Are "human rights" a real thing?

Are "human rights" a real thing?

Other urls found in this thread:

elblogdelnarco.com/2017/04/vídeo-fuerte-donde-los-zetas-le-cortan-las-pierna-vivo-decapitan-y-descuartizan-a-sicario-del-cartel.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

no

It's just a spook.

They are if you can define and enforce them.
The problem is that people think there are these magic ''rights'' you are just entitled to because you exist. If you look at any actual right that has actual impact on your life, you can define it and you can quantify it.
The right to own arms means the government doesn't have the power to stop you from owning a weapon. You don't have to be a 2smart5u genius to figure out what that means and what it means for a right to ''exist''.
I've got no idea what human rights even are. Define it and quantify it.

>falling for jewish tricks

Put it this way. If human rights are not a real thing, then nothing that is not strictly material or phenomenological is real. If his is where you're drawing the line, then just know that you're in fact rejecting ALL ideas (and if you're not doing so, then it may be the case that you are using your skepticism in an arbitrary manner). Also you should consider that if you are willing to identify ideas as made up, arbitrary, then this would include your stance on truth: basically, you wanting someone to live to guidelines that are true might be a simple prejudice, especially considering that the definition of truth that is rooted in the scientific method can't be applied to ideas (unless you go for a descpritive route, which would lead to the aforementioned phenomenology)

Now, even in this nihilistic framework human rights can find their place, mainly through how effective and useful they might be. The right of self-defence might be, once analyzed, fully arbitrary, yet one does not really need a metaphysical explanation to enforce it: being sure about your own livelihood can still be in your self-interest, and the same could be said about the safety of the people you hold dear.

>define it and quantify it
>human rights
>define and quantify ideas
Have you just asked a random guy on Sup Forums to solve philosophy?

One might argue that the dismissal of ideas and their values is the real Jewish trick.

Putting too much emphasis on literally nothing is always a Jewish trick. The idea that people shouldn't engage in mass slaughter is fine but saying that humans should never kill is bullshit.

How are human rights defined and who gets to define them?

No, it's another method of control. People will spend all of their time legislating, debating, and relegislating their "rights" instead of just doing things they want to do. The problem is the government has the power to force you to obey their legislation.
If you lived on a magic private island not beholden to any laws from any government nobody could stop you from doing literally anything you wanted to do. Governments "give" you "rights" and then wave the ability to take them "away" over your head as a means of controlling everything you do, from the way you eat to the way you sleep.

The sad fact of the matter is there is jack all you can do about it short of flaunting the law, and then you risk arrest or worse.

>The idea that people shouldn't engage in mass slaughter is fine but saying that humans should never kill is bullshit.
Not even puritans thought that. You're referring to a moral system that does not exist.

I'd say that most of them can derived from basic empathy, and some general guidelines (one of the most generic ones: do not cause harm unnecessarily). Not throwing mustard gas on preschools seems only fair, isn't it?
Since empathy is a shacky tool, this should lead most people to be skeptical of absolute statements, but being skeptical of any sort of rule or compromise would be insane.

LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF TRIPLE DOUBLES

Every American who believes in self defence but not genocide believes "The idea that people shouldn't engage in mass slaughter is fine but saying that humans should never kill is bullshit."
Did you forget to wake your brain up when you rolled out of bed today?

No, even in the west there are plenty of people without said "rights".

no

>Every American who believes in self defence but not genocide believes "The idea that people shouldn't engage in mass slaughter is fine but saying that humans should never kill is bullshit."

Have I said the opposite?

>Did you forget to wake your brain up when you rolled out of bed today?
Oh, it's about you. Had a hard day, pal?

elblogdelnarco.com/2017/04/vídeo-fuerte-donde-los-zetas-le-cortan-las-pierna-vivo-decapitan-y-descuartizan-a-sicario-del-cartel.html

Watch this man get his hands and feet chopped off and tell me

>Not even puritans thought that. You're referring to a moral system that does not exist.
Come on man. Forgetting what you wrote 5 minutes ago is a serious illness.

Only if you're human.

Anyways I think there are but there should also be a defined limit. Otherwise a decent in chaos would be inevitable.

No. The only Rights we have are those written and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Everything else is just a projection by powerful nations. It's just poetry

literally a social construct meme.

/thread

Humanity isn't even a thing.

Yes, but shitskins and piss skins aren't humans.

Human rights are a social construct.

I've said that human rights can eb concieved in both a nihilistic and a metaphysical framework, and that in both cases absolute statements can't be supported epistemologically.

>What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and winks. The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.

>Humanity isn't even a thing.

it is though.
can we just give the whole "xyz is abstract therefore it's somehow not real" discussion a rest? it's fucking stupid anyway.

that's like saying mental illnesses don't exist even though people that have them can't function properly in society unless they get the help they need.

it's also like saying governments aren't real because that stuff used to be just an idea at one point.

it's even like saying motivation isn't real and...you know what I mean.

It all stems from empathy.
I think an "ideal" rights system would properly balance the good of the majority and the good of the individual using a utilitarian approach

Don't bother: complete dismissal of any sort of abstract idea is very rarely a sign of education and philosophical awareness. Chances are that that guy does not know the first argument against his thesis. Take it as something a drunk friend would tell you in a pub.

>Take it as something a drunk friend would tell you in a pub.

yeah, I never liked such bothersome situations indeed.

insert sounds good, dosen´t work meme

The word "humanity" is weighted with great meaning in the English language. That meaning is rooted in a sense of universal humanism distinct to the west; a philosophical and moral perspective which holds that the underlying commonality shared by human beings is more significant than our differences. I reject the idea of "humanity" as posited in the west, because it is distinct to the west. Non-western societies reject it, seeing human beings as separated into fundamentally different groups. This means that most of the people the west lumps together in the ideal of "humanity" actually reject that very ideal, which makes the whole thing absurd. How can "humanity" as understood by the west be real when most of "humanity" itself rejects the idea?

No, UNs selective enforcement proves it's 100% bullshit.

Human rights and liberty exist positively in the universe, and the experience of liberty is a fundamental mode of thought linked inextricably with the experience of consciousness. The human animal is imbued with liberty and its natural state is the state of being free.

Many different formulations of 'moral' or 'justifiable' rights exist. We use them to describe / understand our reasonable expectations of treatment by others, and likewise what is reasonable of them to expect of us. 'Rights' are synonymous with 'moral rules' of all kinds, and other conceptions of moral rules such as duty can be re imagined as a system of 'rights'.

They are undeniably real.

Only if America gets to liberate Europa because the EU took the people's freedom of speech.