Philosophy Now Forum

A foundational internal and external conflict of mankind has been the conception of human rights, for by the conceptual design of rights an instilled hierarchy occurs by degree of value of one man over another for those of one view of rights inevitably conflicts with another and human rights is the pivotal ideal by which said conflict is waged.

This is evidenced by the further degree of where the rights of man becomes exalted, through the orientation of a group to one specific mindset, a corresponding nullificafion of the intuitive freedom of thought at the expense of alternative viewpoints occurs while simultaneously those of different values are deemed as not being truly conducive to a vision that one group sees as pivotal to existence.

Human rights is a means to control those of differing viewpoints. Those who differ in value orientation are deemed as not bringing into fruition the human condition thus are barbaric.

"Rights" is purely an emotional word that in its simplicity speaks less of truth and more of an individual mirror by degree of reflecting whatever a person projects onto it.

"Rights" is one word with infinite meanings, and infinite number of means that leads to conflict over what rights truly are or if they even exist.

The formation of value is a hierarchical manipulation of mankind's perception, for by repetition of assertions within a hierarchy the psyche of man is conditioned to view reality by and through a specific viewpoint that contradicts the inherent intuition of thought and feeling by relegating man to a fixed slave of the rights which gives him self-told dignity the system coerces him or her into believing.

"Human Rights" are not an expression of truth but rather an expression of power through intellectual coercion where values are instilled by propaganda. Reason is a pivotal point of value of some these subcultures, who claim human rights, and yet upon investigation there is no coherent point of convergence over what reason specifically is or is not other than the act of interpretation which contradictorly and effectively extends even to those who have what are corresponding called "irrational" qualities by said people who claim to exhibit "reason".

Human rights is coercion by default of its needed expression of force and as such is a contruct that has no foundations other than assertion by a hierarchy.

The essence of human rights is value orientation which cannot be effectively observed outside of subjective experience in one respect, and the formation of the subjective state by degree of the hierarchy of a group through coercive repetition of ideals unto a state of unquestionable propaganda.

There is no evidence as to the universality of human rights in light of the conflict for human rights, thus human rights is less of truth and more of a point of contention by which the nature of man and women is but revealed as rationalized insanity by deification of gods under the name "ideals".

There is no solution to the problem of human rights, no coherent answer to its question, for by degree of human rights the assertion of a problem within mankind occurs. Human rights asserts a problem to create a vacuum by which it fills thus relegating human rights to an expression of power by degree of manipulation.

Your thinking is very sick.
This is a moral and epistemological and not a metaphysical/ontological issue.

As you implying from the above, ALL humans can do what they please, to the extent of killing other humans whenever the wish to do do? [the right to live is an illusion?] If that is the case, the human species will go extinct in time.

Human rights are universally recognized moral principles or norms that establish standards of human behavior and are often protected by both national and international laws. These rights are considered inherent and inalienable, meaning they belong to every individual simply by virtue of being human, regardless of characteristics like nationality, ethnicity, religion, or socio-economic status. They encompass a broad range of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to life, freedom of expression, protection against enslavement, and right to education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

The above rights are recognized via consensus through mutual understanding or by laws.

There are two categories of human rights, i.e.
1. Imperative and non-negotiable, e.g. right to live, no slavery, and the like.
2. Non-negotiable subject to contexts and conditions.

The imperative Human Rights are not Illusion and thus critical necessary to facilitate the preservation of the species [non-ontological].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 5:28 am Your thinking is very sick.
This is a moral and epistemological and not a metaphysical/ontological issue.

As you implying from the above, ALL humans can do what they please, to the extent of killing other humans whenever the wish to do do? [the right to live is an illusion?] If that is the case, the human species will go extinct in time.

Human rights are universally recognized moral principles or norms that establish standards of human behavior and are often protected by both national and international laws. These rights are considered inherent and inalienable, meaning they belong to every individual simply by virtue of being human, regardless of characteristics like nationality, ethnicity, religion, or socio-economic status. They encompass a broad range of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to life, freedom of expression, protection against enslavement, and right to education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

The above rights are recognized via consensus through mutual understanding or by laws.

There are two categories of human rights, i.e.
1. Imperative and non-negotiable, e.g. right to live, no slavery, and the like.
2. Non-negotiable subject to contexts and conditions.

The imperative Human Rights are not Illusion and thus critical necessary to facilitate the preservation of the species [non-ontological].

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?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 5:59 am 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 4:41 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 5:59 am 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.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 10:44 pm A foundational internal and external conflict of mankind has been the conception of human rights, for by the conceptual design of rights an instilled hierarchy occurs by degree of value of one man over another for those of one view of rights inevitably conflicts with another and human rights is the pivotal ideal by which said conflict is waged.
..........
Human rights is a means to control those of differing viewpoints. Those who differ in value orientation are deemed as not bringing into fruition the human condition thus are barbaric.

"Rights" is purely an emotional word that in its simplicity speaks less of truth and more of an individual mirror by degree of reflecting whatever a person projects onto it.
"Rights" is one word with infinite meanings, and infinite number of means that leads to conflict over what rights truly are or if they even exist.

BUT ...... until we define WHAT we are talking about perhaps a bit premature to argue about its existence or purpose.

1) What is a RIGHT? What do we mean by the statement "A has a right to X".

2) Do rights (if they exist) imply obligations on others, and if so, of what sort? For example, when/if we say "A has a right to X" do we mean just that "for every o within O (others) o is obligated not to interfere with A having/getting X. Or do we mean more than that. Do we mean "some o or o's within O are obligated to provide A with X.

3) Does "2" imply that there are more than one sort/class of "rights"? For the moment consider introducing a term "entitlements" for the second sort in "2". Use "rights" for just those that imply just a negative obligation and "entitlements" for those which imply positive obligations. My reason for this is it is quite possible we might conclude that ONE of these exists even if we believe the other doesn't

4) We might also want to consider whether the concept "rights" refers just to the individual (with regard to other individuals or the group collectively) or possibly extends to the sub-group (with regard to other sub-groups or the whole).

I think AFTER we have decided on things like this we would be in a better position to discuss whether rights exist. Otherwise, our lack of agreement on "do rights exist" might just be the consequence of disagreement about what rights are.

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

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 4:39 pm no such thing as rights without the power to enforce them...
-Imp

That is a less useful observation than at first appears.

Let R be a social relation (not yet specified). In other words, A R X (A R's X). Then in MANY cases R depends on the power to enforce. For example, R might be "owns". Then A owns X depends on A's ability to enforce or recruit social allies to enforce. So nothing special saying this is also true for A has a right to X.

Pretty much all "social relations" depend on social agreement.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 6:13 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 4:39 pm no such thing as rights without the power to enforce them...
-Imp

That is a less useful observation than at first appears.

Let R be a social relation (not yet specified). In other words, A R X (A R's X). Then in MANY cases R depends on the power to enforce. For example, R might be "owns". Then A owns X depends on A's ability to enforce or recruit social allies to enforce. So nothing special saying this is also true for A has a right to X.

Pretty much all "social relations" depend on social agreement.

perhaps, then again...

you may have a right to health care, but you do not have a right to the medical services of the best doctor - those particular services are exclusively available to those who can afford them...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 7:05 pm you may have a right to health care, but you do not have a right to the medical services of the best doctor - those particular services are exclusively available to those who can afford them...
-Imp

Please refer back to what I wrote earlier suggesting that we will get nowhere if we don't FIRST decide what it ise are talking about.

In other words, I would reword what you just wrote to be saying one might have a right to the medical services if the best doctor (one meaning of "right") but not an entitlement to the medical services of the best doctor (a different meaning of "right")

And yes, rights (if they exist) are just "social arrangements" but remember we are social animals and have been such from before we wetre human. It is "built in" that we will be in a society.

I will give an example ou learned as a small child playing with others. You have a right to a "turn". Not enforceable by your own powers but just by group consent. But notice required if a group is to play together.

Human rights equal self-interest.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 11:29 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 7:05 pm you may have a right to health care, but you do not have a right to the medical services of the best doctor - those particular services are exclusively available to those who can afford them...
-Imp

Please refer back to what I wrote earlier suggesting that we will get nowhere if we don't FIRST decide what it ise are talking about.

In other words, I would reword what you just wrote to be saying one might have a right to the medical services if the best doctor (one meaning of "right") but not an entitlement to the medical services of the best doctor (a different meaning of "right")

And yes, rights (if they exist) are just "social arrangements" but remember we are social animals and have been such from before we wetre human. It is "built in" that we will be in a society.

I will give an example ou learned as a small child playing with others. You have a right to a "turn". Not enforceable by your own powers but just by group consent. But notice required if a group is to play together.

the power to enforce the right to the best health care comes from the ability to pay for it...

the players have the right to play, but not the right to win... if it is within your power to score...

-Imp

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 4:29 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 10:44 pm A foundational internal and external conflict of mankind has been the conception of human rights, for by the conceptual design of rights an instilled hierarchy occurs by degree of value of one man over another for those of one view of rights inevitably conflicts with another and human rights is the pivotal ideal by which said conflict is waged.
..........
Human rights is a means to control those of differing viewpoints. Those who differ in value orientation are deemed as not bringing into fruition the human condition thus are barbaric.

"Rights" is purely an emotional word that in its simplicity speaks less of truth and more of an individual mirror by degree of reflecting whatever a person projects onto it.
"Rights" is one word with infinite meanings, and infinite number of means that leads to conflict over what rights truly are or if they even exist.

BUT ...... until we define WHAT we are talking about perhaps a bit premature to argue about its existence or purpose.

1) What is a RIGHT? What do we mean by the statement "A has a right to X".

2) Do rights (if they exist) imply obligations on others, and if so, of what sort? For example, when/if we say "A has a right to X" do we mean just that "for every o within O (others) o is obligated not to interfere with A having/getting X. Or do we mean more than that. Do we mean "some o or o's within O are obligated to provide A with X.

3) Does "2" imply that there are more than one sort/class of "rights"? For the moment consider introducing a term "entitlements" for the second sort in "2". Use "rights" for just those that imply just a negative obligation and "entitlements" for those which imply positive obligations. My reason for this is it is quite possible we might conclude that ONE of these exists even if we believe the other doesn't

4) We might also want to consider whether the concept "rights" refers just to the individual (with regard to other individuals or the group collectively) or possibly extends to the sub-group (with regard to other sub-groups or the whole).

I think AFTER we have decided on things like this we would be in a better position to discuss whether rights exist. Otherwise, our lack of agreement on "do rights exist" might just be the consequence of disagreement about what rights are.

Anything can be assumed prematurely in a dialogue or assertion, that is the unfortunate characteristic of communication.

The definition of rights? In this context it can be:

"Conceptualization as to what the human condition is fully expressed as."

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 12:24 am Human rights equal self-interest.

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

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 4:39 pm 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?