4 ms·

I disagree that the UDHR is "meaningless verbiage". It is a commonly agreed standard to which all can be held and criticised when they fall short and gain respe

I disagree that the UDHR is "meaningless verbiage". It is a commonly agreed standard to which all can be held and criticised when they fall short and gain respect when it is largely achieved. Of course it was a compromise and people might prefer some items not included but that compromise was agreed to and is what it is. On something like privacy it says that it is a human right and that people should generally have it respected, it is useful because it make clear and explicit the wrong that the NSA have been doing at home and abroad.

rayiner 13y ago
> It is a commonly agreed standard to which all can be held and criticised when they fall short and gain respect when it is largely achieved. But nobody can be "held" to the UDHR. They can be criticized for not following it, but countries can be criticized for their practices without the UDHR too! The word "right" has to have more meaning than "we'll criticize you if you don't do this."
- josephlord 13y ago
  Rights don't depend on enforcement that is the whole point of Rights theory and the background to the US Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self evident…"). Once the existence of rights is accept there is the issue of deciding what they are e.g. US Bill of Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, UDHR etc. The next question is enforcement (US constitution, European Court of Human Rights) but isn't essential, the agreement of standards does matter even if there is no enforcement.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    If you are unable to excercise a 'right' because armed men will take you away if you do so, then that 'right' de facto simply doesn't exist in your area. UDHR is a declaration of some consensus between quite a few people and organizations on what rights humans should have - but most of the current population doesn't have them in practice. For all practical purposes, any enforced triviality matters much more than an unenforceable theoretical right. Sure, there is a theory of rights claiming that there exist unalienable rights that people simply have. And there's a theory of rights claiming that there exist exactly those rights that are granted by those able to grant them in practice, by the sovereign powers. One of these theories happens to match the observations of reality, the actual behaviour of massed homo sapiens groups - and the other is well, just a wishful theory that doesn't provide truthful predictions or conclusions about actual future events.

rayiner 13y ago

> It is a commonly agreed standard to which all can be held and criticised when they fall short and gain respect when it is largely achieved. But nobody can be "held" to the UDHR. They can be criticized for not following it, but countries can be criticized for their practices without the UDHR too! The word "right" has to have more meaning than "we'll criticize you if you don't do this."

josephlord 13y ago
Rights don't depend on enforcement that is the whole point of Rights theory and the background to the US Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self evident…"). Once the existence of rights is accept there is the issue of deciding what they are e.g. US Bill of Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, UDHR etc. The next question is enforcement (US constitution, European Court of Human Rights) but isn't essential, the agreement of standards does matter even if there is no enforcement.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  If you are unable to excercise a 'right' because armed men will take you away if you do so, then that 'right' de facto simply doesn't exist in your area. UDHR is a declaration of some consensus between quite a few people and organizations on what rights humans should have - but most of the current population doesn't have them in practice. For all practical purposes, any enforced triviality matters much more than an unenforceable theoretical right. Sure, there is a theory of rights claiming that there exist unalienable rights that people simply have. And there's a theory of rights claiming that there exist exactly those rights that are granted by those able to grant them in practice, by the sovereign powers. One of these theories happens to match the observations of reality, the actual behaviour of massed homo sapiens groups - and the other is well, just a wishful theory that doesn't provide truthful predictions or conclusions about actual future events.