Basic Human Rights

[henry quirk]

But slavery isn’t wrong—to slavers.

So it’s wrong according to point of view. It’s wrong to those who don’t agree with the slavers. It’s wrong in the eyes of non-slavers because it’s evil from their point of view. It’s wrong from my perspective because it just is.

Why is slavery wrong to you?

It just is is meaningless.

I think I'll trundle over to Common's and leash him up like a dog.

Why would you do that?

Why not? Sure as shit he ain't offered any reason why I shouldn't.

I'm comin', guy...convince why I shouldn't take you and use you as I like.

My artillery will convince you why you shouldn’t.

You don't have artillery...neither do I...it's just you and me...I want that leash around your neck...you object, of course...why?

[commonsense]

Perhaps you should not have been so silly

Sculptor, let’s you and I pretend that RC was not being silly, and you can tell me what support and sanctions the UDHR needs or should have. I’m interested in carrying this thread further, on an intellectual basis.

It's a long list of rights, and so no easy to go through the whole thing and comment on various aspects.
In general those countries that are signatories to the declaration should be responsible for carrying out those rights in their own country.
Signatory countries should treat the signing as a treaty, and not simply a set of guidelines.
The trouble is, at the moment, sanctions seem to be imposed at the whims of the leadership of each country. What would be needed is that the UN had some real power to threaten economic or social sanctions.
Without this power the idea of "rights" is just an idea, not legally binding.
There could, however be specifc provision for individuals who have suffered abuses of their rights to appeal to a UN court. Sadly people who have suffered such abuses tend to have little in the way of resources to acquire legal representation.
RIght now the signatory countries of Europe commonly flaut the human rights os migrants and refugees. Who is there to support them?

And it si left to charity organisations like Amnesty International to act on their behalf.

Thanks for clarifying on the UN and signatories needing some power to support the listed rights.

[commonsense]

Why is slavery wrong to you?

It just is is meaningless.

I think I'll trundle over to Common's and leash him up like a dog.

Why would you do that?

Why not? Sure as shit he ain't offered any reason why I shouldn't.

I'm comin', guy...convince why I shouldn't take you and use you as I like.

My artillery will convince you why you shouldn’t.

You don't have artillery...neither do I...it's just you and me...I want that leash around your neck...you object, of course...why?

That’s actually a difficult question. I know I’d object because I wouldn’t like to have a leash around my neck, because it would probably cause me physical discomfort and because such a restriction would interfere with my achieving what goals I may have.

Moreover what would be the reason that I would object to a leash being put around someone else’s neck?

I think my objection there would stem from a belief that the someone else is much like me, and so for the same reasons that I don’t want a leash someone else shouldn’t have one either.

I really find my answer troubling me, but I have tried to give you what’s on my mind .

[commonsense]

Problem: that would mean that for a Southern Democrat, slavery was not wrong. His point of view was that it was right. So would you be content to live in the North, and say, "Well, those Southern folk have their own way of doing things: live and let live"? Or would you fight for the rights of slaves?

But if you would fight for the rights of slaves, how would you justify it? Why is it okay for you to force your point of view on the Southern Democrats? Don't you think you owe it to respect their point of view, just as you would want them to respect yours?

Or would you agree that a higher principle is involved? But if it is, then it's not about point of view anymore. It's about truth.

In truth we should fight for human rights in North Korea and China as well as other countries, because (from our point of view, not theirs) we know what is wrong and they don’t.

Why do we know and they don't? What's the basis for that assessment?

No basis. It would just be our assumption that we know the higher principle that contradicts the thinking of NK, etc.

[henry quirk]

In truth we should fight for human rights in North Korea and China as well as other countries, because (from our point of view, not theirs) we know what is wrong and they don’t.

Why do we know and they don't? What's the basis for that assessment?

No basis. It would just be our assumption that we know the higher principle that contradicts the thinking of NK, etc.

Higher principle: that, right there, is the root of it all.

I'll explain in my next post.

[henry quirk]

My artillery will convince you why you shouldn’t.

You don't have artillery...neither do I...it's just you and me...I want that leash around your neck...you object, of course...why?

That’s actually a difficult question. I know I’d object because I wouldn’t like to have a leash around my neck, because it would probably cause me physical discomfort and because such a restriction would interfere with my achieving what goals I may have.

Moreover what would be the reason that I would object to a leash being put around someone else’s neck?

I think my objection there would stem from a belief that the someone else is much like me, and so for the same reasons that I don’t want a leash someone else shouldn’t have one either.

I really find my answer troubling me, but I have tried to give you what’s on my mind .

Higher Principle

I suggest the unease you feel is becuz you're unwillin' to acknowledge what you intuitively know: that you belong to yourself, that you are your own...I suggest your unease comes from the disconnect between what you know is true and what you've rationalized and logic'd yourself into.

Even the slaver, as he treats men, women, and children as property, knows he is his own (and I reckon, he knows the people he leashes are their own too, as individuals...imagine, the labyrinth of self-deception the slaver must subject himself to, to ignore or be blind to what is right in front of his face).

That higher principle is real. It's reflected in us as persons. It's that intuition that objects to the leash, that understands what an evil the leash is. It's as real as your life, your liberty, your property.

[Immanuel Can]

I do know what rights are, but perhaps you would like to tell us what you think they are?

Already did. Keep reading.

[Immanuel Can]

I think that RC would say—and we’ll have to wait to find out if my guess is right—is something to the effect that he thinks Locke was wrong and that the American Constitution et al are based on something Locke identifies as “rights” but are really based on the power of enforcement.

It's not that. "Enforcement" implies the imposing of something not intrinsic, not natural, something outside of the situation.

You have to start where Locke started. Mankind are created beings...that is, they are specifically designed for particular functions and achievements. Their nature is not accidental at all, and certainly not a matter of their own determining. Other human beings can only use power to enforce what they want; God builds it into the system, so that the blessedness of the creature is achieved in its attaining to its intrinsic purpose. In other words, when we listen to what God says about how we are designed, we find out to be the happiest, best, healthiest, completest, most fulfilled we can possibly be.

One does not have to "force" somebody to be that. If they understand their own interests, they WANT to be that. And in the interest of helping us to become that God has given us certain gifts and powers of our own (the American constitution calls them "endowments"): life, liberty and property...which we can use to actualize our true purpose or telos, and thus achieve the most meaningful life. To exercise those gifts, those powers, is granted us by right. That is to say, nobody can transgress against our life, liberty and property without himself transgressing against God.

[Immanuel Can]

"Socialism, like...

THe basis of the UN UDHR

Is not premised on Socialism. Under Socialism, one has no rights.

The UN UDNR is derived from Locke. Unfortunately, because it does not share Locke's worldview, it also has no legitimative rationale to back its rights-claims at all. Like everything else about the UN, it's symbolic, empty and powerless...and corrupt, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

In truth we should fight for human rights in North Korea and China as well as other countries, because (from our point of view, not theirs) we know what is wrong and they don’t.

That's quite correct. Well said.

I actually think, though, that they know they are doing evil. I mean, if you lock people up in gulags and "education camps," and starve, freeze and beat them to death, then I think you know full well you're being a bad person. But I also think they don't care about that.

[commonsense]

In truth we should fight for human rights in North Korea and China as well as other countries, because (from our point of view, not theirs) we know what is wrong and they don’t.

That's quite correct. Well said.

I actually think, though, that they know they are doing evil. I mean, if you lock people up in gulags and "education camps," and starve, freeze and beat them to death, then I think you know full well you're being a bad person. But I also think they don't care about that.

So true indeed.

[commonsense]

You don't have artillery...neither do I...it's just you and me...I want that leash around your neck...you object, of course...why?

That’s actually a difficult question. I know I’d object because I wouldn’t like to have a leash around my neck, because it would probably cause me physical discomfort and because such a restriction would interfere with my achieving what goals I may have.

Moreover what would be the reason that I would object to a leash being put around someone else’s neck?

I think my objection there would stem from a belief that the someone else is much like me, and so for the same reasons that I don’t want a leash someone else shouldn’t have one either.

I really find my answer troubling me, but I have tried to give you what’s on my mind .

Higher Principle

I suggest the unease you feel is becuz you're unwillin' to acknowledge what you intuitively know: that you belong to yourself, that you are your own...I suggest your unease comes from the disconnect between what you know is true and what you've rationalized and logic'd yourself into.

Even the slaver, as he treats men, women, and children as property, knows he is his own (and I reckon, he knows the people he leashes are their own too, as individuals...imagine, the labyrinth of self-deception the slaver must subject himself to, to ignore or be blind to what is right in front of his face).

That higher principle is real. It's reflected in us as persons. It's that intuition that objects to the leash, that understands what an evil the leash is. It's as real as your life, your liberty, your property.

I think you nailed it.

[henry quirk]

That’s actually a difficult question. I know I’d object because I wouldn’t like to have a leash around my neck, because it would probably cause me physical discomfort and because such a restriction would interfere with my achieving what goals I may have.

Moreover what would be the reason that I would object to a leash being put around someone else’s neck?

I think my objection there would stem from a belief that the someone else is much like me, and so for the same reasons that I don’t want a leash someone else shouldn’t have one either.

I really find my answer troubling me, but I have tried to give you what’s on my mind .

Higher Principle

I suggest the unease you feel is becuz you're unwillin' to acknowledge what you intuitively know: that you belong to yourself, that you are your own...I suggest your unease comes from the disconnect between what you know is true and what you've rationalized and logic'd yourself into.

Even the slaver, as he treats men, women, and children as property, knows he is his own (and I reckon, he knows the people he leashes are their own too, as individuals...imagine, the labyrinth of self-deception the slaver must subject himself to, to ignore or be blind to what is right in front of his face).

That higher principle is real. It's reflected in us as persons. It's that intuition that objects to the leash, that understands what an evil the leash is. It's as real as your life, your liberty, your property.

I think you nailed it.

But, unfortunately, that's not the end of it: this intuition of ownness, the knowledge, where does it come from? What undergirds this intuition, is the source if it?

I believe you know...I believe everyone knows.

[Lacewing]

But, unfortunately, that's not the end of it: this intuition of ownness, the knowledge, where does it come from? What undergirds this intuition, is the source if it?

So, Henry... this "intuition of ownness" might be taken a few ways. You're (typically) speaking of "ownership", correct? Which is not the same as people recognizing their individual characteristics alongside all other forms of life. Humans can claim ownership over anything (themselves included), but they can be easily steered and misled and driven by all sorts of things... so they don't have absolute ownership over the use of their own brain, nor the rest of their body which eventually shuts down. They don't have ownership over their lives if greater forces (government, wars, weather, environment, health) disrupts or displaces them.

Rather, it seems to me, that we're "renting" and "pretending" all sorts of things while we have a seemingly individual experience here. These apparent "selves" didn't seem to consciously choose to "come here", and we won't likely choose to "leave", and it doesn't make sense that all of the human thought/story trappings about a "self" or anything else will matter or extend one bit after the human life ends.

Rather than the idea of ownership, I think of responsibility (which may not be completely true either). We are seemingly responsible to some degree for navigating and steering as much as we can through this shifting experience of a human life. Ownership implies control, right? Yet, anything can fall away or shift at any moment. We could just as reasonably be part of a bigger wave of humanity that matters more as a whole than its parts.

I believe you know...I believe everyone knows.

Is this you wanting to think you know? If everyone knows, why do they think or make up so many different ideas/stories?

[henry quirk]

So, Henry... this "intuition of ownness" might be taken a few ways. You're (typically) speaking of "ownership", correct?

I used to till it became clear folks thought I was speakin' about legalisms. That's when I switched over to sayin' a man belongs to himself; his life, liberty, and property are his which is not quite the same as the more legalistic a man owns himself. I adopted ownness as a placeholder cuz ownness simply means The fact or quality of being one's own or peculiar to oneself, a neat summation, I think.


If everyone knows, why do they think or make up so many different ideas/stories?

Bein'' a free will (a causal agent) only means a person gets to choose (to bend, end, and begin causal chains)...nuthin' about bein' a free will guarantees wise choices.

Havin' a moral compass only means you can know true north...havin' a moral compass never obligates one to give that compass any mind.

As I say up- thread: folks can have a disconnect between what they know is true and what they rationalize and logic themselves into.

Plainly, folks can hoodwink themselves in the same way they can be hoodwinked by others.