4 ms·
"Should be" doesn't apply to human rights. Either it is a human right, in which case it always has been and always will be, or it is not, in which case it never
by Georgelemental 5y ago
"Should be" doesn't apply to human rights. Either it is a human right, in which case it always has been and always will be, or it is not, in which case it never has been and never will be. "Human right" by definition means that it applies to all humans ever automatically.
- yucky 5y agoBy this definition, there is no such thing as human rights.
- sircastor 5y agoThis is the only way human rights work. They’re rights of the individual because they are a human. They can’t be bestowed or removed by oneself, another individual, or society. You exist and therefore inherently have these rights.
- Georgelemental 5y agoYes there is. Freedom of thought is the most absolute right of all, it's completely impossible to restrict. Freedom of expression, freedom of worship, right to remain silent, right to a free and fair trial are rights that you possess by virtue of being human, which an unjust government can attempt to take away from you (but with at most partial success).
- yucky 5y ago>Freedom of thought is the most absolute right of all, it's completely impossible to restrict. We used to lobotomize people. Never put it past any government to restrict anything they can.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago> "Human right" by definition means that it applies to all humans Correct > ever automatically. Eh, since human rights are a (very valuable) legal construct, this statement isn't really rigorous enough to parse. Do human rights as defined by 2022 EU law apply to ancient Egypt? What would it mean if they did, or did not? IMHO, not even a question worth attempting to define. Human rights are great, but you won't find them in the laws of physics, only in the laws of people.