What is the basis of human rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tonyrey

Guest
Even Richard Dawkins believes the moral teaching of Jesus was ahead of its time. Human rights are based on Christ’s teaching that we all have the same Father in heaven and should treat everyone as our brothers and sisters. There is no other rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and, above all, fraternity. We would be related solely by an accident of birth and have no moral obligations whatsoever…

Do you agree or disagree? If so why?
 
tonyrey said:
Even Richard Dawkins believes the moral teaching of Jesus was ahead of its time. Human rights are based on Christ’s teaching that we all have the same Father in heaven and should treat everyone as our brothers and sisters. There is no other rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and, above all, fraternity. We would be related solely by an accident of birth and have no moral obligations whatsoever…

Do you agree or disagree? If so why?
Click to expand...
I believe that human rights could easily come about without religion. Even atheists believe in human rights, for example, because of a value of justice which causes people feel secure.
 
Truth is the basis for human rights. Since the Church is the only one who has it. The Church is the only one who can give it in it’s fullness.

No other philosophy can, will, or does, abhor contraception for example. Rather they promote and distribute it as a social good.

Some philosophies may come close to establishing equal human rights, but due to the dogma of original sin they will be lacking somewhere.
 
Why are you lauding fraternity above the others you mentioned? Is that even really a right? :confused:
 
To play the devil’s advocate here (funny how some idioms turn out…), people like Sam Harris would claim that “Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors—ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics.”

Sam Harris is one of many who espouses a scientific approach to normative morality.
Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, “science can determine human values” translates to “science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing”. It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of “morality”.[1]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape
 
In my study, the best basis I can find is consistency - that there are no good reasons to treat people differetly. It’s indefensible to claim one person doesn’t deserve the same considerations as another. (All things being equal)
 
Micosil said:
Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, “science can determine human values” translates to “science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing”. It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of “morality”.[1]
Click to expand...
The problems here are 1) the claim that “human flourishing” is “good” under a materialist atheistic worldview is subjective. 2) Moral acts sometimes oppose human flourishing or overall happiness. If I have 5 candy bars, and you have none, it is moral and good for me to give one to you. It is immoral for you to take one from me. But the end result is the same.
 
tonyrey said:
Even Richard Dawkins believes the moral teaching of Jesus was ahead of its time. Human rights are based on Christ’s teaching that we all have the same Father in heaven and should treat everyone as our brothers and sisters. There is no other rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and, above all, fraternity. We would be related solely by an accident of birth and have no moral obligations whatsoever…

Do you agree or disagree? If so why?
Click to expand...
Considering the vast majority of humanity, extant and now dead, enjoyed at best only a small subset of the human rights that largely came into being during the Enlightenment, I’d say human rights are like any other social construct, a part of an agreed upon social contract between the members of a society and those that would govern them. I see no indication, sadly, that belief in human rights is inherent, or that even where there is some codification of those rights, that everyone agrees on their relative importance to each other.
 
I’d say human rights are like any other social construct, a part of an agreed upon social contract between the members of a society and those that would govern them.
Click to expand...
Ergo, a government can’t violate anyone’s rights if they don’t recognize those rights as existing. China is doing nothing wrong. Nor the Nazis, for that matter.
 
TomFromMD said:
Ergo, a government can’t violate anyone’s rights if they don’t recognize those rights as existing. China is doing nothing wrong. Nor the Nazis, for that matter.
Click to expand...
They’re certainly doing something wrong from our perspective, and indeed, the Nazis were even doing evil things from their own perspective, which is why they put so much effort in the dying days of the war into concealing what they had been up to.

But even look at the Church, burning poor old Giordano Bruno alive for the crime of practicing his apparently universal liberties… Except of course that concept didn’t actual exist in Bruno’s time.

Of course, I get the uncomfortable feeling that a few people out there wish heretics and blasphemers could still be “dealt with”, so I’m not sure the entirety of Christendom is convinced punishing for denying the Trinity is actually wrong, even if they think lighting a fire under them isn’t the best way to prosecute such a vile crime.
 
aclausen said:
They’re certainly doing something wrong from our perspective, and indeed, the Nazis were even doing evil things from their own perspective, which is why they put so much effort in the dying days of the war into concealing what they had been up to.

But even look at the Church, burning poor old Giordano Bruno alive for the crime of practicing his apparently universal liberties… Except of course that concept didn’t actual exist in Bruno’s time.

Of course, I get the uncomfortable feeling that a few people out there wish heretics and blasphemers could still be “dealt with”, so I’m not sure the entirety of Christendom is convinced punishing for denying the Trinity is actually wrong, even if they think lighting a fire under them isn’t the best way to prosecute such a vile crime.
Click to expand...
As well you should be…“no one escapes the Spanish Inquisition!” 😃
 
tonyrey said:
An emotion is not necessarily rational nor does it confer a moral obligation.
Click to expand...
Again, you seem to be putting forth this notion that H. sapiens is fundamentally a solitary psychopathic animal that is taught cooperation, and that simply is not so. We are hardwired, like most of our closest relatives, to congregate into social structures.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I believe that human rights could easily come about without religion. Even atheists believe in human rights, for example, because of a value of justice which causes people feel secure.
Click to expand...
That is expediency not morality, Robert. 🙂 It may make them feel secure but there is no reason to believe a feeling is infallible nor that it will convince criminals they are misguided!
 
TomFromMD said:
Ergo, a government can’t violate anyone’s rights if they don’t recognize those rights as existing. China is doing nothing wrong. Nor the Nazis, for that matter.
Click to expand...
Precisely! To use Kant’s terminology, there would be no categorical imperatives. Rights would be merely human conventions that can be ignored when convenient…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top