Is human rights universal?

[ray245]

I came across this argument in the finals at one debate tournament, where the motion was, 'There is no Universal human rights.
It seems to be a good topic to discuss, and I do think that there might be some members who disagreed with the notion that human rights is universal.

So, the question is this, is Humans rights universal? What does it takes for a certain right to be considered as universal?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Grammatical nitpick: It should be "are", not "is".

And yes, they should be universal. If you're deciding who they apply to and when, then they're not rights one can accept. They're just privileges to be revoked by anyone in power.

Although it can be argued no one has any rights. They are a simple human construct of abstract law. The universe doesn't care about them, and a lot of people don't either. Were a society to become anarchic, such rights lose all meaning too. Only in a liberalised, democratic state with sufficient resources do we entertain the notion of many rights we take for granted today. It wasn't such even a century or two ago.

[Feil]

Nitpick: if a human right isn't universal, it's not a human right by definition. That's why we call it a human right, not a citizen right, or a male right. The only useful question in your post is "What does it takes for a certain right to be considered as universal?"

[ray245]

Nitpick: if a human right isn't universal, it's not a human right by definition. That's why we call it a human right, not a citizen right, or a male right. The only useful question in your post is "What does it takes for a certain right to be considered as universal?"

The reason I ask such a question is due to that debate motion. I can't find a way for any team to support the notion that human rights isn't universal.

The only argument made by the supporting team is, for human rights to be universal, all cultures must be able to subscribe to that idea. Every culture from a first world nation to a conservative state like Saudi Arabia.

[Garlak]

Do they mean that, in order for a right to be universal, every culture would have to agree on that?

Or, to reword and rework it a bit... that in order to come up with universal rights, you'd have to poll pretty much every culture/society?


Well... you have to decide whether "universal" will mean "something that everybody/mot/all will agree upon collectively," or whether "universal" would mean "rights we've thought up that we think should apply to everyone."

Quite frankly, if you looked for it long enough, you'd probably find cultures where they believe that a person's death isn't their own... much less their life.

Just... I dunno, consider Ethnocentrism.
How do we know that what we think is right, is/will be right for everyone?

[Shroom Man 777]

How can human rights be universal when in many places, half the human population (usually the ones with breasts) don't even have any rights and some minorities (the gays, or Jews, or Pariahs!) don't even have the right to exist?

Human rights is not universal. It's something the philosophers of wealthier nations have conjured up, and it's something the more prosperous places have adopted because it is comfortable.

Many other places don't have that luxury.

[Sarevok]

There is no absolute good or evil in this universe. They are just ideas we made up, the universe does not give a shit. However that does not mean we should pick some random evil ideology as guiding principles. If a civilization is to grow into more advanced culture it will need a good moral philosophy. I am sure Alyrium or some others can explain in far better terms than I why assigning unalienable rights to individuals is so damn useful in evolutionary sense. So yes while human rights is not universal it is required if humans wants to continue to develop instead regress back into caves.

[Shroom Man 777]

It's not really a requirement, but it sure makes life damn easier for a whole lot of us people. It's nice, but its nowhere near universal. Society chooses what rights its people get, and society is affected by a whole lot of things. For a shitpiece living in some wartorn hellhole, universal human rights isn't going to matter for him when he sneaks up into someone's house at night and sells children to zoos for meat.

EDIT:

Human rights are the privilege of those who live in enlightened societies.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps you could say that in order for human rights to be a meaningful concept, they must be rights whose validity is universally accepted.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hm? Concepts like evolution and heliocentrism don't have to be universally accepted to be valid. The only difference is that those who reject evolution and heliocentrism are plain ignorant, as opposed to inhumane like those who reject human rights.

[Kanastrous]

What I mean to suggest is that accurate descriptions of physical processes remain valid whether or not they're universally accepted.

Whereas since human rights are not a feature of the physical world and therefore not amenable to the same kind of description, they only have meaning to the degree to which they are accepted and used as the basis upon which to formulate practice.

Heliocentrism etc can be validated to a much greater degree of certainty than any particular framework of what properly constitutes human rights. The former is in the realm of verifiable models while the latter is a matter of opinion.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, a coherent set of human rights could be developed based on the biological needs of the human organism which would thus be factually grounded in the real world.

[Sarevok]

Well, a coherent set of human rights could be developed based on the biological needs of the human organism which would thus be factually grounded in the real world.

It ultimately depends on the end goal of a societies aims instead what individuals[ want.

Is a society striving to become as vast and powerful as it could ? Or does it seek to give individuals best possible life ? Each will have different ideas about "human rights". For example a imperialistic nation bent on world domination would not consider torture as transgression on certain unalienable rights people posses if it serves national interest. On otherhand a more peacenik society would rather suffer some military disadvantage while offering it's citizens immunity from fear of torture.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course they are not universal, and they are constantly evolving along with society. Think of it as of society's conscience. Do all people get to understand what's best and what's more moral straight away, or do they have to undergo a long period of understanding - which by no means guarantees the best outcome?

There's the biological right to life, shelter and food, but beyond that it's just "what society considers would be most beneficial for all".

[Oskuro]

It ultimately depends on the end goal of a societies aims instead what individuals want.

The final application of such rights does depend on the society, but the purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to agree in a broad sense what a human being is entitled to by the mere fact of being a human being, or, in other words, it is an attempt to draw the line for abuse of power from a given state.

The intention is, in fact, to limit the actions of governments in how they treat people, by clearly indicating wich actions cross said line.

Of course, it is not a binding law, and many countries accept only the parts that are convenient, but at least the intention is to extricate the well-being of the individual from the aims of the society in question. Unfortunately, universal application can't be achieved without enforcement, so it is more of an ideological concept right now.

[PeZook]

If human rights are truly universal, how come medieval societies had no problem with things like brutal punishments, torture, mass executions, different sets of laws for lords and for peons, etc.?

[ray245]

If human rights are truly universal, how come medieval societies had no problem with things like brutal punishments, torture, mass executions, different sets of laws for lords and for peons, etc.?

Seems like the team who supported the motion that there is no universal human rights wasted a good opportunity to make more sound argument. One example used by that team is Woman living in the middle east or Arab nations do think that woman are below man to a certain extend, because that is the culture they were brought up in. However, being unable to understand the reasoning for equal rights for both man and woman does not mean those women cannot subscribe to those rights.

Although in that debate, the judges seems to reject that example as ridiculous out right.

[Shroom Man 777]

What's wrong with that example? That's a great example on how human rights is not universal due to the shittiness of some societies.

[Sarevok]

If human rights are truly universal, how come medieval societies had no problem with things like brutal punishments, torture, mass executions, different sets of laws for lords and for peons, etc.?

Seems like the team who supported the motion that there is no universal human rights wasted a good opportunity to make more sound argument. One example used by that team is Woman living in the middle east or Arab nations do think that woman are below man to a certain extend, because that is the culture they were brought up in. However, being unable to understand the reasoning for equal rights for both man and woman does not mean those women cannot subscribe to those rights.

Although in that debate, the judges seems to reject that example as ridiculous out right.

You might wanna define what you mean by "universal human rights".

[ray245]

What's wrong with that example? That's a great example on how human rights is not universal due to the shittiness of some societies.

Firstly, it seems that most of the judges in the panel cannot understand anyone or any woman thinking that she is below a man, and such a view cannot exist in this world. That's the problem with most debating competition I have been in. We are told not to bring a leap of faith examples into the debate, even if that is true. I was trained not to use Mother Teresa as a negative example, against the missionary movement for example, because no one would believe my words outright, and I have to spend too much time proving that example, as compared to arguing for my position.

The problem is, the team tried to play safe with that motion by saying, when there is no universal human rights, we mean there is a problem with then Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because it is created by western powers, and Eastern societies are not consulted. Which defeats the whole point of this debate, because if that is the case, people can simply renegotiate the human rights charter, and have a new declaration of human rights, one that is accepted by all socities.

Trying to play safe does not address the motion at all.

[K. A. Pital]

The problem is, the team tried to play safe with that motion by saying, when there is no universal human rights, we mean there is a problem with then Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Well, that's simply taking the wrong road. If you think that something becomes universal if it's written in a document by some folks, that doesn't automatically make it so. The whole idea that human rights are dependent for recognition on some sort of document, as opposed to being universally recognized by humans "as is", strikes deep into the whole argument of their universality - that's what they should've said instead of trying to attack the document as "not universal".

[ray245]

The problem is, the team tried to play safe with that motion by saying, when there is no universal human rights, we mean there is a problem with then Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Well, that's simply taking the wrong road. If you think that something becomes universal if it's written in a document by some folks, that doesn't automatically make it so. The whole idea that human rights are dependent for recognition on some sort of document, as opposed to being universally recognized by humans "as is", strikes deep into the whole argument of their universality - that's what they should've said instead of trying to attack the document as "not universal".

That's the problem with many Asian debating club which I've seen. They seems scared to take a 'hardliner' stance. Or, they do not understand the concept and meaning of universal human rights in the first place.

Whenever Asian teams are faced with a philosophy debate, they usually lost the debate to Western universities.

[Sarevok]

The problem is, the team tried to play safe with that motion by saying, when there is no universal human rights, we mean there is a problem with then Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Well, that's simply taking the wrong road. If you think that something becomes universal if it's written in a document by some folks, that doesn't automatically make it so. The whole idea that human rights are dependent for recognition on some sort of document, as opposed to being universally recognized by humans "as is", strikes deep into the whole argument of their universality - that's what they should've said instead of trying to attack the document as "not universal".

That's the problem with many Asian debating club which I've seen. They seems scared to take a 'hardliner' stance. Or, they do not understand the concept and meaning of universal human rights in the first place.

Whenever Asian teams are faced with a philosophy debate, they usually lost the debate to Western universities.

Are not debate completions in asian school and university level marked by style over substance fallacy ? Don't they look for good speakers instead of concrete arguments ? In my personal experience with a charismatic enough team one could argue 2+2=5, insert sufficient amount of philosophical bullshit citing everyone from Plato to Bertrand Russel and be deemed winner by the judges at the end of the competition.

[ray245]

Are not debate completions in asian school and university level marked by style over substance fallacy ? Don't they look for good speakers instead of concrete arguments ? In my personal experience with a charismatic enough team one could argue 2+2=5, insert sufficient amount of philosophical bullshit citing everyone from Plato to Bertrand Russel and be deemed winner by the judges at the end of the competition.

Asian's debating style would focus more on the feasibility of that proposal as compared to the arguments. Although it really depends on the judges though. A lousy judges will be swayed by the sheer amount of lies and bullshit in the examples.

One of my seniors loves to quote random names as president of certain nations, and most judges will not notice. However, when they are in the semi to finals rounds of that competition, most of the weaker judges will be filtered out.

Mainly because Asians debating societies tend to focus on the feasibility of that motion in their case setup, Asians do fare behind western clubs in regards to philosophy based debate. The opposing team in the Universal human rights debate did not even notice the proposition team is going off-track.

[NecronLord]

I thought it was pretty obvious that the UDHR was the United Nations' Declaration of Rights for all Humans that should be respected throughout the entire Universe. I don't think one can seriously think the idea is that they're inherent laws of nature or anything like that.