Are any human rights intrinsic?

[bombl4stik]

I’m running an extreme debate argument in support of statism. In other words, I’m arguing that any and all intrinsic, “unalienable” human rights are fundamentally just social constructs and contracts. Therefore, the state’s only duty is a utilitarian pursuit of bettering the majority, even if it completely overrules the so-called intrinsic rights of the minority.

It’s fascist, it’s totalitarian, and it’s outrageous. But it’s fun to argue.

So do you think human rights are intrinsic or are just social constructs?

[Xunzian]

Definately a social construct. However, remember that we’ve social animals, so while the rights themselves are constructed, they are based off of principles that are intrinsic and based around a functional society.

[BMW-Guy]

@bombl4stik

I’m running an extreme debate argument in support of statism. In other words, I’m arguing that any and all intrinsic, “unalienable” human rights are fundamentally just social constructs and contracts. Therefore, the state’s only duty is a utilitarian pursuit of bettering the majority, even if it completely overrules the so-called intrinsic rights of the minority.

It’s fascist, it’s totalitarian, and it’s outrageous. But it’s fun to argue.

So do you think human rights are intrinsic or are just social constructs?

Human rights are not technically intrinsic to human-beings as human-beings, per se. But they are definitely intrinsic to the human nature.

Human-rights are merely a term that we use to describe our instinct to self-preservation. This is part of the nature of every (right-minded) person alive. It is not natural for any human to fully desire death in his/her right-mind. Granted, our circumstances may make death appear desirable at times (i.e. suicide), but regardless, intentionally killing oneself will ALLWAYS take concerted, conciouss effort on our part — no matter how much we hate life.

At anyrate, the things we call “human-rights” branch-off of our will to szelf-preservation. So, in this sense, human rights could be said to be intrinsic to human-nature.

just my humble opinions, anyways…

[someoneisatthedoor]

I’ve stated this before here but I’ll do it again…

The only rights that exist are those held constant as part of the ongoing negotiation between citizens and whatever powers that be

There are no ‘inalienable’ rights. Indeed it is nothing more than a rhetorical sleight of hand to call a right ‘inalienable’. It is the attempt to remove it from the negotiating table, to make it something that precedes negotiation.

As to your Utilitarian-Fascist conclusions - they don’t necessarily follow from the above, though the argument is strong enough. Just be wary that a relatively easy counterargument is that if there are no inalienable rights then there is no inherent duty of government…

[DT_Strain]

@bombl4stik

I’m running an extreme debate argument in support of statism. In other words, I’m arguing that any and all intrinsic, “unalienable” human rights are fundamentally just social constructs and contracts. Therefore, the state’s only duty is a utilitarian pursuit of bettering the majority, even if it completely overrules the so-called intrinsic rights of the minority.

It’s fascist, it’s totalitarian, and it’s outrageous. But it’s fun to argue.

So do you think human rights are intrinsic or are just social constructs?

1. There is no dychotomy between the majority and the minorty. There is no difference between good for the individual and good for the society. A lack of defense for minorities harms the society, which in turn harms the majority. One cannot be harmed without the other being harmed and one cannot be helped without the other being helped - they are one whole.

2. Rights are intrinsic because all ethics are intrinsic, objective, and independent of human understanding or opinion.

That’s my view

[W.J_Wilczek]

edited

[someoneisatthedoor]

@DT Strain

@bombl4stik

I’m running an extreme debate argument in support of statism. In other words, I’m arguing that any and all intrinsic, “unalienable” human rights are fundamentally just social constructs and contracts. Therefore, the state’s only duty is a utilitarian pursuit of bettering the majority, even if it completely overrules the so-called intrinsic rights of the minority.

It’s fascist, it’s totalitarian, and it’s outrageous. But it’s fun to argue.

So do you think human rights are intrinsic or are just social constructs?

1. There is no dychotomy between the majority and the minorty. There is no difference between good for the individual and good for the society.

Yes, there is. If the racists want to beat up a minority of other-skinned people then in a very real sense it will be bad for them to not do this…

A lack of defense for minorities harms the society, which in turn harms the majority. One cannot be harmed without the other being harmed and one cannot be helped without the other being helped - they are one whole.

If there’s no difference between the majority and the minority(ies) then no such ‘defense’ can take place…

2. Rights are intrinsic because all ethics are intrinsic, objective, and independent of human understanding or opinion.

How can you tell? How can you use human understanding to come to a conclusion about something that is beyond human understanding?

[Mastriani]

Quote:
2) Rights are intrinsic because all ethics are intrinsic, objective, and independent of human understanding or opinion.

How can you tell? How can you use human understanding to come to a conclusion about something that is beyond human understanding?

I don’t know that I agree here saitd. I know internally that it is wrong to commit rape or incest. It is not a learned value, therefore it must be intrinsic. There is an instant natural revulsion to the aforementioned, and it affects physicality, it is not a sequence judgement in the mind. No one ever sat me down and said, “Thou shalt not rape or defile, it isn’t socially acceptable.” It is something understood as inherently wrong, from the youngest age. Any child is aware that sexual activity is wrong for them, and the psychological ramifications become quickly apparent. Most parents never mention sexual contact to a 4 year old, unless there are suspicions, but the child is still aware of the insidiousness of such action.

Although there is no definitive agreement in the scientific community, there is ongoing study into “intrinsic value systems”, whether genetic or “other” in nature. It has yet to be sufficiently explained.

Thus, the “unalienable” right to sanctity of physicality, seems intrinsic.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear Mastriani,

@Mastriani

Quote:
2) Rights are intrinsic because all ethics are intrinsic, objective, and independent of human understanding or opinion.

How can you tell? How can you use human understanding to come to a conclusion about something that is beyond human understanding?

I don’t know that I agree here saitd.

You don’t have to agree, indeed if you did you wouldn’t have said anything. I don’t know why I pointed this out…

I know internally that it is wrong to commit rape or incest.

‘Internally’ is a spatial metaphor.

It is not a learned value, therefore it must be intrinsic.

It is a learned value, ‘rape’ and ‘incest’ are learned terms. Everything for which one needs language is, at least in part, learned. By all means beat the hell out of someone if they rape a loved one of yours, but for an ethical justification one has to resort to learnt, constructed schema.

There is an instant natural revulsion to the aforementioned, and it affects physicality, it is not a sequence judgement in the mind.

I see no distinction between body and mind. I feel exactly the same, but that doesn’t mean I’d claim that it was intrinsic. There are no moral facts. There may be axiomatic ethical truths, but that’s a different issue, and you can’t put axioms into language anyway…

No one ever sat me down and said, “Thou shalt not rape or defile, it isn’t socially acceptable.” It is something understood as inherently wrong, from the youngest age.

i.e. it is something learnt prior to the self-conscious use of memory

Any child is aware that sexual activity is wrong for them, and the psychological ramifications become quickly apparent.

Most children discover masturbation (of a sort) within the first 4 years of life. Well, most children in western societies where such studies have taken place…

Most parents never mention sexual contact to a 4 year old, unless there are suspicions, but the child is still aware of the insidiousness of such action.

That’s because the absence of talking about something can be as powerful as talking about something. Just because no-one says a given proposition doesn’t mean that the proposition isn’t learnt via language (as well as other learned differentiating tools).

Although there is no definitive agreement in the scientific community, there is ongoing study into “intrinsic value systems”, whether genetic or “other” in nature. It has yet to be sufficiently explained.

There is yet to be any evidence that moral value judgements are inherent, innate, intrinsic. The absence of a single such judgement on which everyone agrees would indicate the opposite…

“If a goal for humanity is still lacking is there not still lacking - humanity itself?”

Thus, the “unalienable” right to sanctity of physicality, seems intrinsic.

‘Sanctity of physicality’? But this ‘sanctity’ is voluntarily violated all the time…

[Uccisore]

I’m pretty sure there’s no such things as rights to begin with- people don’t need to be given permission to do things. Or, if there is such a thing, there is one and only one right- the right to do whatever the hell you want, as long as it doesn’t violate certain obligations/restrictions. Obligations and restrictions are what’s real, rights are just the spaces between them.

[Mastriani]

saitd

You can disagree with my contentions, but it isn’t going to lead us anywhere. We obviously have different perspectives here.

The only contention that I will go against is the last. There have been numerous studies, scientific and psychological, that show there is “innate, inherent, intrinsic” values to all humans, that exist prior to the “self-aware” state of development.

The question is whether it is genetic, or something else.

[xanderman]

@bombl4stik

I’m running an extreme debate argument in support of statism. In other words, I’m arguing that any and all intrinsic, “unalienable” human rights are fundamentally just social constructs and contracts. Therefore, the state’s only duty is a utilitarian pursuit of bettering the majority, even if it completely overrules the so-called intrinsic rights of the minority.

It’s fascist, it’s totalitarian, and it’s outrageous. But it’s fun to argue.

So do you think human rights are intrinsic or are just social constructs?

If you accept that human rights are a social construst then you might also consider that a state’s duty is yet another social construct. The state likewise lacks any intrinsic duties. The “duty of the state” is as much of an intersubjective agreement as “human rights”.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@Mastriani

saitd

You can disagree with my contentions, but it isn’t going to lead us anywhere. We obviously have different perspectives here.

Mastriani,

Indeed we do, but I’m not the one claiming that certain moral values are intrinsic, the ‘burden of proof’ is not on my shoulders…

The only contention that I will go against is the last. There have been numerous studies, scientific and psychological, that show there is “innate, inherent, intrinsic” values to all humans, that exist prior to the “self-aware” state of development.

If you’ve got evidence then present it. Everything that I’ve come across that defends innate morality has been bunk.

The question is whether it is genetic, or something else.

No it isn’t, the question is whether or not it exists. Present to me a value that is common to all people and an explanation of the mechanism which carries it through the generations…

[Mastriani]

@someoneisatthedoor

@Mastriani

saitd

You can disagree with my contentions, but it isn’t going to lead us anywhere. We obviously have different perspectives here.

Mastriani,

Indeed we do, but I’m not the one claiming that certain moral values are intrinsic, the ‘burden of proof’ is not on my shoulders…

The only contention that I will go against is the last. There have been numerous studies, scientific and psychological, that show there is “innate, inherent, intrinsic” values to all humans, that exist prior to the “self-aware” state of development.

If you’ve got evidence then present it. Everything that I’ve come across that defends innate morality has been bunk.

The question is whether it is genetic, or something else.

No it isn’t, the question is whether or not it exists. Present to me a value that is common to all people and an explanation of the mechanism which carries it through the generations…

Relax saitd, be not so quick to fervor. It has been a long time since I viewed the materials and even longer since I’ve used them in contention, so I will have to break some bindings, but I will find the information again. I know there were 2 studies in the early '80’s regarding this, I just can’t recall the names. Have patience, I will provide.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Mastriani,

Please don’t mistake my direct tone for a desire for confrontation. I’ve just spent enough time watching movies that were badly edited and I generally try to cut to the chase…

[DT_Strain]

To answer the question, if a bunch of racists want to beat up a minority, they are hurting themselves by doing so. They are creating an enemy in their midst and they are making their surroundings less pleasant and stable. There is no such thing as something that is good for the individual and bad for society. There is also no such thing as something that is bad for the individual and good for society. If ever there appears to be such a case, it is because the judgment of something being “good” or “bad” is short sighted and not fully comprehending the intricate ramification of events.

The two are the same.

[Matt]

I am driven to agree with SIATD about the non-existence of intristic human rights, however Mastriani has got me thinking.

I’m sure several of you have heard about the inability many humans have at killing other humans, especially ones that they do not know. The stats rolled out are that untrained humans have only a 10% chance of being able to do so. This has been derived from studies of death-tolls on battlefields compared to the number of shots fired etc. Of that 10%, 50% are sociopaths, 50% are ‘heros’, normal people with the nature-born ability to kill.

This ability can be trained into humans (I think something like 60% of humans who go through decent modern military training ahve the ability), but this training against nature has been suggested as a cause of post-traumatic stress in soldiers, they can do it, but their minds can’t handle it.

So, where am I going? Well, while I agree with SIATD there may be no intrisic human rights, there may be natural human rights, those that have been bred into us. These surface in the vast majority of us, including Mastriani’s examples.

These, for all intents and purposes, are so strong that they could confer enough status for us to recognise them as inaliable human rights, such that going against them is true evil.

As without these, how do we define a sociopath in the first place?

[DT_Strain]

In my view, evolution, human instinct, and human nature have nothing to do with whether or not rights exist or whether or not ethics exist. “Is” cannot determine “ought”.

The key thing is this: what are ethics? why do we discuss them, teach them, and talk about them? (I’m viewing “rights” as a subset of ethics here)

It’s quite obvious that the function of ethics is to provide a means of interacting with one another for our mutual well-being. As such, the judgment over whether something is ethical, or whether something is more ethical than something else, should be based on how it performs in furthering that function.

True Ethics, then, would be that set of human behaviors which, if implemented, would provide the greatest survival and prosperity for the whole.

Because our actions and behaviors have objective effects, then it is objectively true that some actions are more ethical than others. But, since we don’t have a time machine and can’t always know the intricate future consequences of various ethical ideals, then we must make arguments, build our case, look at the evidence, and make estimates about which things better achieve ethical ends. And we must build consensus in that. Nevertheless, there IS a RIGHT answer, that is objectively true. In other words, there IS a selection of behaviors which will fulfill the function of ethics better on the whole (and in the long run) than the others.

As for, say, the right to free speech for example: it will either benefit us on the whole to live in such a world more than not holding and protecting that right or it will benefit us less by doing so. This is an objective fact that we could hypothetically know, were we able to run history twice, changing only that variable.

This is why arguments for various rights (or any ethics) usually involve reasoning on why it is beneficial to protect such rights and then use statistics, psychology, empathy, and other information to try and show why we would be worse off if we didn’t (or vice versa).

I happen to be of the view that there are some things that, if we protect individual’s ability to do through law, we will be objectively better off. This means, by the reckoning I have outlined, that to have these things (i.e. “rights”) IS objectively: ethical. In other words, if my assessment on their effects is correct, rights DO exist and they exist independent of our opinion because they would in fact benefit us even if we thought otherwise and went without them.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear DT Strain,

@DT Strain

In my view, evolution, human instinct, and human nature have nothing to do with whether or not rights exist or whether or not ethics exist. “Is” cannot determine “ought”.

True, but that which is perceived as existing, particularly that which is perceived as existing naturally and essentially, has a massive influence on what is perceived to ‘ought to be’.

The key thing is this: what are ethics? why do we discuss them, teach them, and talk about them? (I’m viewing “rights” as a subset of ethics here)

Ethics - “An enquiry into how men ought to act in general” - Routledge dictionary of philosophy

It’s quite obvious that the function of ethics is to provide a means of interacting with one another for our mutual well-being.

It’s either obvious or it isn’t. It can’t be ‘quite obvious’. That you slipped here in your rhetorical construction demonstrates that you yourself are uncertain about this, knowing full well that it isn’t obvious and that this is wishful thinking.

As such, the judgment over whether something is ethical, or whether something is more ethical than something else, should be based on how it performs in furthering that function.

Very Kantian…

True Ethics, then, would be that set of human behaviors which, if implemented, would provide the greatest survival and prosperity for the whole.

I’m not sure that you understand what ethics is…

Because our actions and behaviors have objective effects, then it is objectively true that some actions are more ethical than others. But, since we don’t have a time machine and can’t always know the intricate future consequences of various ethical ideals, then we must make arguments, build our case, look at the evidence, and make estimates about which things better achieve ethical ends. And we must build consensus in that. Nevertheless, there IS a RIGHT answer, that is objectively true. In other words, there IS a selection of behaviors which will fulfill the function of ethics better on the whole (and in the long run) than the others.

Out of interest, what are they?

As for, say, the right to free speech for example: it will either benefit us on the whole to live in such a world more than not holding and protecting that right or it will benefit us less by doing so. This is an objective fact that we could hypothetically know, were we able to run history twice, changing only that variable.

A hypothetical objective fact? Or an objective hypothetical fact?

Free speech is a nonsense, it doesn’t exist, never has, never will, never can. It’s just a rhetorical lever that (along with other flimsy devices) keeps the quality of public discourse at such a low level…

This is why arguments for various rights (or any ethics) usually involve reasoning on why it is beneficial to protect such rights and then use statistics, psychology, empathy, and other information to try and show why we would be worse off if we didn’t (or vice versa).

Psychology has absolutely nothing to do with ethics and we should keep it that way. In particular where psychologists seek authority over philosophers on such issues.

I happen to be of the view that there are some things that, if we protect individual’s ability to do through law, we will be objectively better off. This means, by the reckoning I have outlined, that to have these things (i.e. “rights”) IS objectively: ethical. In other words, if my assessment on their effects is correct, rights DO exist and they exist independent of our opinion because they would in fact benefit us even if we thought otherwise and went without them.

• Prove that they are independent of our opinion(s). Russell had similar ideas but they were total nonsense

• If we don’t have something then it cannot benefit us

I remain unconvinced…

[Pinnacle_of_Reason]

TO have a right is to have power. Only power give right, but right does not give power. So it is idle to say you have the right to live when you have no power of defending that linguistic lie. Only the powerful have rights, and the most right is bestowed upon the MOST powerful.