Why Human Rights are an Illusion and Not Necessary

[popeye1945]

Human rights equal self-interest.

Then, by logical default, you have competing versions of human rights, thus some rights negate others.

Just as there is moral relativism, human rights are in that category. The variations are due to geography and degrees of isolation over time. Today, it truly is a global village with instant communications. Morality today in a global society, and it would be saner with a moral system whose foundation was our common biology. Biology being the measure and the meaning of all things.

[Eodnhoj7]

Human rights equal self-interest.

Then, by logical default, you have competing versions of human rights, thus some rights negate others.

Just as there is moral relativism, human rights are in that category. The variations are due to geography and degrees of isolation over time. Today, it truly is a global village with instant communications. Morality today in a global society, and it would be saner with a moral system whose foundation was our common biology. Biology being the measure and the meaning of all things.

By that logic cannibalism is justified as consuming what is the same would make said species stronger by weeding out the weak and absorbing there essence.

Cannibalism is common enough in the animal kingdom, I have seen it working on a farm, it is quite common enough in 3rd world tribal societies and among the 1st world elite.


And yet cannibalism assumes a right of superiority thus causes conflict. So cannibalism is a right under a biological context, but the right causes conflict.

Biology cannot be used as a measure of rights without contradiction.

From another degree if rights are relativistic than they do not exist universally.

[Impenitent]

no such thing as rights without the power to enforce them...

-Imp

True, so do those that enforce them naturally create them and determine what people's rights are?

not really, they determine what their rights are by exercising them...

the mute individual has the right to speak freely but lacks the ability...

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

no such thing as rights without the power to enforce them...

-Imp

True, so do those that enforce them naturally create them and determine what people's rights are?

not really, they determine what their rights are by exercising them...

the mute individual has the right to speak freely but lacks the ability...

-Imp

So expression determines rights? If that is the case than rights conflict with rights.

[Impenitent]

True, so do those that enforce them naturally create them and determine what people's rights are?

not really, they determine what their rights are by exercising them...

the mute individual has the right to speak freely but lacks the ability...

-Imp

So expression determines rights? If that is the case than rights conflict with rights.

they often do...

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

I knew ahead of time I would be labeled the villain for the red pill I would administer....

You claim the thinking is sick and yet coercion is how human rights occur, different interpretations of human rights are why conflict escalates, people are subdued because of an idolized ideal whose evidence and justification are mere assertion.

Human rights is a term that is used to manipulate populaces where identities are usurped in face of a tyranical consensus that instills an identity of a nature of being purely manufactured.

You claim human rights are consensus oriented, and if that is the case than many are forced an interpretation of rights that go against there viewpoints thus nullifying the rights that are put upon them for the foundational freedom of man is in his or her experiential reality, a reality that is interwoven with the processes of thought.

Human rights are thought control. They have no benevolent purpose, for those who deem rights are those that deem the course of life for those who submit to a propagandized version of dignity at the expense of freedom.

I think you fail to see that "human rights" is one of the central reason humanity is engaged in conflict. Human rights are elevated by two types: tyrants and the general populace.

Rights are an interpretation of how the human condition should be....and I think you fail to see in an era of rights how the human condition is in light of them.

Rights are tools to limit and manipulate people.

What....you honestly believed truth is pleasant?

AI Wrote:

You’re mistaking “human rights” as an illusion when in fact they are constructs. Illusions are things that appear but aren’t real—rights are very real in their social, legal, and moral effects, much like money, language, or laws. They’re not ontological absolutes, but they are intersubjective standards that bind societies together.

You say rights are coercion and thought control. But without rights, coercion doesn’t disappear—it just becomes raw brute force where the strong dominate the weak. Rights at least provide a normative framework that can be appealed to, reformed, and applied to all, rather than leaving people at the mercy of unchecked power.

You also claim rights cause conflict. True, interpretations differ, but that’s because humans disagree on many things. The fact that we argue about rights doesn’t prove they’re worthless—it proves they’re important enough to fight over. Without them, conflict wouldn’t vanish; it would simply default to violence and oppression.

Ask yourself: if rights are illusions and should be rejected, what’s the alternative? Pure subjectivity where the strongest win? Tribal or religious authority that suppresses minorities? Total individual freedom collapsing into chaos? Human rights, despite flaws, remain our best attempt to prevent tyranny and violence.

Even if we call them manufactured, they are necessary. The right to life, freedom from slavery, freedom of conscience—these aren’t luxuries. They are minimum standards that make human survival and coexistence possible. So, they are not illusions but regulative ideals [Kantian]: guiding principles humanity must strive toward, imperfectly but essentially.

I find it funny that you have to resort to AI because you cannot directly counter what I say. Using that as an example give me an explanation as to why you have the fortitude or need for rights when you are already submitting to an intellect higher than you?

Your rights are just assertions built from concepts stacked upon eachother in front of an ocean.



Anyhow, I like this. You can use the AI, because you are an intellectually inept victim, and I will just solo it without AI.

Game?
Game.


So to address the AI.

Constructs are not absolute precisely because they are relative.

The definition of "real" the AI uses is contextual to social dynamics. If that is the case than insane asylum built around hallucinating people necessitate the hallucination as real.

"Real" is a conceptual distinction, a construct, thus falls within the realm of relativity.

If Human Rights are constructs, as the AI claims, then they are Relative and not Absolute hence the AI contradicts itself.

If they are imperfect then there are victims.

You are the sort who would prefer to use bullock or horse carts for transport despite the latest modern versions of transportation.

It is not whether it is AI or humans, what counts is whether the argument is valid and sound and can be verified with generally acceptable rational criteria.

You are still chasing 'absolutes' in this case 'rights' that are absolute, i.e. not relative but absolutely unconditional absolutes which are the same as having delusional beliefs.

The definition of "real" the AI uses is contextual to social dynamics. If that is the case than insane asylum built around hallucinating people necessitate the hallucination as real.

You are lost.

The grounds of what is 'real' is grounded on a framework and system [FS] that is objective of which the scientific FS is is the gold standard.

Hallucinated ideas from a hallucinated FS are not objective in contrast to the scientific FS.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I find it funny that you have to resort to AI because you cannot directly counter what I say. Using that as an example give me an explanation as to why you have the fortitude or need for rights when you are already submitting to an intellect higher than you?

Your rights are just assertions built from concepts stacked upon eachother in front of an ocean.

Anyhow, I like this. You can use the AI, because you are an intellectually inept victim, and I will just solo it without AI.

Game?
Game.


So to address the AI.

Constructs are not absolute precisely because they are relative.

The definition of "real" the AI uses is contextual to social dynamics. If that is the case than insane asylum built around hallucinating people necessitate the hallucination as real.

"Real" is a conceptual distinction, a construct, thus falls within the realm of relativity.

If Human Rights are constructs, as the AI claims, then they are Relative and not Absolute hence the AI contradicts itself.

If they are imperfect then there are victims.

In addition to my personal response, here's AI's respond to your delusions:

AI Wrote []
You’re making the same error that Kant already critiqued: assuming that for something to be “real” or “valid” it must exist as an absolute, mind-independent essence (human-right-in-itself). That’s dogmatic metaphysics. There is no “thing-in-itself” right floating out there in the universe.

Instead, what matters is whether a construct functions as an objective standard within a human framework. Scientific laws, money, legal systems, even language—none of these are absolute, but they’re not illusions either. They are FS-objective (framework-system objective): valid, binding, and necessary within the human context.

Your asylum example misses the point. A hallucination is only “real” to the individual, not intersubjectively validated. Rights, by contrast, gain reality through collective consensus, institutionalization, and enforcement. That is why they have practical power, unlike hallucinations.

Yes, human rights are relative in the sense that they depend on human frameworks. But relativity does not equal meaninglessness. Gravity itself is understood through human frameworks (Einstein’s relativity replaced Newton’s), yet that doesn’t make gravity an illusion.

Finally, about imperfection and victims: imperfection doesn’t negate necessity. The fact that justice systems sometimes fail doesn’t prove we should abolish justice—it proves we must keep improving it. Rights are regulative ideals: not absolute in the metaphysical sense, but indispensable as guiding standards to reduce harm and prevent extinction.

Closing punchline: “Human rights don’t need to be absolute metaphysical entities to be real and necessary. They are regulative constructs—framework-objective, not ontologically absolute. To demand absolutes here is delusional metaphysics.”

...........
AI Wrote{2}
You’re making the same mistake Kant exposed: assuming that for rights to be “real” they must exist as absolute, mind-independent entities. That’s metaphysical dogmatism. There is no human-right-in-itself floating in the universe.

Rights are constructs, yes—but they are framework-objective. Like law, money, or scientific models, they gain validity through intersubjective consensus and institutionalization. That makes them binding in practice, unlike hallucinations which are only private.

Calling them imperfect doesn’t negate their necessity. Justice too is imperfect, yet indispensable. Human rights are regulative ideals: not absolute metaphysical truths, but essential standards for reducing harm and enabling human survival. Demanding absolutes here is chasing an illusion.

.......
I suggest you use 'your' AI to counter the above.

[popeye1945]

Then, by logical default, you have competing versions of human rights, thus some rights negate others.

Just as there is moral relativism, human rights are in that category. The variations are due to geography and degrees of isolation over time. Today, it truly is a global village with instant communications. Morality today in a global society, and it would be saner with a moral system whose foundation was our common biology. Biology being the measure and the meaning of all things.

By that logic cannibalism is justified as consuming what is the same would make said species stronger by weeding out the weak and absorbing there essence. Cannibalism is common enough in the animal kingdom, I have seen it working on a farm, it is quite common enough in 3rd world tribal societies and among the 1st world elite. And yet cannibalism assumes a right of superiority thus causes conflict. So cannibalism is a right under a biological context, but the right causes conflict. Biology cannot be used as a measure of rights without contradiction.
From another degree if rights are relativistic than they do not exist universally.

That is a truly wild slant on my post. How on earth did you get from basing a moral system on a common foundation, such as our common biology, to such a bizarre interpretation? Your imagination has gone rogue on you. Morality should be based on our common biology, not only because it is the natural foundation for a species that experiences the world through the same biology. The science of biology and psychology could best contribute to a universal understanding of what supports and what undermines the survival and well-being of our common species.

[Atla]

I suggest you use 'your' AI to counter the above.

Guess we went from my FSK-proper could beat up your FSK-improper to my AI-proper could beat up your AI-improper. Where is the Golden Age promised by VA though, the world seems to be heading rather in the opposite direction?

[MikeNovack]

[........ Morality should be based on our common biology, not only because it is the natural foundation for a species that experiences the world through the same biology. The science of biology and psychology could best contribute to a universal understanding of what supports and what undermines the survival and well-being of our common species.

You are stuck on "hardware" vs "software. A human society "runs" on some group of humans but IT is not biological. There might be at best strong bias toward certain things being included in a society for biological reasons (built in "learning recognizers" making THOSE rules easy to spot)

Look, if I took a bunch of school kids, sat them in small groups on the gym floor, groups within touching distance, and gave each of these groups a rule. For example "you two -- if each of you feels a hand touch your shoulder the one on the right touches the shoulder of the person in the group ahead of you" or "if either one of you feels a hand on your shoulder ....."
<< the first group is an "and" gate and the second an "or" gate >>
The point is, I could use these groups of kids sitting on the gym floor to construct a logic circuit. Does that make my circuit BIOLOGICAL? Are the results going to be any different from the same circuit composed of electrical components?

[popeye1945]

[........ Morality should be based on our common biology, not only because it is the natural foundation for a species that experiences the world through the same biology. The science of biology and psychology could best contribute to a universal understanding of what supports and what undermines the survival and well-being of our common species.

You are stuck on "hardware" vs "software. A human society "runs" on some group of humans but IT is not biological. There might be at best strong bias toward certain things being included in a society for biological reasons (built in "learning recognizers" making THOSE rules easy to spot)

Look, if I took a bunch of school kids, sat them in small groups on the gym floor, groups within touching distance, and gave each of these groups a rule. For example "you two -- if each of you feels a hand touch your shoulder the one on the right touches the shoulder of the person in the group ahead of you" or "if either one of you feels a hand on your shoulder ....."
<< the first group is an "and" gate and the second an "or" gate >>
The point is, I could use these groups of kids sitting on the gym floor to construct a logic circuit. Does that make my circuit BIOLOGICAL? Are the results going to be any different from the same circuit composed of electrical components?

I am not sure I fully grasp the logic, but isn't it reasonable to believe that hardware, in this case biology, should create a moral system out of its own self-interest? With moral relativism, you have many individual subjective states/countries creating differing systems, where a collective subject agreement would make more sense globally.

[Belinda]

[........ Morality should be based on our common biology, not only because it is the natural foundation for a species that experiences the world through the same biology. The science of biology and psychology could best contribute to a universal understanding of what supports and what undermines the survival and well-being of our common species.

You are stuck on "hardware" vs "software. A human society "runs" on some group of humans but IT is not biological. There might be at best strong bias toward certain things being included in a society for biological reasons (built in "learning recognizers" making THOSE rules easy to spot)

Look, if I took a bunch of school kids, sat them in small groups on the gym floor, groups within touching distance, and gave each of these groups a rule. For example "you two -- if each of you feels a hand touch your shoulder the one on the right touches the shoulder of the person in the group ahead of you" or "if either one of you feels a hand on your shoulder ....."
<< the first group is an "and" gate and the second an "or" gate >>
The point is, I could use these groups of kids sitting on the gym floor to construct a logic circuit. Does that make my circuit BIOLOGICAL? Are the results going to be any different from the same circuit composed of electrical components?

Yes, and I think the way I'd explain it is
*
Nurture i.e. culture affects brainmind.

*
Genetic inheritance affects brainmind.

*
There is controversy ('Nature or Nurture') which has not been settled. So far nobody has finally defined human nature.

We define a specially-bred pedigree animal's genetic nature and also the extent to which the animal may be trained. We define a wild animal's genetic nature and also the extent to which the wild animal may be trained. Humans are neither specially-bred or wild.
Humans definitely evolve along the cultural pathway as political evidence shows. However nobody can evaluate to what extent the Darwinian pathway and the cultural pathway affect each other.

[popeye1945]

[........ Morality should be based on our common biology, not only because it is the natural foundation for a species that experiences the world through the same biology. The science of biology and psychology could best contribute to a universal understanding of what supports and what undermines the survival and well-being of our common species.

You are stuck on "hardware" vs "software. A human society "runs" on some group of humans but IT is not biological. There might be at best strong bias toward certain things being included in a society for biological reasons (built in "learning recognizers" making THOSE rules easy to spot)

Look, if I took a bunch of school kids, sat them in small groups on the gym floor, groups within touching distance, and gave each of these groups a rule. For example "you two -- if each of you feels a hand touch your shoulder the one on the right touches the shoulder of the person in the group ahead of you" or "if either one of you feels a hand on your shoulder ....."
<< the first group is an "and" gate and the second an "or" gate >>
The point is, I could use these groups of kids sitting on the gym floor to construct a logic circuit. Does that make my circuit BIOLOGICAL? Are the results going to be any different from the same circuit composed of electrical components?

Yes, and I think the way I'd explain it is
*
Nurture i.e. culture affects brainmind.

*
Genetic inheritance affects brainmind.

*
There is controversy ('Nature or Nurture') which has not been settled. So far nobody has finally defined human nature.

We define a specially-bred pedigree animal's genetic nature and also the extent to which the animal may be trained. We define a wild animal's genetic nature and also the extent to which the wild animal may be trained. Humans are neither specially-bred or wild.
Humans definitely evolve along the cultural pathway as political evidence shows. However nobody can evaluate to what extent the Darwinian pathway and the cultural pathway affect each other.

Societal culture is the sanctuary that nurtures our species, and its members determine the whole, the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Its structures and systems are biological extensions of the species, and this whole reflects the nature of the species in context. We must construct our mirror to our best advantage. Think of culture as a developing art form through which its causes determine the reactions of its members, who in turn, through their reactions, will be further cause/s in the continuing development of society as an art form. Biology as the measure and the meaning of all things, the only source of meaning in the world, is the creator. The world is quickly becoming one community, and our commonalities as a species are the materials from each to create a new social reality. Commonality is the pathway to unity and harmony; we must seek out cognitive dissonance and realign it with a society nested in the natural world, and as little in violation of the ground of its being as possible.

[Belinda]

You are stuck on "hardware" vs "software. A human society "runs" on some group of humans but IT is not biological. There might be at best strong bias toward certain things being included in a society for biological reasons (built in "learning recognizers" making THOSE rules easy to spot)

Look, if I took a bunch of school kids, sat them in small groups on the gym floor, groups within touching distance, and gave each of these groups a rule. For example "you two -- if each of you feels a hand touch your shoulder the one on the right touches the shoulder of the person in the group ahead of you" or "if either one of you feels a hand on your shoulder ....."
<< the first group is an "and" gate and the second an "or" gate >>
The point is, I could use these groups of kids sitting on the gym floor to construct a logic circuit. Does that make my circuit BIOLOGICAL? Are the results going to be any different from the same circuit composed of electrical components?

Yes, and I think the way I'd explain it is
*
Nurture i.e. culture affects brainmind.

*
Genetic inheritance affects brainmind.

*
There is controversy ('Nature or Nurture') which has not been settled. So far nobody has finally defined human nature.

We define a specially-bred pedigree animal's genetic nature and also the extent to which the animal may be trained. We define a wild animal's genetic nature and also the extent to which the wild animal may be trained. Humans are neither specially-bred or wild.
Humans definitely evolve along the cultural pathway as political evidence shows. However nobody can evaluate to what extent the Darwinian pathway and the cultural pathway affect each other.

Societal culture is the sanctuary that nurtures our species, and its members determine the whole, the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Its structures and systems are biological extensions of the species, and this whole reflects the nature of the species in context. We must construct our mirror to our best advantage. Think of culture as a developing art form through which its causes determine the reactions of its members, who in turn, through their reactions, will be further cause/s in the continuing development of society as an art form. Biology as the measure and the meaning of all things, the only source of meaning in the world, is the creator. The world is quickly becoming one community, and our commonalities as a species are the materials from each to create a new social reality. Commonality is the pathway to unity and harmony; we must seek out cognitive dissonance and realign it with a society nested in the natural world, and as little in violation of the ground of its being as possible.

All brainy animals have cultures learned from their dams or family groups.The thing is, human cultures are far and away more influential on the human animals than .say, a Border collie's culture has upon the Collie puppy. The collie canine dam teaches her pup a lot, but the amount she teaches is a lot less than what a human mother , family, and schools teach the growing child.

[MikeNovack]

All brainy animals have cultures learned from their dams or family groups.The thing is, human cultures are far and away more influential on the human animals than .say, a Border collie's culture has upon the Collie puppy. The collie canine dam teaches her pup a lot, but the amount she teaches is a lot less than what a human mother , family, and schools teach the growing child.

It's not because "brainy animals" but social brainy animals. And yes, C. lupus has "culture". << wolf packs are actually families, mom and dad, their adolescent children, and the kids >> But there are distinct wolf "cultures" << for example, some wolf packs catch FISH for their food >>

But a better comparison with us are are our close kin, the chimpanzees and bonobos. The "learn culture from mama" model better fits our quite distant kin of genus Pongo, the orangutans. << note >> it is quite recent that determined any culture existed with orangutans. THAT split, between ancestors of Pongo and ancestors of Pan/Homo maybe 16 million years ago, about the same time the ancestors of the gibbons diverged. In other words, we apes split up between solitary, pair bonding, and social quite far back/

We humans learn culture not only from the adults around us as we grow up but from our peers and children just a few years older.