Who decides what is and isn't a human right?
Whoever writes the bill of rights it's on.
Also:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/
>In the foreword to the book's 30th-anniversary edition, Dawkins said he "can readily see that [the book's title] might give an inadequate impression of its contents" and in retrospect thinks he should have taken Tom Maschler's advice and called the book The Immortal Gene.
Just in case of misunderstandings.
>>1350521
Society
>human right
Revisionism
Humans over time.
The idea should be to force culture to a point where it's untenable for governments to treat people like objects. Establishing the concept of a human right in the culture is the only way to do this. The right to bear arms has lasted for a long time, because it's been established as a basic right in the USA. Americans could get the right to life-saving healthcare as well as the right to defend themselves, if they want to.
>>1350521
humans do, by convention.
People do. Usually it takes the form of being codified into law, and enforced by jailing or executing the people who violate them.
>>1350521
>Who decides what is and isn't a human right?
The environment and the modes of production and reproduction of a society determine what rules and values its people have to follow in order for the society to function. No one decides anything.
/pol/
>>1350521
trends
>>1350521
What kind of dumb question is this? Humans do, obviously.
>>1350521
The government
>>1350521
The strong determine the fate of the weak.
>>1352245
I think he just means discussions like this are political, not specifically history
ergo, belongs on /pol/
>>1352286
/thread
Thrasymachus did nothing wrong
>>1352301
It's philosophical, hence "history & humanities"
