Universal rights

whether it was originated from where it doesn't really matter, but in the 21st century we can all agree that we would like to be 'free'?

There still seems to be some confusion - I have no problem with people having legal rights to speech, food etc - my dispute is with those who believe we already have these rights naturally - that concept is known as "human rights" and, as UCL's spiritual founder Bentham said, the idea of natural rights is "nonsense upon stilts".

no one has said that they believe there is a natural right to these things so who are you refering to?

Well, I don't see how it logically follows that just because X amount of countries have signed a UN piece of paper that China has a duty to too.

But I do believe that all people should have a legal right given to them for freedom of speech.

And remember - legal rights have only come to this country since the year 2002 when the Human Rights Act (1998) came into force - before then we Brits had freedoms, but no legally enforceable rights.

why arent you sure about rights? i mean if you take the universal declaration of human rights it is a remarkable document and i personally dont see any problems with it morally.

the fact that it was signed by the general assembly at the UN General Assembly surely makes it international law

the fact that it was signed by the general assembly at the UN General Assembly surely makes it international law

One cannot accept evolution and logically believe in human rights.

Please desist from talking nonsense.

I agree entirely with the aims of the UDHR on a practical level.

On a moral level, I just don't really see. Where do rights comes from? Or they natural, god-given? If not, why is anyone automatically deserving of a "right"? Do they apply to animals? If not, isn't to define them on the basis of species entirely arbitrary? How/by whom are they defined? Are they dependent on practicalities? (e.g. in a hypothetical world where there could only be enough food for half the people, would every person still have a right to food?).

As a concept, I'd say they're not too far away from being "nonsense on stilts".

However, as a moral point I completely agree that everyone should get the basics, on the basis that such a distribution would almost certainly lead to increased happiness.

Ah, right. Sad to say, it seems that you're going to get a fair few objections, even to this limited suggestion.

How is it nonsense?

Evolution = we've evolved from the animal kingdom, are part of nature. Nature does not give rights.

Human Rights = depends upon the premise that man naturally has rights that must be protected.

They are not compatible theories.

Firstly on the objections i knew there would be some and so in order to actually manage to deal with them i kept it short. Ok i can see the point that you and Santus are stating that there is no justification for these rights. Well what things do you think are justified by nature. You cannot really use God for talking about universal ideas since of the disparities and lack of proof of God.

The fact that they would led to increased happiness is surely reason enought for them to be guarenteed in the world?

The fact that they would led to increased happiness is surely reason enought for them to be guarenteed in the world?

I don't agree that human rights depend on the idea of natural rights.

That's what people mean when they talk about "human rights".

No implication of those rights being natural, to me.

No doubting that a lot a people do believe human rights are natural rights btw, just disputing that the concepts are necessarily interlinked.

i was thinking more about water and food but you could also argue that what good is life if you have no freedom? if you get punished for experssing your views? etc..