Summations Only

I like the idea that there could be a "universal" set of human rights that we might all be able to agree to but I'm not sure how "universal" they really are.Aren't such things highly subject to cultural world views and thus not really "universal" at all? How do we decide what these rights are? How do we decide who or what these rights apply to?It seems that these things change according to time and place. Can we really identify a set of rights that transcend such temporal considerations?If so - What are these timeless rights which are independent of culture?

So you think that there are a set of inalienable, incontrovertible, timeless and culture-independent rights out there waiting to be discovered - But that no-one yet knows what these are.......?

I think The Golden Rule is about as close as there is to an objective reasoned moral position.But to codify even this (if it is even accepted) into a set of rights would seem to be largely a cultural endeavour. I think I agree. I'm not sure how it could be otherwise in any practical sense.

Neo: "I know my rights. I want my phone call."Agent Smith: "Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?"

But this will vary from society to society. If we don't know what these "natural rights" are I am not sure how we can possibly know whether we have them or not. In what sense can I possess such rights if nobody knows what they are? And what makes "human rights" so inalienable? Do gorillas have inalienable rights too? Do intelligent aliens?I'm still sympathetic to the idea of constructing a set of rights that can be reasoned and implemented on a large scale based on broad consensus with that reasoning. I'd even be happy to call these "universal" rights.But the idea that humans specifically have some sort of special claim to rights that are independent of human society seems like a rather arbitrary assertion on your part.

I think a sense of fairness and empathy are both accurately described as universal human traits.The Golden Rule which I mentioned earlier is effectively a reasoned expression of these things and about as close to a "universal" basis for morality as I think you can get.The problem is that who fairness and empathy are applied to and exactly how they are applied in terms of "rights" is very much a social/cultural thing. It is far from "universal" in the inalienable timeless and culture independent sort of way you seem to mean when you talk about "natural rights".In what sense can I possess such rights if nobody knows what they are? And what makes "human rights" so inalienable? Do gorillas have inalienable rights too? Do intelligent aliens?I'm still sympathetic to the idea of constructing a set of rights that can be reasoned and implemented on a large scale based on broad consensus with that reasoning. I'd even be happy to call these "universal" rights.But the idea that humans specifically have some sort of special claim to rights that are independent of human society still seems like a rather arbitrary assertion on your part.

More to the point....Reason might well cause some to think that the ongoing existence of the Mona Lisa is worth more than the life of a particular human (e.g a mass murdering paeodophile)If asked to choose between the destruction of the Mona Lisa or the killing of said individual I'm not sure that most would agree with Taq that the human has the inalienable right to life....In fact I'm not at all sure that ALL would choose the life of even an innocent human over something as culturally precious as the Mona Lisa.Whilst well meaning I don't think his assertions are very plausible.

The punishment involves alienating those humans being punished from the rights you are claiming are inalienable human rights.That is the problem.I'm bewildered as to how you cannot see the contradiction in this.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" includes letting others decide what they do or don't like being done to them.I know that I would object vociferously if my particular perverted desire to have my nipples clamped was denied me by those who don't share my fondness for nipple based pain-pleasures.I'd let them decide what they do or don't like and I demand the same from them.

Well as far as I am concerned doing unto others as I would have them do unto me includes letting them decide what they want done to them whether I can imagine wanting that particular thing done to me or not. Because that is what I would have them do unto me.I think you are over complicating things.... Frankly vaseline can cure (or at least respite) pain from practically any self desired activity I have ever yet tried.But that might tell you more about my lack of true adventure and personal limitations rather than anything about the all-conquering healing powers of vaseline.