A philosophical basis for inherent universal human dignity

[JDaniel]

So by convention we want to be pain free. What I’m trying to ask is which rights are inherent and not based on convention, but more importantly why are they inherent rather than based on convention?

Theo:

That’s not an altogether easy question to answer. At a glance, one could say that if we have something by no personal choice, any right that comes from it would be inherent. OTOH, if a co-agreement must be exhumed, so to speak, so that we humans must find the “right,” it is convention. An example of the latter might be, say, if we did not feel pain. We could prod, poke and jab each other to our hearts content.

Now I would say that inherent(basic/fundamental) rights are conferred neither by government nor convention, so yes people still have such rights in a totalitarian regime but their rights are being denied.

I would agree with this.

I find this a very fasinating area and I thank you for sharing your point of view.

Me too. And I thank you for regarding my opinions.

Now, as regards animals, I don’t see how they would have either kind of “right.” They neither grant nor reciprocate rights to other animals, or to humans. My position is that any man who unnecessarily harms an animal is exposing a character defect, and one that is entirely purposeful. Even though it is God who originates and sustains him, and ultimately moves his arms and legs, it is the man’s very will that violates our requirement to properly tend to our environment. In my opinion, the discussion over "animal rights’ is used to mask our real requirement to accord human rights to the unborn.

God bless,
jd

 

[brgregmack]

Now that I think about it… one could ask what makes for a happy and healthy community, and then bring up examples that show that by far the happiest are those in which the dignity of all is recognized and maintained.

Yet would this be a philosophical argument? I really would like to know

 

[inocente]

What I’m trying to ask is which rights are inherent and not based on convention, but more importantly why are they inherent rather than based on convention?

The UN says all rights are inherent (to pun, we don’t have the right to divide them):

*Human rights are inherent; we are simply born with them and they belong to each of us as a result of our common humanity.

…] Human rights are indivisible and interrelated, with a focus on the individual and the community as a whole. Although human rights are often divided into two categories—civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights—rights cannot be treated separately or in distinct categories because the enjoyment of one right usually depends on fulfillment of other rights. People who are denied civil and political rights, such as political participation, have no means to protect the economic, social and cultural rights covering such needs as education and health care. Similarly, where basic survival needs are not met, civil and political rights may be meaningless as people become overwhelmingly concerned with getting adequate food and shelter. Different rights therefore should not be considered in isolation. - unicef.org/crc/index_30196.html*

 

[inocente]

Now that I think about it… one could ask what makes for a happy and healthy community, and then bring up examples that show that by far the happiest are those in which the dignity of all is recognized and maintained.

Yet would this be a philosophical argument? I really would like to know

Aren’t all reasoned arguments philosophical?

Here’s a UNICEF study on the health and happiness of children in different countries. You can make up your own mind on the relationship between well-being and dignity. I found it hard to find any correlations, including with wealth or religion, see the league table on page 2 (in which the USA and UK come last).

unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf

 

[sw85]

The UN says all rights are inherent (to pun, we don’t have the right to divide them):

*Human rights are inherent; we are simply born with them and they belong to each of us as a result of our common humanity.

…] Human rights are indivisible and interrelated, with a focus on the individual and the community as a whole. Although human rights are often divided into two categories—civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights—rights cannot be treated separately or in distinct categories because the enjoyment of one right usually depends on fulfillment of other rights. People who are denied civil and political rights, such as political participation, have no means to protect the economic, social and cultural rights covering such needs as education and health care. Similarly, where basic survival needs are not met, civil and political rights may be meaningless as people become overwhelmingly concerned with getting adequate food and shelter. Different rights therefore should not be considered in isolation. - unicef.org/crc/index_30196.html*

An interesting sentiment precisely because there’s no reason to believe it. Worse, the people who advocate tend in my experience to be nominalists, i.e., to deny natural rights on the grounds that such a thing as “common humanity” is an linguistic fiction.

 

[carn]

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Without God life might be meaningless. Before all jump of the next cliff, serious effort should be spent on checking realy carefully that life is meaningless.

Reasoning so far allowed to disprove some former suggestions regarding meaning of life, e.g. human life is not about serving Zeus.Therefore a careful check whether life is realy meaningless must include further application of reasoning to the problem.

Currently only species having some members capable of reasoning are those walking apes called homo sapiens. As we need their reasoning, some of them must survive.

As sorting out, which humans are useful for the endeavor of further reasoning and which are entierly useless, is impossible without knowing the final results of further efforts, sorting them should be avoided as it is error prone.

Therefore in ensuring mankinds further survival, the basic apporach should be to at first aim at the survival of each human.

There is some evidence in favor of the idea that scribbling something like “Every human has the right to life.” and have that piece of paper signed by some people, improves survival conditions for humans to some extent. Therefore it should be done.

(I know the weakness of the argument: How can we know that trying to further reason about the meaning of life isn’t the wrong choice and immidieately jumping of the cliff would have been the right? But its the best i can come up with.)

 

[JDaniel]

Aren’t all reasoned arguments philosophical?

Here’s a UNICEF study on the health and happiness of children in different countries. You can make up your own mind on the relationship between well-being and dignity. I found it hard to find any correlations, including with wealth or religion, see the league table on page 2 (in which the USA and UK come last).

unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf

Hey, you little Spain-ish chica! Look around some more. One of the things that I found very interesting was that the USA and UK were and are far more inclusive and meticulous than any other country’s criteria for information gathering. Peruse the internet. I doubt this has changed any.

Are you still loving it there!?

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

An interesting sentiment precisely because there’s no reason to believe it. Worse, the people who advocate tend in my experience to be nominalists, i.e., to deny natural rights on the grounds that such a thing as “common humanity” is an linguistic fiction.

Hmm. The choice to believe the professionals at the UN who advocate human rights day-to-day, or someone I just met on the internet. That’s a poser.

I think for those who develop, evangelize and enforce rights, their point is valid, any attempt to divide rights up inevitably leads to some being taken as derived or less important and the game is lost.

 

[inocente]

Hey, you little Spain-ish chica! Look around some more. One of the things that I found very interesting was that the USA and UK were and are far more inclusive and meticulous than any other country’s criteria for information gathering. Peruse the internet. I doubt this has changed any.

Are you still loving it there!?

Well hiya too, good to meet up again. But sorry to disillusion you, I am not so little and if I was female my user name would be inocenta. Soy macho, muy macho, ¿claro?

The purpose of such reports, and the reason why national governments participate, is that comparing yourself with other nations is very helpful in prioritizing improvements and budget. Any significant variation in data collection would be taken into account by the statisticians, and I very much doubt that the US or UK governments would want to explain away the report, just the opposite, since otherwise it brings the politicians no benefit.

To put it another way:

 

[Reivax]

Even though certain cultures in the history of humanity have had differing belief systems regarding morality, it can be observed that essentially all of them have at least some constant morals which they are all in some agreement with which seem to pop up independently all over the world. I would attribute this to empathy and how empathy is translated into a cultural context and accepted as ‘law’. This inevitably leads to an argumentum ad populum (appealing to the people), however this consistency tells us about human psychology on a grander scale and the development of moral belief systems. Humans are curious creatures, and have an innate desire to acquire knowledge about the world they live in. Forming reasonable conclusions about physical, objective reality is achievable through induction and deduction, however for morality and aesthetics it is more difficult - I would argue is is ultimately impossible. However, just because we cannot obtain knowledge of any objective morals that may or may not exist, It does not follow that we cannot create our own based on reason that acknowledges the human psyche.

I’ll use a simple examle

Why doesn’t an atheist rape children?

1. They have no motive to rape the child
2. They have empathy for the child**
3. They have a fear of retribution, both socially and legally

*Note: serial killers and rapists are often reported to have a lack of empathy, which is responsible for their actions.

“Psychopathy and sadism are typically observed in both offenders [serial killers and rapists]. Moreover, there is a lack of empathy toward and remorse for the individual’s actions (including deviant sexual behavior), which is motivated in part by thrill or sensation seeking conduct.”

Stacey L. Shipley and Bruce A. Arrigo
2008, Serial Murder and the Psychology of Violent Crimes, Part II, Pages 119-139

*Empathy is an evolutionary product which is beneficial to a population - it is a favourable characteristic which promotes survival.

In summation, I would argue that there is no objective morality, but we can strive to approximate morality by using reason and science. Some atheists such as Sam Harris argue that morality is objective and you can have a look at this if you are interested.

Hope that answered your question!

 

[JDaniel]

Well hiya too, good to meet up again. But sorry to disillusion you, I am not so little and if I was female my user name would be inocenta. Soy macho, muy macho, ¿claro?

Oh Yeah! Buddy!

I don’t know why I thought you were female. Must have been a new tumor.

The purpose of such reports, and the reason why national governments participate, is that comparing yourself with other nations is very helpful in prioritizing improvements and budget. Any significant variation in data collection would be taken into account by the statisticians, and I very much doubt that the US or UK governments would want to explain away the report, just the opposite, since otherwise it brings the politicians no benefit.

My point was that most other countries do not have rigorous reporting, like the US and, possibly, the UK have. There are a number of differences in proceedure as well. One example that I read was that in most Eastern block countries when a baby is born alive, but dies very shortly thereafter, it is counted as a live birth. In the US, it is counted as a still born. Again, look around the internet and you’ll find lots of examples like that. I doubt very much if that has changed over there.

I don’t place any import on comparisons between us and them. Rather, I look at trends, here. If the numbers are trending up, that’s, of course, a problem. If they’re trending down, that’s a good thing.

OK, buddy! :bowdown:

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

My point was that most other countries do not have rigorous reporting, like the US and, possibly, the UK have. There are a number of differences in proceedure as well. One example that I read was that in most Eastern block countries when a baby is born alive, but dies very shortly thereafter, it is counted as a live birth. In the US, it is counted as a still born. Again, look around the internet and you’ll find lots of examples like that. I doubt very much if that has changed over there.

The report says US teenage pregnancy rates are nine times higher than Japan, Netherlands or Switzerland and you want me to believe really it’s the other way around because the US is ten times better at collecting data than them? Puh-lease.

You also may have missed that a lot of the data comes from young people answering questions directly, so has nothing to do with your suggested amazing rigorousityiness of America.

Still, if you want to argue that the US is world leader in bureaucracy, who am I to blow against the wind?

I don’t place any import on comparisons between us and them. Rather, I look at trends, here. If the numbers are trending up, that’s, of course, a problem. If they’re trending down, that’s a good thing.

These benchmarking exercises are done so countries can learn from each other. Countries don’t compete on child well-being, and all are better off in a world where it’s improving across the board.

However, if you instead want to believe it’s about countries wagging fingers at each other, and please don’t take this the wrong way jd, but if you have never had any political responsibility for young people, praise the Lord.

 

[tonyrey]

Forming reasonable conclusions about physical, objective reality is achievable through induction and deduction, however for morality and aesthetics it is more difficult - I would argue is is ultimately impossible. However, just because we cannot obtain knowledge of any objective morals that may or may not exist, It does not follow that we cannot create our own based on reason that acknowledges the human psyche.

In summation, I would argue that there is no objective morality, but we can strive to approximate morality by using reason and science.

If there is no objective morality there is no obligation to use, trust or respect reason and science. To do so implies that reason is** objectively valuable **regardless of subjective opinion.

 

[Reivax]

If there is no objective morality there is no obligation to use, trust or respect reason and science. To do so implies that reason is** objectively valuable **regardless of subjective opinion.

I’m unsure how you come the conclusion that if there is no objective morality, then we have no reason to use or respect reason and science? We ‘respect’ science and reason because it works and it gets things done, this has nothing to do with ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. We don’t use it because it’s the right thing to do, we use it because it’s the reasonable thing to do.

The problem is you’re trying to equivocate ‘being right’ and ‘being reasonable’. Essentially reason has an objective utilitarian value which is independent from morality.

 

[Sair]

Theo:

I think so: Certainly we have “rights” because we are creatures of God. But, we don’t osmotically possess “rights” until and unless they are specifically reciprocated. The impetus for such reciprocity is part of the Natural Law, which is something written on our hearts by virtue of our inclusion in community. Though they may be unstated, you have rights precisely because I accord them to you and you, in turn, accord the same to me. I hope I sad that sufficiently well enough to be understandable.

God bless,
jd

That is an excellent response, by virtue of the fact that it recognises the practical implications of rights. Rights, for any individual, exist only insofar as others are prepared to countenance them - it’s all very well to make a philosophical or even religious case for rights, but if those with the power to uphold or override those rights refuse to (or somehow cannot) recognise those rights, cannot recognise common humanity as a basis for equitable treatment, then the rights, in practice, do not exist. Yes, the violation of rights may be recognised in retrospect, as it is in the prosecution of perpetrators of war crimes, for example, but at the point where it matters, rights depend upon the immediate recognition of common interests.

 

[tonyrey]

That is an excellent response, by virtue of the fact that it recognises the practical implications of rights. Rights, for any individual, exist only insofar as others are prepared to countenance them - it’s all very well to make a philosophical or even religious case for rights, but if those with the power to uphold or override those rights refuse to (or somehow cannot) recognise those rights, cannot recognise common humanity as a basis for equitable treatment, then the rights, in practice, do not exist. Yes, the violation of rights may be recognised in retrospect, as it is in the prosecution of perpetrators of war crimes, for example, but at the point where it matters, rights depend upon the immediate recognition of common interests.

Rights exist regardless of whether or not they are recognised or respected. To think otherwise is to have a criminal mentality! Ignorance is no excuse… although it may be a mitigating circumstance.

 

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by JDaniel
Theo:

I think so: Certainly we have “rights” because we are creatures of God. But, we don’t osmotically possess “rights” until and unless they are specifically reciprocated. The impetus for such reciprocity is part of the Natural Law, which is something written on our hearts by virtue of our inclusion in community. Though they may be unstated, you have rights precisely because I accord them to you and you, in turn, accord the same to me. I hope I sad that sufficiently well enough to be understandable.

God bless,
jd

That is an excellent response, by virtue of the fact that it recognises the practical implications of rights. Rights, for any individual, exist only insofar as others are prepared to countenance them - it’s all very well to make a philosophical or even religious case for rights, but if those with the power to uphold or override those rights refuse to (or somehow cannot) recognise those rights, cannot recognise common humanity as a basis for equitable treatment, then the rights, in practice, do not exist. Yes, the violation of rights may be recognised in retrospect, as it is in the prosecution of perpetrators of war crimes, for example, but at the point where it matters, rights depend upon the immediate recognition of common interests.

This line of explication is excellent. I wonder if either of you have read RA Heinleoin’s Starship Troopers? The book is, vastly unlike the unfortunate dribble in the movie of the smae title, an excellent treatis of citizenship and duty, There is a great passage on “rights.”

As to “natural law” if there is such a thing, it is at the root of the Great Commandments, the forms of the Golden Rule, and the Law of Reciprocity. All of these are based on what the original revelators of them knew as a pre-existing Truth: you treat the “other”’ as yourself because in Essence he/he/it is/IS the Self. All morality, fairness, justice, and relational law can be derived from that one fundamental perception.

 

[tonyrey]

This line of explication is excellent. I wonder if either of you have read RA Heinleoin’s Starship Troopers? The book is, vastly unlike the unfortunate dribble in the movie of the smae title, an excellent treatis of citizenship and duty, There is a great passage on “rights.”

As to “natural law” if there is such a thing, it is at the root of the Great Commandments, the forms of the Golden Rule, and the Law of Reciprocity. All of these are based on what the original revelators of them knew as a pre-existing Truth: you treat the “other”’ as yourself because in Essence he/he/it is/IS the Self. All morality, fairness, justice, and relational law can be derived from that one fundamental perception.

I doubt very much whether a materialist would recognise Truth, Essence or the Self…

 

[theblindlead]

Naturally as a Catholic I see my creation by God as a human being as the basis for my human dignity, my rights, and so for justice which is objective and which transcends man made law.

but to play advocatus diaboli I ask:

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Or Would we say they are universal merely by convention and only by virtue of human law?

Or is there some fundamental attribute of humanity on which we can base human rights without reference to a legislator or to God?

I know where I stand but I am interested to hear the views of others

ok i realize i’m pretty late in posting this and people have moved on but most philosophers are not relativists they believe in an objective morality while they may not all conform to the catholic view the vast majority of philosophers states that truth is objective and is obtainable. Many of these philosophers do not believe in the a “god” so…if i am correct you are asking how can these people have objective truth with out God. or it seems to me that this is the question which yours boils down to.

from my studies of philosophy i would say that most philosophers that do not believe in a god but believe that truths are objective such as human dignity normally have a process of believe that looks like this.

things are ontologically good in that they all exist and most argue that existence is better than nonexistence.

they then would move on to something like things that are living than better that things that aren’t living. (a tree is more valuable than a rock)

they would then say that things that have self awareness are better than things that don’t (dog is more valuable than a tree)

they would then say something along the lines of the ability for slightly elevated thoughts higher thoughts are more valuable than not (chimp over a squirrel)

they would then says something like the ability to self actualize is what makes humans have intrinsic value, or the ability to be able to write a sonnet, or the ability to control our primal urges, or the ability of our mind to legislate morality to ourselves, or the ability to have emotions such as love. So, for all the reason listed that is why humans have “inherent universal human dignity”

hope this helps you see why a person who does not believe in god can still believe that “inherent universal human dignity”

again sorry that this is so late i don’t have much time to be on the internet when i’m not in school cause i’m working 60 hours a week

 

[Theophorus]

ok i realize i’m pretty late in posting this and people have moved on but most philosophers are not relativists they believe in an objective morality while they may not all conform to the catholic view the vast majority of philosophers states that truth is objective and is obtainable. Many of these philosophers do not believe in the a “god” so…if i am correct you are asking how can these people have objective truth with out God. or it seems to me that this is the question which yours boils down to.

from my studies of philosophy i would say that most philosophers that do not believe in a god but believe that truths are objective such as human dignity normally have a process of believe that looks like this.

things are ontologically good in that they all exist and most argue that existence is better than nonexistence.

they then would move on to something like things that are living than better that things that aren’t living. (a tree is more valuable than a rock)

they would then say that things that have self awareness are better than things that don’t (dog is more valuable than a tree)

they would then say something along the lines of the ability for slightly elevated thoughts higher thoughts are more valuable than not (chimp over a squirrel)

they would then says something like the ability to self actualize is what makes humans have intrinsic value, or the ability to be able to write a sonnet, or the ability to control our primal urges, or the ability of our mind to legislate morality to ourselves, or the ability to have emotions such as love. So, for all the reason listed that is why humans have “inherent universal human dignity”

hope this helps you see why a person who does not believe in god can still believe that “inherent universal human dignity”

again sorry that this is so late i don’t have much time to be on the internet when i’m not in school cause i’m working 60 hours a week

Thanks for your imput, I must say that most philosophers I know are Theists, but then most philosophers I know are Aristotelian Thomists

So on this view it is because we exist as a “thinking thing” of some description, which is conscious in some way, that we have Inherent Human Dignity?

thank you this is interesting. I know we can’t generalise Modern Philosophy into one big monolithic thing so the Devils Advocate in me wants to ask what about such a view in conparrison with a Marxist/Feuerbachian/Skinnerian view which sees us not as thinking things Per Se but complex things which are results of actions and conditioning. Would such a view as you present still hold.