6 ms·

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

29 points by tines 3y ago

tines 3y ago
I thought this line near the end was interesting: > These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. As if the purposes and principles of the United Nations will always be aligned with transcendent human rights. It almost brings high aim of the whole document down a little.
- vacuity 3y ago
  Even if I try to read it charitably, I can't make much sense out of what that means. It doesn't sound like "we of the United Nations will never betray these ideals". A bit of nothing at best.
  - LegionMammal978 3y ago
    I'd read it as saying "you're only permitted these rights and freedoms when you use them for good, not for evil". For instance, you can't appeal to freedom of expression (Article 19) for attacking others' reputation (Article 12). Basically the same idea as Article 30.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      But then what is "good" and what is "evil"? Is that from the perspective of the UN? And I find the excerpt in question a weird way to express that rights shouldn't be used against others. I agree with the principle, but I wouldn't write it anything like how it is in the excerpt.
      - LegionMammal978 3y ago
        Well, obviously they couldn't use "good" vs. "evil" directly, so I read it as trying to express the same thing with "concordant with the purposes and principles of the UN" vs. "contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN", such that the scope of permitted acts is intentionally very broad.
- skissane 3y ago
  A lot of people read this document as some kind of secular analogue to a religious text, and forget that it was the product of a diplomatic negotiation, and like many such documents, intentionally includes vague, ambiguous, and even contradictory clauses, so that each government voting for it can tell themselves that it means what they want it to mean
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    It was a compromise between American and Soviet negotiators. They didn’t agree on much, especially human rights.
GeoAtreides 3y ago
A question for monarchists: Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." How do you square your support for kings when it goes a fundamental human right, that all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights?
- ImJamal 3y ago
  I'll take a stab at this. Having equal rights doesn't mean that everybody has equal say in laws. Basically what I mean is a person in a legislature can vote for a bill to become a law. I, not being a member of a legislature, can't vote for the bill. That doesn't mean I don't have equal rights to the politician. On a side note, a large number of kings have no or nearly no power nowadays so it tends to be more of a symbolic thing
  - GeoAtreides 3y ago
    When I was born, I had the same right as everyone else born that day to become a MP. There was nothing in the laws of my country saying: this child can not be an MP because it was born in the wrong family. The poorest child born that day and richest child have the same rights (so much as the law is concerned). A royal child, though, has, by law (by law!), many more rights than me, chief among them being ascending to a position of power because it was born in the right family.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      I’m not a monarchist, but couldn’t you say the same thing about people born in other countries to yours? (eg: that they have fewer rights in your country than you)
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      >When I was born, I had the same right as everyone else born that day to become a MP. Is there a monarchical country that doesn't allow the monarch to choose an heir that is not their child? Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean it can't happen. It is quite unlikely you become a politician as well. >There was nothing in the laws of my country saying: this child can not be an MP because it was born in the wrong family >A royal child, though, has, by law (by law!), many more rights than me, chief among them being ascending to a position of power because it was born in the right family I don't know about MPs but various countries require the president to have a parent that is already a citizen or requires them to have been born in that country. Doesn't really seem any different. Being born in the right place or in the right family is required to have certain roles in society in democratic societies as well. If we were to take your argument to the logical conclusion it is a human rights violation that we don't allow some poor person in Timbuktu to become the prime minister of Spain. Why should he have his rights violated just because he was born to a family who just so happened to be in another country?
tester89 3y ago
(1948)
howard941 3y ago
nee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
perilunar 3y ago
There’s no distinction in the UNDHR between negative and positive rights [1]. Many people (especially, but not only libertarians) don’t regard positive rights as true human rights. They may be human 'goods' but they are not human 'rights'. They would agree with Articles 1 to 21, but disagree with Articles 22 to 30. Personally I think human rights are largely a legal fiction anyway — they are invented, not natural. “inalienable rights” and “born free and equal in dignity and rights” are a pretty fantasy. (Also by the way, Article 26.1 “Elementary education shall be compulsory” directly contradicts Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”) 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
- mindslight 3y ago
  Positive/negative rights is a useful distinction when talking about concrete implementation details, but its utility fades when talking about what ought to be where it tends to get put forth axiomatically. Layered complexity creates logical contradictions, whereby even though a right might not be specifically infringed in the negative sense, it still has been effectively nullified constructively. This list is not meant as a basic legal implementation, but rather is useful as a list of metrics for evaluating societal outcomes. Thus it's less important whether its ideals have been arrived at by explicit government guarantee, or through free association and general prosperity.
- rayiner 3y ago
  If you don’t believe in a higher power, “rights” are a pure social construct. Both positive rights and negative rights are nothing more than what people with guns are willing to do for you.
  - skissane 3y ago
    I disagree that the issue is actually about a "higher power" (theism). It is really about naturalism. I'm sceptical of claims that anyone can convincingly ground objective ethics in naturalism. But, there are also non-naturalist atheisms (e.g. some versions of Buddhism, the British idealist philosopher John McTaggart) – and whether non-naturalist atheism can successfully ground objective ethics is a very different, and largely independent, question.

29 points by tines 3y ago

I thought this line near the end was interesting: > These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. As if the purposes and principles of the United Nations will always be aligned with transcendent human rights. It almost brings high aim of the whole document down a little.

vacuity 3y ago
Even if I try to read it charitably, I can't make much sense out of what that means. It doesn't sound like "we of the United Nations will never betray these ideals". A bit of nothing at best.
- LegionMammal978 3y ago
  I'd read it as saying "you're only permitted these rights and freedoms when you use them for good, not for evil". For instance, you can't appeal to freedom of expression (Article 19) for attacking others' reputation (Article 12). Basically the same idea as Article 30.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    But then what is "good" and what is "evil"? Is that from the perspective of the UN? And I find the excerpt in question a weird way to express that rights shouldn't be used against others. I agree with the principle, but I wouldn't write it anything like how it is in the excerpt.
    - LegionMammal978 3y ago
      Well, obviously they couldn't use "good" vs. "evil" directly, so I read it as trying to express the same thing with "concordant with the purposes and principles of the UN" vs. "contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN", such that the scope of permitted acts is intentionally very broad.
skissane 3y ago
A lot of people read this document as some kind of secular analogue to a religious text, and forget that it was the product of a diplomatic negotiation, and like many such documents, intentionally includes vague, ambiguous, and even contradictory clauses, so that each government voting for it can tell themselves that it means what they want it to mean
- pyuser583 3y ago
  It was a compromise between American and Soviet negotiators. They didn’t agree on much, especially human rights.

GeoAtreides 3y ago

A question for monarchists: Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." How do you square your support for kings when it goes a fundamental human right, that all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights?

ImJamal 3y ago
I'll take a stab at this. Having equal rights doesn't mean that everybody has equal say in laws. Basically what I mean is a person in a legislature can vote for a bill to become a law. I, not being a member of a legislature, can't vote for the bill. That doesn't mean I don't have equal rights to the politician. On a side note, a large number of kings have no or nearly no power nowadays so it tends to be more of a symbolic thing
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  When I was born, I had the same right as everyone else born that day to become a MP. There was nothing in the laws of my country saying: this child can not be an MP because it was born in the wrong family. The poorest child born that day and richest child have the same rights (so much as the law is concerned). A royal child, though, has, by law (by law!), many more rights than me, chief among them being ascending to a position of power because it was born in the right family.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    I’m not a monarchist, but couldn’t you say the same thing about people born in other countries to yours? (eg: that they have fewer rights in your country than you)
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    >When I was born, I had the same right as everyone else born that day to become a MP. Is there a monarchical country that doesn't allow the monarch to choose an heir that is not their child? Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean it can't happen. It is quite unlikely you become a politician as well. >There was nothing in the laws of my country saying: this child can not be an MP because it was born in the wrong family >A royal child, though, has, by law (by law!), many more rights than me, chief among them being ascending to a position of power because it was born in the right family I don't know about MPs but various countries require the president to have a parent that is already a citizen or requires them to have been born in that country. Doesn't really seem any different. Being born in the right place or in the right family is required to have certain roles in society in democratic societies as well. If we were to take your argument to the logical conclusion it is a human rights violation that we don't allow some poor person in Timbuktu to become the prime minister of Spain. Why should he have his rights violated just because he was born to a family who just so happened to be in another country?

tester89 3y ago

(1948)

howard941 3y ago

nee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

perilunar 3y ago

There’s no distinction in the UNDHR between negative and positive rights [1]. Many people (especially, but not only libertarians) don’t regard positive rights as true human rights. They may be human 'goods' but they are not human 'rights'. They would agree with Articles 1 to 21, but disagree with Articles 22 to 30. Personally I think human rights are largely a legal fiction anyway — they are invented, not natural. “inalienable rights” and “born free and equal in dignity and rights” are a pretty fantasy. (Also by the way, Article 26.1 “Elementary education shall be compulsory” directly contradicts Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”) 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

mindslight 3y ago
Positive/negative rights is a useful distinction when talking about concrete implementation details, but its utility fades when talking about what ought to be where it tends to get put forth axiomatically. Layered complexity creates logical contradictions, whereby even though a right might not be specifically infringed in the negative sense, it still has been effectively nullified constructively. This list is not meant as a basic legal implementation, but rather is useful as a list of metrics for evaluating societal outcomes. Thus it's less important whether its ideals have been arrived at by explicit government guarantee, or through free association and general prosperity.
rayiner 3y ago
If you don’t believe in a higher power, “rights” are a pure social construct. Both positive rights and negative rights are nothing more than what people with guns are willing to do for you.
- skissane 3y ago
  I disagree that the issue is actually about a "higher power" (theism). It is really about naturalism. I'm sceptical of claims that anyone can convincingly ground objective ethics in naturalism. But, there are also non-naturalist atheisms (e.g. some versions of Buddhism, the British idealist philosopher John McTaggart) – and whether non-naturalist atheism can successfully ground objective ethics is a very different, and largely independent, question.