or math equation. Life is a bit hard.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        If you say the sky is blue, or that water is wet, or that rock is hard, or that ice is cold, and so forth; I can agree with you because I can use my senses and they tell me the same thing you were telling me. If you tell me the angular sum of a triangle is 180 degrees, I cannot see it directly with my senses, but I can construct a simple proof with pen and paper that shows me it cannot be any other way than what you told me. How do you experience the truth of the human right to privacy?
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        What if I then draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere with an angle sum of 270 degrees? All you're saying here is that we've agreed on a principle that implies what you're saying is true. This is the exact same as what the other commenter is saying.
        5y ago
- powersnail 5y ago
  Like all social constructs, they come into being when a bunch of humans collectively believe in them. The social significance depends on how the believers act. Some discipline themselves, some try to persuade others, some start a war, some try to push through legislations.
rjzzleep 5y ago
It's actually not arbitrary at all. The UN came out of the league of nations, which was specifically a bunch of colonial powers and their offspring / colonies. That is precisely the reason why some highly controversial UN resolutions were passed right after the second world war. It's almost ironic that China now wields so much more power over the path the UN is taking than the old colonial powers. But whenever people say this or that is a human right, we ought to remember that a lot of the things that are legally defined as human rights were at some point defined by some old colonial overlord until it wasn't. The founders of the UN definitely didn't think that people of any colour were the same or that interracial marriage is a human right.
- ratww 5y ago
  You are correct and I agree with you, but I think you answered to the wrong reply. It's my interlocutor that believe it's arbitrary.

by ratww 5y ago

marginalia_nu 5y ago

Ok, if as you say, human rights can just be declared arbitrarily by anyone and have no special significance or legal power beyond being a fancy way of saying "I want this", why would anyone care about human rights in the first place?

ratww 5y ago
People care because they read the thing and thought it sounded like a bunch of good ideas to implement in their own neck of the woods. Some politician brings it home a copy and tries to make law, representatives vote. That's it. People routinely suggest new human rights and some people agree and others disagree. There is no higher court or secret world parliament deciding your life. You asked "How do rights become true or false?". Well, by becoming new laws in individual countries.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Returning to the post, if Tor is claiming "Privacy Is A Human Right", and Facebook (hypothetically) responds "No It Isn't", can either party be said to be correct? If neither is correct (or both simultaneously), is it even a meaningful statement about the world to declare a human right like Tor does?
  - ratww 5y ago
    > can either party be said to be correct Yes. Tor is correct and Facebook is wrong. I said it. Other people might say otherwise, but I'll say they're wrong. (and they are) In societies it is normal to have disagreements. What people do is discuss the issue and potentially reach an agreement. Maybe this will become a law somewhere. Maybe it will go into the Universal Declaration, and most countries will implement it. Maybe not. After becoming a law, people will either follow it or not. If they sort of break the law, a judge or peers will decide if they need punishment. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Who knows. Life is not a computer program or math equation. Life is a bit hard.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      If you say the sky is blue, or that water is wet, or that rock is hard, or that ice is cold, and so forth; I can agree with you because I can use my senses and they tell me the same thing you were telling me. If you tell me the angular sum of a triangle is 180 degrees, I cannot see it directly with my senses, but I can construct a simple proof with pen and paper that shows me it cannot be any other way than what you told me. How do you experience the truth of the human right to privacy?
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        What if I then draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere with an angle sum of 270 degrees? All you're saying here is that we've agreed on a principle that implies what you're saying is true. This is the exact same as what the other commenter is saying.
      - 5y ago
powersnail 5y ago
Like all social constructs, they come into being when a bunch of humans collectively believe in them. The social significance depends on how the believers act. Some discipline themselves, some try to persuade others, some start a war, some try to push through legislations.

rjzzleep 5y ago

It's actually not arbitrary at all. The UN came out of the league of nations, which was specifically a bunch of colonial powers and their offspring / colonies. That is precisely the reason why some highly controversial UN resolutions were passed right after the second world war. It's almost ironic that China now wields so much more power over the path the UN is taking than the old colonial powers. But whenever people say this or that is a human right, we ought to remember that a lot of the things that are legally defined as human rights were at some point defined by some old colonial overlord until it wasn't. The founders of the UN definitely didn't think that people of any colour were the same or that interracial marriage is a human right.

ratww 5y ago
You are correct and I agree with you, but I think you answered to the wrong reply. It's my interlocutor that believe it's arbitrary.