Summations Only

No one gives them. Human rights are intrinsic to being human.

quote:

---

Intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing
Intrinsic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

---

Examples: Wetness is intrinsic to water. Yellow color is intrinsic to gold. Flammability is intrinsic to gasoline (or petrol if you prefer).

Human rights are never conferred, so how could Amnesty International give them to anyone? Their entire message is that all humans have rights. Period. If AI did not exist people would still have those rights. If no consensus exists within the government those rights would still exist.AI's real weapon is shame. They try to make governments look bad in the international community because of their violations of human rights. If governments can just make human rights go away, how are they able to do this? How can they claim that a government is violating human rights if governments are the ultimate authority?Stealth edit, sorry . . . How so? Of course. I have never argued otherwise. You need at least two humans interacting before rights become an issue. When I exceed the speed limit I have effectively revoked the speed limit according to your argument. They cease to exist the moment I vioate them. But it is related to the difference between existence and violation which is the issue at hand. Actually, the individual can abolish speed limits according to your own argument. The moment I violate the speed limit it has been revoked just as you claim that human rights are revoked the moment a government violates them.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Sure I can. All I need to do is violate that right and it is revoked. That is your entire argument. Once a right is violated it ceases to exist. It is the unavoidable consequence of your argument. It ceases to exist the moment I violate the law, according to your own argument. Violation of human rights is very much an issue. It has been for quite some time. The UN was founded on the idea that human rights are a huge issue, especially in countries that continue to violate human rights.

That seemed more like a conclusion than a premise, at least to me. I will take your suggestion to heart and rework it for future posts.

Yes, those suffering such intense pain (physical or emotional) that it overcomes their fear of death. That doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of people fear death, and that fear is in all of us (except for those who have serious mental problems). As a general rule, they do. People would not be on those rides if there was a 10% fatality rate. I never said that empathy was infallible. The point stands that we are able to determine that others fear death, and they do.

I would suggest that you read what I write as well. I have never said that speed limits are a right. NEVER. I was using the speed limit as an example of the difference between violation and existence. Just like human rights exist even when they are violated. Pointing to a government violating the rights of its citizens is not an example of a government revoking human rights. I have shown that the conclusion of human rights follows from the premises. Did the Earth only become round once humans recognized it? Or was the roundness of the Earth an intrinsic property of the planet from the very start?The same applies to human rights.

Rights are arrived at through Reason. I will agree that not everyone has adopted the idea of human rights. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. Surely you would not argue that the Earth can not be 4.55 billion years old because some societies do not accept it. Rights are an emergent property of Reason when applied to human cultures.

If, as you argue, violations result in a revocation, then they cease to exist the moment I break the speed limit.You argue that governments revoke human rights when they violate them. Could you go into more depth? As I established human rights in the argument above.

It is intrinsic. It is still there even in those suffering pain. If they felt there was another option to end their pain I am sure they would take that option instead of death. There is not a 10% fatality rate, and the death rate is about the same as driving down the freeway. Then you seem to agree with me that empathy works. How did you determine this?

In message 63 you stated:

quote:

---

You are of course free to make any claims that you want.
But yes, the state can have the right to quarter soldiers in my house and in fact, even in the US that has happened. Now I may well believe that they have no right to do so, and I may well express my belief that the government has no right to do so, but they still can do so.

---

It is the continual conflation of an is with an ought that makes the claim for you. What we ought to do is not defined by what we do. They are two different things. Human rights are not defined by what a government does. They are defined by what a government ought to do.In this, no government can revoke a person's human rights. No matter what they do it does not exempt them from what they ought to do. Violating a person's human rights does not prove that human rights do not exist. Pointing to governments who do not recognize human rights does not prove that they don't exist. Human rights are based on Reason, not on what governments, societies, or cultures actually do. You can drive faster than the speed limit. I've done it. According to your argument, this negates the existence of the speed limit because an is negates an ought. If they didn't codify those rights they would still exist.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, you are agreeing that human rights, IF they exist, are not disproven by what a government actually does? Empirically, neither do legal laws. Legal laws are abstract entities as well. Writing them down does not make them any more real than human rights.

I presented that evidence outside of the context of a state, culture, or society. You flatly dismissed it without explaining why. I was hoping that you could explain why you reject the conclusion drawn from the premises. Then I will take the jar tack. I have seen no evidence that laws exist outside of being abstract entities.

There are also real effects from human rights violations, such as economic sanctions and being convicted in international courts (e.g. the Hague).South Africa suffered economic sanctions in the mid 1980's in response to human rights violations. This sanction was not based on codified US law. It was based on the argument that violating human rights is wrong. The fact that we can point to injustices is evidence that human rights do exist. How can we say that something is wrong unless we have a set of human rights to compare them to?

Liberalism has its roots in Enlightenment philosophy as it relates to natural rights and equality. Human rights form the very foundation of liberalism.

quote:

---

The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
Liberalism - Wikipedia

---

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Blacks had human rights the entire time. The government was violating those rights.