ITT: Essay help because, if I don't hand this in at 11.59pm EST, I'm gonna straight up anhero.
Can we achieve a universal conception of human rights? Why/why not?
My (very few) ideas:
A universal economy would discourage resource wars, thus eliminate the point of sovereign states?
Because of the vast information made available by globalisation and the computer age, the younger generations are abandoning their archaic cultures/religions.
GO TEAM
Fuck you and your marxist paper.
We can't achieve a universal conception of human rights, because such a conception presupposes intrinsic equality among all people.
Peoples are different, therefore it would be impossible/terribly inefficient to make them follow the same laws (Black criminality in the USA).
Fpbp
yeah m8 I'm with you, but why is it impossible /in theory/?
can you livestream when you anhero?
If you want to hit this from the left, "universal concept of human rights" is just another way of saying cultural imperialism.
This guy knows what's up, them's some tasty buzzwords
yeah sure I always wanted my 15 minutes of fame.
hey thanks man
I appreciate it
I think it would be hard to appease your (((professor))) with this, but I believe it is simply impossible because some ideologies work better for some people.
For example, Secular Authoritarianism seems to be the best bet for a Middle Eastern society. Whereas a place like Iceland or Switzerland might function best with a more democratic type of government.
Some places are just doomed to be shit, like Haiti, particularly because Haitians are generally garbage-people. That said, there is still a form of government that is best for Haiti.
>Point is, if you aknowledge that people are different on an individual basis and express different tendencies as a matter of natural disposition, then extrapolate that to races in terms of their general behaviors (again, black athleticism/criminality, asian order/gambling, Arab passion/zealousness), then you must come to the conclusion that a universal law for a heterogeneous population is doomed to fail. To force a Haitian to fit in to Korean society would be to try to force a square peg into a round hole.
1. You're a fucking retard. Please kill yourself if you don't abandon failed marxist dogma.
2. The market is the only means of accurately transmitting information to economic participants so that they can make semi-informed judgements about how to invest their resources.
3. Without the market, we descend into inefficiency and chaos. There is no replacement for it, and Mises core assertions from almost a century ago remain untoppled.
4. Therefore, by the very existence of a capitalist society there will inevitably be winners and losers.
We can never achieve intrinsic equality among all people because our fundamental economic system establishes the successful and the unsuccessful. We can endeavor to provide opportunities but we simply never will do so equally, and we can never guarantee an equality of outcomes.
Likewise, philosophical ideas about intrinsic equality rely on fundamental uniformity that simply doesn't exist: We have distinct cultures, genetics, measurable IQ, and gender differences. Our contemporary "equality" is a lie paid for by economic largess.
Biologically and economically, we are not equal and even the fundamental concept of universal intrinsic equality is an arrogant western construct which someone in a "Less enlightened" country would laugh off out of prejudice or common sense.
If you want an easy A and are willing to contribute to the downfall of our society (Man's gotta do what a man's gotta do)
Then talk about how a universal conception of human rights could be achieved IF AND ONLY IF: >The social construct of race is demolished by means of immigration and integration
>the social construct of gender is also demolished by means of equal opportunity and motivation to desegregate the workforce
>if the occurrence non-cis sexual/gender orientation is accepted, and taught in public schools as normal
>and if wealth is redistributed in order to prevent any sort of protest by the oppressors of society, the bourgeoisie
human rights are a spook
This guy is spot on, the very concept of egalitarianism is a trademark of Napoleon.
Hierarchy is natural, and you will find it in any society on earth.
ANCAP is the way to go
Absolute fucking madman
it's already created and it's perfect.
yeah thanks buddy, sometimes you gotta succumb to the left to get the degree amirite?
mmm, interesting. so, is the sacrifice of humanities differing cultures and practices (an element of humanity that some would say is /unique/ and /special/) worth the elimination of war?
Here, I'll help.
Read up on Herbert Marcuse and his views, he is the source of all this madness.
Next, go over the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Happy subversion, (((user)))
**BTW**
If you cite Marcuse, your teacher will suck your dick.
Here is some help:
Within the field of International Relations within political science, there are two dominating theories. Realism and Liberalism.
Realism is critical of the concept of human rights.
Liberalism is positive about it.
Realism states that international society is in a state of anarchy and that the individual countries will always fight for more power. These countries will put themselves over any sense of 'right', ethics/morals. They might claim to acknowledge human rights, but in the end, they will always ignore them if it really benefits them. The rights only exist so far as you are able to protect them through physical force.
Therefore human rights might be a bad idea. It's not that it isn't morally good. It just isn't realistic. As has been seen countless times throughout history where countries have broken international law as well as human rights.
Liberalism, on the other hand, believes that society has reached a state of peace that allows for international cooperation. In part due to the interdependence of trade between nations. Liberalists believe that overstately organisations such as the FN are good, because they secure international order. They believe that nations will follow a common set of rules, in part because it is morally right to do so.
*UN, not FN.
>tfw I have a 500 page essay due on monday
>i'm dicking around in Sup Forums instead
kill me fa.m
sick that's an easy way to differentiate the two main body paragraphs before the counter arguments thematically.
do you know any notable figures who adopted the realism POV?
500 PAGES jesus man, what are you studying?
Shit. I ruined my own bait.
I meant to say 500 words.
so which of these ten planks would be the most relevant to site?
This is some of the most important theorists within realism.
Up to you man. Go for "Abolition of Private Property" if you want to be le edgy socialist
Abolition of inheritance is good too.
Find a PDF of the Communist Manifesto, and ctrl-F the words "equality" and PROFIT
If you had more time, I would have recommended you read through this.
en.wikipedia.org
Has a lot of points.
But if you are only writing about human rights, you might just try googling it. There is sure to be some opinions that you can steal if you google "Human rights - for or against", "pros and cons", "positives and negatives", "opinion" or something like that.
500 words is nothing man, you'll be right
If anyone wanna read, I just uploaded the chapter on human rights from my college text book.
docdroid.net
I think it's possible, but when making laws for a group of people you have to compromise based on where people are coming from (differing points of view).
So any universal conception of human rights would be severely limited due to the large number of different views/cultures in the world.
thanks bro (y)
All right, time for you to get some knowledge handed to you OP
It just so happens that cultures aren't just fancy ways of attracting tourists and wooing females, but they're potent, rigid frameworks where values and taboos dictate behaviour.
That's a piece of Emmanuel Todd. He's a french historian/anthropologist, who has done research on family structure and marriage. He's noticed that some patterns do come out, and that those things vary a lot in different countries, or even regions.
Take France and USA. Historically, USA has always had a very low rate of exogamy (marrying outside of one's social/racial group), along the lines of 5%. For France, it's always been more like 30%, interracial marriages are far less of a shameful thing there.
Yet they're two countries that are very vocal about freedom, and they claim it as one of their founding values. But even though it's the same word, it entails entirely different meanings: Freedom of market in one case, and freedom from authority in another. And that kind of difference shows up in mating behaviour for example.
And it's the case for many different values in different countries. Basically, what's been cristallized through a constitution and laws is only a verbal continuation of silent and tacit rules that have been passed on for centuries.
There lies your problem. To claim an universal conception of human rights would imply that those silent rules are the same for everyone, and that people can accept only one definition of a given societal rule, such as equality or justice. But that's not the case, different countries exist because they hold their own values, which work the best for these people's biological imperatives (reproduction, wealth production, self-defense, etc).
It's also worth mentioning that human rights is a highly statist/nationalist creation. There are still some places where tribal law/family law take priority over it, and that's literally the opposite of 'universal'.
mm, I fundamentally agree with you- I don't think it's likely that all of humanity could agree on a single concept of 'human rights', when our base philosophical understandings differ so greatly from state to state.
But hypothetically, through what means could a universal conception of human rights be possible. Not probably, not likely, but hypothetically possible.
All right, here are some ideas
However governments and media try to hide it, it's not, and never will be about citizens. The tribe/nation's first and foremost interest is its own survival, and if it meant nuking half its population, most politicians would do it in a heartbeat. Our comfort and well-being is only a product of the state, not its goal
So, in order to have a universal set of human rights, you'd have to have a universal state. One way or another, the only way to federate the whole planet would be to convince people that all along they've been following the same powerful silent value, and to rally behind it. Not likely but who knows
no you can't its a hot firey inferno
this is probably a daft argument, but harking back to humanity's biological drives especially in men (r.e. the drive to prove onself to be the strongest) until humanity has a common enemy, we cannot have a unified concept of human rights?
As in, if there was a threat from another planet, that could unify humanity?
ALRIGHT GUYS if I can find some statistical correlation between socialist states and atheism I have my paper. Got any good studies?
...
>For France, it's always been more like 30%
If this were so, there'd be no whites in France. You must be counting Belgians as 'niggers'.
>Yet they're two countries that are very vocal about freedom, and they claim it as one of their founding values
Did you not study the French Revolution? This is a laugh line, right?
>To claim an universal conception of human rights would imply that those silent rules are the same for everyone
Wrong. The Ten Commandments are 'don't lie, cheat, or steal', and they held up because those are universal. The only way you are correct is if you're including things like the Right To Drive A Car or etc.
No we can't because human morality is literally subjective.
Human rights are only set in stone based on what country you're in and individual countries have very different interests.
Rights are powers that the government concedes to the people when the nation is formed which they can never reclaim. We're talking 5 billion people with very diverse interests and lifestyles.