4 ms·
A human right is universal, something that applies to all times and all places, by virtue of the human's existence. People can try to take them away, but not gr
by Georgelemental 3y ago
A human right is universal, something that applies to all times and all places, by virtue of the human's existence. People can try to take them away, but not grant them, because they are already granted by default. If you are marooned, alone, on a desert island, you still have a right to free expression, due process, etc.
In contrast, limited resources require active effort to obtain, and even that might not be enough. If you are stuck on the desert island, with no food or fresh water available, no amount of agitation about your ‘rights’ will override the laws of physics to make them appear. Even in a more advanced society, producing enough food and water to ensure everyone's survival may be physically impossible (especially if you insist on a certain level of quality). Therefore, ‘rights’ to limited resources are not universal, they are subordinate to (at minimum) the laws of nature.
- TheAceOfHearts 3y agoThis just seems like petty arguing over the definition of words. Which is resolved quite easily by pointing out that your definition is not the one used by most groups, in particular by the people at the UN who wrote those human rights declarations.
- Georgelemental 3y agoBy confusing true universal rights with fake contingent ‘rights’ full of exceptions and caveats, you weaken the true rights. Naturally, authoritarian leaders and would-be despots at the UN and elsewhere are totally on board with this strategy.
- em-bee 3y agoi don't think that is relevant. human rights applies to the relationship between people. stuck on an island i can do all sorts of things, even illegal ones, because noone is there to stop me. so that's not really useful in determining my right to free expression or due process. both only work if there are others to listen or to charge me with a crime. however, if i am among other people then those people have the obligation to do everything in their power to keep me alive, because that is my human right. and that would include to share their water, or to cooperate to build a desalination plant, or whatever is needed to survive.
- Georgelemental 3y ago> However, if i am among other people then those people have the obligation to do everything in their power to keep me alive, because that is my human right. How far do you take this? If you are dying of a disease, and the only way to prolong your life by one week is a medication that costs $2 trillion in resources to produce one dose, is society obligated to produce the medication to slightly delay your death? What if there is enough to satisfy only 50% of people, how does your ‘rights’-based framework decide who lives and who dies?
- em-bee 3y agowater is a resource that everyone needs, hence it needs to be shared. a specialized medication that not everyone needs is not the same thing.
- Georgelemental 3y agoSeems contradictory to your previous comment, but OK. What if there is enough water for only 50% of people? Or what if the water doesn't have an ideal mineral composition, but for 1000 times the expense, society could obtain better water that will extend one's lifespan by an average of 2 months?
- em-bee 3y agowhen i said "do everything in their power to keep me alive" then that was probably a bit to strong. i meant do everything that is also needed for everyone else. special treatment that takes an unreasonable effort is not the same thing. if the resource is so limited that it really isn't enough for everyone, then it obviously can not be given to everyone. but if everyone needs it, then they still have a right to it. we then just have to figure out how to deal with those that miss out. a more practical example: a sinking ship, and the rescue boat can not fit everyone. while it is a human right for everyone to be rescued, some will have to stay behind. but, that doesn't change that there was a human right violated. in either cases we really do need to do everything in our power to rescue these people or find ways to extend the use of the water. lack of resources does not abolish our obligation to do the best we can to change that, find alternatives, etc. a better medicine example: covid. everyone needs that vaccination (ignoring those who don't want it) so it becomes a human right to get access to it. no matter the cost. we can not abolish a right to something that everyone needs just because there is not enough of it.
- maxerickson 3y agoInvoking the laws of nature implies that there is no place for morality when it comes to limited resources. Good stuff.