Discussion on Human Rights

[Exarch]

do ppl really care about human rights? or do they like to think that they care about human rights?

terms like 'freedom', and 'human rights' have become buzz words to inflame and emotionally appeal to an audience who cant be bothered analyzing or thinking beyond emotions; you'll usually hear them from ppl pushing for a certain political angle or seeking moral justification in doing xyz.
so my first question to you is

1) What are basic 'human rights' which every single man, woman or child is entitled to from the moment they're born?
and i dont mean some hunky dory BS from propagandists from the 50s like the right to bear arms or own a cadillac that goes through 8 gallons of fuel; i want basic human rights which can be universally regonised as Basic Human Rights.

ok, good, now onto the 2nd question;

2) Does Your Country's government succeed in providing you with your basic human rights? How? or if not, how close does it get to achieving giving you human rights?

ok, now we're getting somewhere, third question;

3) If your government fails at providing you with basic human rights, does it still have the moral authority to lecture and criticize other governments?

[Megas12345]

Oh I think the majority of people care about human rights.. to the extent of what those rights can do for them. Many people love the concepts of freedom etc. BUT for what them having freedom gets them. There are of course plenty who do care about human rights as a whole but they are IMO a minority compared to those who want rights for themselves but would never actually fight for them to be bestowed upon others. Since I am using freedom as an example of human rights I continue with this, people love what freedom gets them, but many don't care who else gets it unless is disrupts their own by others not having it. People of course will act sympathetic etc. but for the most part don't do anything to get rights for others, sure we all may say oh I feel bad for that homeless man, who is not given healthcare, permanant, functional housing, and may be ridiculed by others, but we generally don't do anything to get him the rights of health and happiness. (note we means humans, not a specific people or directing a comment at another poster)

[Elfdude]

The human rights argument is but one ethical system for establishing basic morality between people. The concept of human rights was one that our forefathers were a bit in love with at the time so they wrote it into our constitution.

Their 3 basic human rights were thus:
Life - This is the concept that all human life is sacred because we are intrinsically incapable of judging a human life from within the same construct. Thus all life should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Liberty - This is the concept of self determination. The idea that everyone has the right to control their own fate.
and the pursuit of Happiness. - This is basically the idea that everyone's goal is happiness in some form or another.

I believe our government does a pretty wonderful job at protecting these systems but I also think groups are allowed too much power to disenfranchise the individual. I think one of the vital systems to understand is the concept of positive freedoms (the freedom to do something) and negative freedoms (the freedom to live without something). The question is who's right is more important, the right of the murderer to murder or the right of the citizen to live free of the fear of murder? Obviously we choose the citizen's right over the murderers but all conflicts between positive freedoms and negative freedoms aren't so cut and dry e.g. do we have the right to live without want of healthcare or do we have the right to elect not to choose it?

I believe the government needs to evaluate more laws along this nature. Drug laws should be overturned as there is rarely a party that suffers direct consequences of drugs not to mention alcohol in every country throughout the world is still the number one problem. Churches should have tax exemption status revoked and many crimes need to have their punishments reevaluated.

Since my argumentative nature appeals to me here I would assert that the right to own a gun is an intrinsic right until something better comes a long. Gun laws only take guns away from lawful individuals. Further people should never be concerned with fearing their government, their government should always be concerned with fearing their people.

[Exarch]

interesting, good posts, ppl;

as far as i'm concerend;

) What are basic 'human rights' which every single man, woman or child is entitled to from the moment they're born?

1) the right to live in a safe society as opposed to anarchy- it's the government's responsibility to provide for a safe environment for society.

2) the right to choose which profession i want and the means by which to achieve them; in other words, i'd want the government to provide me with good educational facilities for me and my future children; the government has the responsibility to provide the availability of good educational institutions.

3) Food, warmth, shelter and healthcare.

the above are basic human rights as far as i'm concerned; note how i dont consider the right to protest in the street as a basic human right-probably cuz i cant be arsed to protest anywayz, and i consider protest a gratuity

2) Does Your Country's government succeed in providing you with your basic human rights? How? or if not, how close does it get to achieving giving you human rights?

in Australia my country does a fairly good job so far of providing me with food, shelter, education, and the means by which to get aheadl it's not 100% but it's adequate-my major gripe isnt with a basic human right, but a human right not to have anothers' values system forced upon me, ahem internet censorship barnaby joyce ().
most first world countries have the means by which to provide for their citizens

[Stavroforos]

There are no basic human rights that people are born with, in my opinion. All rights come from the contract between the people and the State. Since each State is sovereign, each State can give and not give its people any rights it wishes, but as the State itself exists only because of and in service of the people, the people have the right to demand rights and go against the State if the State violates its part of the contract.

However, if States wish to exist in the eyes of international community and have some sort of legitimacy in their eyes, then there are some norms which have to respected, such as the democratic process, individual and group freedoms, and a minimal provision of safety and security from the State.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I agree. I think human rights are a group of things most people want, not a right as part of living.