Summations Only

You have the right to not be tortured. If someone does torture you they have violated this right, but they have not taken the right away from you. You always have the right to not be tortured. It is inalienable.

The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others. If you are imprisoned for simply speaking your mind then this is a violation of human rights. If you are imprisoned for commiting murder, then it is not a violation of the human right to liberty.

If I understand Locke's arguments correctly, tax avoidance is a violation of the social contract and can therefore result in imprisonment. When you trespass you are violating the rights of others. The same for burglary. Animal cruelty is a new comer to the list, and is still controversial. That would probably need a thread of its own. It appears that you missed the criteria in the previous post."The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others."

You use empathy and reason to determine which of them is correct.

Correct. The social contract is a system of government based on the liberties spelled out by Locke (life, liberty, and property). Violating the social contract is the same as violating someone's liberties.Three human rights are liberty, life, and property. I describe liberty as doing what you want as long as you do not violate the rights of others. You then exclaim your confusion that someone can be thrown in jail for violating a person's rights of life, liberty, and property. Perhaps I am not explaining this in a clear manner? Why is there any confusion here? Yes. That is what I have said from the beginning. I have even quoted Locke speaking about the right to self defense. I never claimed that this is an easy subject. If this is too much for you to handle perhaps you should try another thread? Nowhere have I defined liberty as the right to do whatever you want to whomever you please. You are trying to create a strawman version of human rights, and it appears that you are giving that strawman quite a beating.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

When you torture someone you have violated their rights, not taken them away. The United Nations has a decent description of human rights here. What it boils down to is the idea that we are morally obligated, as moral agents, to better the human condition. We can determine for ourselves what causes us pain and suffering, such as enslavement or having your home taken from you without due cause. We can also determine that these same actions taken on others will cause pain and suffering. Therefore, we shouldn't do that to other people. It is their inherent right as fellow human beings to not suffer from the actions of other human beings.Of course, the interactions in human societies are quite complex. It is difficult to ferret out specific human rights in very specific cases. This will always be a difficult determination, but the foundations of human rights are actually quite simple to understand, IMHO.

Not as much as you are. I clearly stated liberty is doing what you please as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. You then tell me that imprisoning a tresspasser is taking away a person's liberty. I think we are talking about two different things. The right is never removed. You always have the right to stay out of prison as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others. No, they don't. They include prison time for violation of other people's rights. The right to not be imprisoned for minding your own business is not stripped away by any of those conditions. Nowhere have I claimed that you have the inherent right to stay out of prison for committing murder, trespass, or theft. Not in any of the situations you have described yet.

I disagree. We don't have to wait for the everyone to agree that the world is round before we can conclude that the world is round.I also reject the idea that Might is Right. Just being able to do something does not make it moral. If a State is able to detain and torture its citizens that does not make it legal or moral. If that same State refuses to sign UN charters describing human rights it does not excuse them from violating the inherent and inalienable rights of its citizens. Ultimately, our own conscience. What you believe to be right or wrong, moral or immoral, is up to your own beliefs. We can certainly The most horrid atrocities have occurred when people surrender this authority to others. "I was just following orders" was an excuse made by those involved in the Holocaust in WW II. It is NOT a valid excuse.

I think rights can be tested. We ask people if they would like to be tortured or have their stuff taken away. We can use the results of that survey to objectively determine if, in reality, people like to be tortured or have their stuff taken. If they don't, which is what I suspect, then it stands to reason that it is wrong to take people's stuff and torture them. They are a matter of intrinsic human qualities that are shared by the vast majority of people. These are demonstrable qualities, such as the aversion to torture and the ability to sense pain in others. Rights are the conclusion drawn from these demonstrable qualities as much as a round Earth is a conclusion drawn from the observable qualities of the Earth.

I don't think it is. It is not a matter of opinion that people do not want to be tortured, do not want to be jailed without due cause, and do not want their property confiscated. I happen to think that these are very universal emotions that nearly all sane humans share. How many of those infidel's would cheer if it was their head on the chopping block? That is the issue here. I have no doubt that some people are sadistic enough that they will visit horrors on other people that they would never want visited upon themselves. The whole point of human rights is to point out that this is morally wrong. It should not occur, and we should strive to stop this behavior whenever we can. The logic is based on the Golden Rule. Would you like it if someone stole your car? If not, then you should not steal someone else's car. The logic is based on our ability to determine what causes pain in others.

I am looking at it from a different direction. When we try to discern what human rights are we look for the basic foundation of what it is to be human. It's not as if we try to keep everyone from eating pork or not spend money on the Sabbath. Rather, we try to discern the nature of humanity, how humans are in their native state. If we stripped away every societal rule, religious dictate, and social norm what would we be left with? Locke argued that we would be left with a group of people who work together to protect very basic rights, those of life, liberty, and property. Those are natural rights, rights that are inherent to humanity. IMO, that is also why we have human rights.

Where did I claim that they were?Desires and preferences are the TEST to see if human rights exist. Human rights are a conclusion drawn from shared desires and preferences. Those rights exist prior to that consensus being built. The State is tool that societies use to protect these rights, but the State is not the source for these rights. The formation of the US is a good example. In the Declaration of Independence it was argued that the British Empire was violating their natural rights. This gave the colonies the justification for breaking political ties with the Empire. They then pushed forward and constructed a State that would protect those natural rights in a way that the Empire did not. It wasn't as if the US was formed, and then they stumbled on this crazy idea of natural rights. Those rights existed OUTSIDE of the State, above the level of political rule.

I agree, but why don't they relate to human rights? I think this is an important point. Why is a ban on torture considered to be a human right but a ban on false idols is not?

The ban would be a function of States just as any law or treaty. However, the human right to not face torture is not a product of the State. There is a subtle yet important difference between the two. Human rights exist whether or not a State, culture, or society recognizes them, at least according to the arguments that Locke put forward.Playing the Godwin card, there was no agreed upon international rule that said you could not kill Jews by the millions. So how were Nazi officials convicted of crimes where no law existed? I think it is quite simple. Human rights are above any State or society. There is no excuse for violating human rights. Not having a law protecting human rights is NOT an excuse for human rights violations.So yes, bans and procedures are a product of the State. However, these bans and procedures are based on human rights that exist outside of the State.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."--Declaration of IndependenceHmm. I see a reference to self-evident and inalienable rights.