> A group of people, mostly men, got together and wrote some things down and declared that they are "universal" "rights".
That's false, as I pointed out; they've been endorsed and embraced worldwide for centuries. Generally speaking, almost any group given a choice has endorsed them, men and women.
Also, the supporters of oppression like to frame it as a matter of opinion, and then invoke some extreme relativism: Your opinion is X, mine is Y, therefore there's no real basis for X. We could say it about anything: You think murder is wrong, I think it's ok, therefore it's just a matter of opinion. It's not a meaningful argument and doesn't address the real and very strong basis for universal human rights.
Another consideration: Should you and others be allowed to debate this issue with me? Why?
...
The rest of the parent comment attributes things to me that I haven't said, so I'll pass commenting on it.
> Do these people have the power to grant or deny any rights to anyone
They advocate that these rights should be removed from people. In some countries, where you have similarly aligned people in charge (like the US), these denials of rights eventually get made into law.
> 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.)
>This is absurd bordering on trolling. That isn't the "whole point of rights" (maybe this is what you believe, but that's an opinion, don't present it as a fact).
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"
Note the word "inalienable".
Or if you don't like the UN, there's the US declaration of independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
The whole point of countries having a supreme court and constitution is to enforce the unconditionality of such rights.
Yes it's a political position held by some nowadays that human rights are just a legal fiction granted by the government or "society", but that's not how the nation's founders saw it.
> The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such.
It occurs to me that this same argument can be used against anything that ought to be enshrined at the UN as a human right. An obvious example being loving who you want without regard to sex or gender.
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.
> Do you not think that there are universal human rights?
I know attempts have been made to come up with "universal rights". But to my point, not everyone agrees with them. For example, the convention on children's rights has not been ratified by the US.
The poster I first responded to, has since clarified that he meant something like US law working as a blacklist of what is forbidden (as opposed to a whitelist of what is allowed). So the discussion about universal rights was a bit of a red herring, sorry.
> People have a right not to care about their own privacy
Would you say that about freedom of speech, thought or movement? I'm asking because all of them are human rights. Do you think you have the moral right to give up on human rights?
"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
>(which are not "human rights" in the sense that you do not have the right to compel other people to perform the labor required to supply you with these things)
>(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
reply