3 ms·
One thing that I would like to push back on the idea that “It is not a ‘human right’”. A “human right” is a social term defined by the demands of the people li
by rileymat2 4y ago
One thing that I would like to push back on the idea that “It is not a ‘human right’”.
A “human right” is a social term defined by the demands of the people living in that time collectively. There is no list we can check off, it is what people demand and can fight for.
By asserting the right they very well could be /creating/ it.
- mantas 4y agoWith your definition of „human rights“ we can just abolish the term altogether. The beauty of human rights was that it was supposed to be a well-defined set of core things. Which can't be granted, they just shouldn't be stamped on. But now „human rights“ is becoming a very polarised topic with many bits where person A is forced to do provide something to person B because it's „human rights“. Does person A has a „human right“ to refuse to provide his service?
- rileymat2 4y agoI think you are making a distinction between positive rights and negative rights; not human rights. If it was supposed to be a a well-defined set of core things, where are you drawing that set from?
- mantas 4y agoIMO human rights is a subset of negative rights. Can it be a non-questionable human right to force others to provide you something? Granting people that others will provide them something is fine. But it must be possible to discuss such topics. Human rights, IMO, shall be a very pure set of things that are not up to discussion, even with rather fringe views. Regardless of political quadrant. Of course, some freaks will always question anything. But wide wide majority (think 95% if not 98%) shall sign off on that.