Why do people argue like human rights are real, like they are a physical thing or a law of reality that exists?
In another thread I said humans are a commodity and I got a really asshurt response.
If humans aren't a commodity, how does slavery exist?
It's almost like people take their ideology to make claims about reality rather than observing reality and and making claims then leaving the 'ought-to's to philosophy.
>>1308462
Human rights were really established with the UN. The golden rule is the basis, I guess. The idea propagated is in order to progress we should treat each other respectfully.
I'm not saying that the idea of human rights isn't useful or that people don't act according to the ideal, but human rights don't actually exist and there is literally nothing stopping anyone from arbitrarily disregarding it.
That means "human rights" it's quite literally
not an argument
Daily reminder that seeing humans as a commodity is a textbook definition of psychopathy
>>1308487
It doesn't matter what it means, the fact is humans are a commodity that are sometimes owned, traded, and seen as property.
If humans aren't a commodity, nothing is.
>>1308462
>It's almost like people take their ideology to make claims about reality rather than observing reality and and making claims then leaving the 'ought-to's to philosophy.
congratulations, you just named the only cause of every single one problem ever
>>1308505
Commodities don't actually exist
Ownership doesn't exist, its just an abstraction
What now nigga
What now
>>1308525
I accept that so long as you don't say commodities exist but humans are magically exempt from being a commodity.
>>1308476
>not declaration of the rights of man and the citizen
>not Thomas Moore
>not US Bill of rights
>>1308530
How Can Humans Be Commodities If Commodities Don't Exist?
The slave trade market isn't liquid enough, and humans aren't fungible enough, for dealing with people as commodities to be useful.
>>1308540
I'm talking world wide, not select sovereign states.
>>1308505
I just read this thread and I'm confused about where the argument is coming from.
Are humans a commodity? Sure, in some places in some circumstances, like the ones you've mentioned.
Are human rights (as a general concept, I am assuming to include things such as freedom of speech and religion etc) a real physical thing? No. Like >>1308476 said, they're a series of norms that we've, at least to some extent, agreed to try to follow because we've decided we would all collectively be better off if we did. This has been the product of hundreds of years of debate and there is very little worldwide consensus on even the most basic "human rights," which is one of the reasons why every treaty dealing with human rights is written in the most general terms.
I don't see how these two ideas necessarily lead to disagreement. One is a description of actual treatment, another is a concept that refers to a bunch of varying guidelines on how we think people ought to be treated. Nobody should be saying slavery doesn't exist just because we have human rights treaties: they aren't universally accepted and even so there are abuses.
>and there is literally nothing stopping anyone from arbitrarily disregarding it.
The prospect of there being consequences for their actions, just like any law.
Anybody who isn't an idiot knows full well that human rights, like all moral codes and laws, can be abused and ignored, especially if they're not enforced by a government or society as a whole. It's the same with constitutions, they're meant to be there as a baseline foundation code of conduct by which a society is expected to conduct itself. Plenty of governments don't give a shit about their constitutions though. These things only matter as far as somebody is able and willing to ensure their tenets are obeyed.
The basic concept of human rights is supposed to be a statement "All humans are entitled to these rights, so act accordingly." It's basically a statement of intent, which the UN hopes will be obeyed by all states, with the potential consequences being ... whatever shit the UN can manage to do, usually sanctions.
>>1308462
>humans are a commodity
Why the fuck are you trying to make this point anyway? Are you a slave owner or something?
human rights are rules and approximation of how most of people feel about certain things
the problem with rules is that they are not authentic, and this causes all kinds of problems
for example something might be completely appropriate in a certain situation yet you feel bad for doing it because it's against the rules and breaking them creates sense of guilt
>>1308462
>Why do people argue like human rights are real, like they are a physical thing or a law of reality that exists?
Because language is defective and does not capture the subtle kind of existence that the natural law possesses.
>>1308530
Humans don't exist, nigga.
>>1308719
You dont have to be a slave owner to have opinions, in this case, its a fact, that human labour is a commodity...
Human rights, is just bullshit made by EU to feel superiour and shieee, we betta dan u, we can afford human rights. Most countries dont.
>2nd one, not the 1st
>>1308462
Human rights are a logical conclusion that come from a shared sense of humanity and human dignity. They may not be ordained by God but that doesn't make them any less real.
>>1308545
>How can your eyes be real if your eyes arent real
>>1308769
Owning human beings as propriety is an immoral practice, there's no relevance in discussing things such as "are humans a commodity"?
Bullshit is trying to argue shit like "X is just something we made". Just because something is a construct doesn't mean that it isn't valid.
Without Christianity, human rights are just an opinion; both secular and religious.
Secular- Might makes right; evolution. The strong have the right/ability to enslave the weak so they can/should.
Pagans/Islam/Hindus- The Demiurge has made the strong and the weak, and if you're weak God/s have judged you to be unworthy and you deserved to be enslaved/put in the shitty person caste/murdered.
Jesus- GOD loves us all.
Jefferson- 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.
Jefferson was a Rosicrucian, for the record, Fedorachan.
We all want cheap shit. Fuck human rights
>>1308487
See Master/Slave Morality.
The Master sees the weak as a commodity because he is strong enough to exploit them.
The Weak only response is to call him names and to glorify their weakness by saying GOD loves them anyway.
The only question is which of them are right.
>>1308790
1. im not arguing for slavery to me morally good or anythang
2. You can argue that everything is a construct, but human rights really have no legitimacy towards those countries who dont follow them. Human rights is something governments should follow, it doesnt bother citizens, it does, but in a state vs citizen way.
Human rights arent really "laws", theres nothing enforcing them upon any state or anything, but norms that wealthy countries decided everyone should follow. Its all politics really.
The 2nd part of human rights says that all humans should have right to go to school, hospital etc etc, the leftist part. That part is awful, it means more government power and so on, while the first part of HR gives citizens freedom against the government.
>>1308810
Both are wrong. The Master also feels the need to justify his exploitation of others to himself.
The Ubermensch doesn't feel need to justify himself.
>>1308462
>You guys shouldn't care what ought to be done, only what is done. Support the corrupt status quo!
>>1308795
>my understanding of things
No.
Things you can discuss about:
Universality of human rights(cultural context)
Actors(International organizations,supranational organizations,international courts,ngos,society as a whole,states,individual actors,often religious by the way)
Definition of human rights(humanitarian/human rights law)
My teacher recommended us "Endtimes of Human Rights" by Hopgood
>>1308818
>Human rights arent really "laws", theres nothing enforcing them upon any state or anything, but norms that wealthy countries decided everyone should follow. Its all politics really.
That's because the UN doesn't have the authority or resources to be enforcing its mandates on unwilling countries, it relies on member states to regulate one another through things like economic sanctions, which frequently happens in the case of human rights abuses.
Of course it's all politics and plenty of abusive regimes get a free pass because it's convenient, but it still provides a model of baseline rules that you can point to. It's just better to lay out all the expectations on the table, which is what the declaration of human rights did. Then when someone absuses it, you can clearly point to the declaration and go "here's where you went wrong and we don't approve."
>>1308841
Well you present opinions as facts, and your opinions are nothing more than your own understanding of things, therefore youre wrong.
Youre on /his/ you should know better than "GOD loves us all" bullshit, that aint even christianity, theres 5 tribes, what happend to those outside these 5 godly tribes?
>>1308880
>its all politics really.
Like polticians of X country really care what nignogs in the desert does, or they probably do, dont want immigration to your welfare state lloololololo
>>1308880
The free pass convenience thing just happens way too often and these double standards should be criticized constantly by the media and the public
>>1308795
So you are just gonna pick and choose stuff from vastly complex philosophies to fit your world view and reduce the referential philosophies to pure sophistry while your own conclusion is sophistry.
>>1308900
>Like polticians of X country really care what nignogs in the desert does
Some probably actually do. Even the ones that don't give a shit personally still realize that it's wise to pretend you do.
>dont want immigration to your welfare state lloololololo
Obviously not, massive uncontrolled waves of war refugees aren't good for any society regardless on your opinion on legitimate immigration is. But the fact that many politicians are so eager to let them in speaks to the fact that they seem to show that either they think these people deserve to be treated according to their human rights or at least think a majority of their voters do.
>>1308462
[Logic-based analysis incoming]
Fundementally, human rights is a consequence of society trying to find more ways to become efficient in how it uses its resources. It should be noted that this process is not really intentional but is an evolutionary process.
A society is a group of individuals that share a set of similar traits that are used in a social setting. Societies start small and grow larger as it absorbs other small societies (either through alliances or outright aquisition). As societies grow larger though, they start to become more homogenous as the traits that define the society become more and more normalized - this is because as your sample increases, it starts to fall into certain patterns.
Larger systems are much more difficult to handle than smaller systems. Without efficiency, a society cannot protect itself from other societies that will try to absorb it in some way or another. Therefore, ways to manage its own people are required.
Human rights emerged as a way to improve the efficiency of individuals by improving their mental health (seriously, this is what it boils down to). Happier people produce more and contribute more towards society and allow it to grow more, and therefore can dominate other societies and possibly even absorb them.
However, it should be noted that excess "happiness" can lead to "social lethargy", or the refusal to contribute because of a lack of a need to. Therefore, an important balance between human rights and production must be made for human rights to actually help contribute towards society.
tl;dr happy people make more shit
>>1309052
First of all, how do you define happiness?Free from pain,or generally satisfied?Different cultures have a different approach.I think productivity shouldn`t be the main motivation for implementing human rights on a global scale,but I guess you`re right with that.Compassion is where the real motor is at, you don`t need religion for that,but it can serve as a good reminder.
>>1309142
there are two forms of happiness excitement and fulfillment
you fill excitement is short term and caused by reward system of your brain and fulfillment by selflessness and being present
not him btw
>>1308462
All morality stems from humanity as a specie reflecting on it's "internal" structure as humans.
As a specie, we do things, like impose slavery. We also do things like resist slavery. Both these things are very human.
If you disregard morality and rights and ethics because they aren't real, you might as well disregard money and family and friends and work and even life.
Because, going by your logic, life doesn't exist either. we're just self repeating patterns that believe that life is something more than it is. We're nothing more than some bubbles in a pot. Objectively, all the shit you sense and believe in doesn't exist either, it's all an illusion.
So stop thinking your view is objective. All you are doing is viewing things from outside of the human perspective, and trying to rationalize it there. the issue here is that you are human, and trying to do such a thing is impossible, and only creates delusions where you think rights don't exist and slavery is cool.
>>1308549
>not select sovereign states
You realize you can pay off people to ignore your human rights abuses? That if your government takes away those rights there is no recourse/intervention?
T. Most of the Middle East, Africa, and China.
>>1308462
>Why do people argue like human rights are real, like they are a physical thing or a law of reality that exists?
Because they're a moral commandment and not a "physical thing or law". It is effectively a secularized form of Christianity, which is why a lot of durka durka's protest that these universal human rights are "too western".
>>1308549
>I'm talking world wide, not select sovereign states.
Even then it's the Declaration of Human Rights of the Citizen AND MAN. There's a reason why that one is more famous than any of the dozens if not hundreds of bills of rights that have preceded it since literally antiquity: it declared those rights to be UNIVERSAL. In other words, not just a bunch of Frenchmen deciding the rights of Frenchmen, they've been doing that in one way or another since the middle ages. It was them getting together and declaring that these rights counted for everyone, everywhere. That's why the UN copied their declaration almost ad verbatim.
>>1309142
But what purpose does compassion ultimately serve humanity? Why would humanity be oriented towards compassion over, say, trying to overwhelm others?
>>1308551
This m8
>>1308462
It mostly comes down to a disagreement in worldviews. Under whatever worldview you have rights don't exist, under others they do.
>If humans aren't a commodity, how does slavery exist?
Jesus dude really?
>>1308824
How can you tell what ought to be from what is? The former is an abstraction of the mind while the latter is founded in reality.
>>1308462
The idea of universal human rights is a uniquely western idea which was popularized when the west had the luxury of being the dominant culture in the world.
The west is not stupid however, and the idea of universal human rights is beginning to unravel as the west becomes challenged by the Oriental culture which does not care for that idea. Universal human rights is, practically speaking, only pragmatic when the positive publicity from having a moral high ground is more useful than having a more effective military.
Essentially we have been tying one of our hands behind our back, and now the time has almost come to untie it.
>>1308551
This. Good post
>>1308769
But it's so obviously not a commodity. Skills, language compatibility, social connections, and government regulations make labour very strongly differentiated, even if you don't bring up health, sex, age, appearance, and other factors that differentiate actual humans.
>>1308462
Humans are not commodities. We can be treated as such, but, we have no inherent 'comodity-ness'.
>>1308810
Thanks for the picture anon. Now onto your point. Neither is right, because the weak end up revolting at one point or another. Thus the "master" is put into a very interesting position.
>If you disregard morality and rights and ethics because they aren't real, you might as well disregard money and family and friends and work and even life
The moral man is necessarily narrow in that he knows no other enemy than the 'immoral' man. 'He who is not moral is immoral!' and accordingly reprobate, despicable, etc. Therefore, the moral man can never comprehend the egoist.
