Philosophy Now Forum

Where is a good place to start on the Philosophy / Theoretical ideas of Universal Human Rights? (as Myth or not)

I've read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Human Rights
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/
but thats about it.

Can anyone recommend texts or essays on the The more Philosophical side of the notion of Universal Human Rights?
Their ontological status, etc. Anything exploring the idea of Human Rights as a kind of Modern Mythos with a instructive/normative "purpose".

There was an essay by David Kennedy (?) that was very critical of Human Rights discourse that I vaguely remember reading.

I guess I find a lot of the general public discussion of Human Rights seems to treat them as almost like godlike decrees that have are "real" in some sense beyond other laws upheld by authority.

Stanford Encycl:

2.1 How Can Human Rights Exist?
The most obvious way in which human rights exist is as norms of national and international law created by enactment and judicial decisions.

Anyone heard of David N. Stamos?
"The Myth of Universal Human Rights: Its Origin, History, and Explanation, Along with a More Humane Way"

Paradigm Publishers? - looks like a dodgy vanity press or something?
https://paradigm.presswarehouse.com/boo ... tID=321383

Talk by David N Stamos about Human Rights as a Myth and the Levellers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6YRlLa976A

Human rights as a Meme - Memetic. Origins of of Human Rights discourse from Plato etc.

Most laws come originally from tradition, and this way, have a bound with religion.

The problem is to impose an international law, you should have an international government, which don't exist.

-I don't faith in ontological idea - which consist in saying that something "is true because it is true". The idea to pose the possibility of God because the notion we have of him could not exist without some similar existence somewhere, in one thing;
to pose a human dignity is another thing if we were only mechanical determinism.

-Unfortunately, as these laws are in free consultation, many people - among them "philosophers" - misunderstand them.

By example:

Article 13 - alinea 1 wrote:Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Article 13 - alinea 2 wrote:Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

a woman atheist moderator of a french philosophical forum told me:
"the first is for the right to move in a land",
"the second is for the right to move internationally".

Meaning about the Roms that they would have the right to install themselves everywhere...

Nevetheless, the 13.2 separated, has no much meaning. (We should refer to the previous articles for the distinction between "his own" and "his".)
It only tell us that people have only the right to leave a land - not to establish in.

After that, you have some bias, as some derivations imposed from Europe to Switzerland - because due to a minority village - Schengen - the principle of free circulation is imposed to all the whole lands, including our little one (Switzerland).

This kind of aberrations happen with politicians who are not even jurists.

Geneve Convention.

Geneva convention is about how to behave in case of conflict: the States shall protect people.

I have a plot theory against muslims - they could make the war to enter in our countries. This worths what it worths.

Seriously I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

NielsBohr wrote:Geneva convention is about how to behave in case of conflict: the States shall protect people.

I have a plot theory against muslims - they could make the war to enter in our countries. This worths what it worths.

Completely incoherent babble as usual.

I return you the comment:
You did not even insert a subject and a verb in your sentence.

I should use the term is worth, because there doesn't exist the verb "to worth" in english.

NielsBohr wrote:I return you the comment:
You did not even insert a subject and a verb in your sentence.

I should use the term is worth, because there doesn't exist the verb "to worth" in english.

Ever heard about laconic speak?

..no ofcause not, but what I say is sufficient.

This forum is really quite rubbish, isn't it?

I thought it might be interesting but it seems not. So many of the posts are incoherent nonsense.

lukasecho wrote:This forum is really quite rubbish, isn't it?

I thought it might be interesting but it seems not. So many of the posts are incoherent nonsense.

Unfortunaly a lot of babbleheads are here, but on the flip side it's really hard to get banned.

All Rights entail Duties. If you don't honor the Duties entailed to the Rights, then those Rights do not exist except perhaps as merely an ideal.

lukasecho wrote:This forum is really quite rubbish, isn't it?

I thought it might be interesting but it seems not. So many of the posts are incoherent nonsense.

Maybe u'r not too bright either. All nations go to war, why there's needed a Geneve Convention, tho not all nations has signed it, it's still has merit.

lukasecho wrote:This forum is really quite rubbish, isn't it?

I thought it might be interesting but it seems not. So many of the posts are incoherent nonsense.

To be fair both of the posters are not native English speakers.