This is neither a right in any theoretical system of human rights I've seen, nor is there any practical way to disassociate people from a basic human emotion.
> There are no positive natural human rights, only the negative ones (rights to be free from violence, including bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, rights to keep property etc).
I'd say that there are no natural rights. Never heard a good argument for any of them.
I don’t see the connection between what’s a right and what’s a law here. If a majority of people want something they tell their lawmakers to turn it into law. It’s not a fundamental human right it’s a law like any other.
> The UN has expanded this greatly to positive rights where someone can obligate someone to do something as a right, e.g. you have no right to offend my beliefs.
that's obliging inaction - it obliges someone to not say or do something which offends you - so it is a negative right
> No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights
Human rights are a human construct. Moreover, they only make sense within the context of social contract which only becomes practical when enforced by a government.
> I don't think "human right" means what you think it does.
This is a rude way of approaching a discussion. Don't make my assumptions about my knowledge.
A much better way of starting a discussion would be to state what you believe the definition of a human right is. There are in fact many different philosophical views on what human rights are, with many philosophers in fact arguing that their origin is in natural rights. [0]
> "Human rights" are something that didn't exist in the state of nature but were invented afterwards.
That's pretty much what is implied by my first line:
> Sure there is, at least if you acknowledge the notion of human rights in the first place. (There's no "innate human right" to not be tortured.)
> requires the elevation of one person's rights over another. And that's not acceptable.
I'm sorry but that is senseless. Elevating certain rights over others is effectively the basis of any society. To use a crass example: it's widely accepted that your right to not be assaulted is elevated over another's right to assault you.
> I don't like the idea of "positive rights" at least as applied to human rights. I don't think it makes sense to consider something a "right" when it requires the active participation of others to provide.
All rights require active participation of others to provide. Negative rights such as the right to live and the right to have property don't exist by default. They only become real if the society spends sufficient effort to prevent people from killing and stealing.
Human rights are aspirational. They are not rights people already have but rights people should have. They are the desired outcomes in an ideal society.
A person acting under the auspices of a state has no right to violate human rights. A state is merely a human construct. No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights.
> It muddles the meaning of rights, tarnishes the concept by equating the support for rights in general with a specific, controversial position
I am sorry, but knowledge is not specific, it is a very old, basic and fundamental concept. Without knowledge, human race wouldn't exist. It is not some transient and quirky concept suddenly made up. Even if controversial, it is a good candidate to be considered a human right.
indeed, in the UN declaration of human rights, there is a right to education already in article 26 - it is not that different from knowledge, but knowledge as a concept fits here much better.
>There is no such thing as human rights. They are just wishful ideals humanity invented.
So... there are no such things as wishful ideals that humanity invented? Are "human rights" any less real than other idealised human concepts, for example "justice"? Or are you saying that they are unachievable, and thus not worth striving towards?
They absolutely are political. The entire concept of human rights is political. There's a widespread consensus in many, many countries that they are worth protecting, but there's nothing magical or special about human rights that gives them any power beyond any other political decision.
This is neither a right in any theoretical system of human rights I've seen, nor is there any practical way to disassociate people from a basic human emotion.
reply