Philosophical Question #15 – Human Rights


We often hear about the concept of “human rights.”

We know the definition of “human.”  Let’s get the definition of “rights”:



When it comes to rights, those of us who live in Western cultures tend to think of rights as being certain freedoms, education, health care, safety, etc.  To us, they just seem like “a given”; a “human right.”

To those who do not have access to or experience with Western-style human rights, such rights are more like “aspirational” for them.  Evidently, from a human standpoint, these so-called human rights are “desirable conditions” among all humans, no matter from what little corner of the world they hail.

Now the questions:

  • What makes something, some condition, a “right/entitlement”? (e.g., luck-of-the-draw birthplace, the concept of humanitarianism, it’s God-given, other)

  • Would you agree that there are such things as “universal human rights?” (Yes, No, Yes and No, I don’t know, Other)

  • If Yes, or Yes and No:

    • What are such rights?  List them.  

    • Who decides/dictates such rights? (e.g., the reigning government of a country, the legal system of the country, the greater society by way of democracy, “God”, other)

    • If there is a cost to providing a right (such as health care, education, safety), who monetarily/financially pays for that? (e.g., the individual by way of their taxes, the society by way of a taxing system, the government [where does that money come from], other)

    • Who physically provides for/guarantees such rights? (e.g., the country’s military and/or other policing forces, civil/criminal laws, etc.)

Use my questions, or otherwise talk about “human rights” in whatever way you see them.

(by PrimalSoup)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more