Human Rights: from god? From Nature? How can we be sure? Does it matter?

sear

sear

Administrator
Staff member
Intro:
"... the concept of inalienable or natural rights is not dependent on religion in any way. In fact the concept of God is an individual perception, and is different for different people. To a Pantheist, the entire Universe is God and therefore their rights are given by nature itself." jdog 17/07/04
Click to expand...
Unfortunately jdog isn't here to clarify or defend.

Jefferson tangled with this as he drafted the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
"... 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... " TJ / DOI
Click to expand...
If human rights are "Creator endowed", then atheists have no rights.
"They have rights who dare maintain them." -- James Russell Lowell
Click to expand...
So the genocide of some aboriginal American nations is overlooked because the vanquished natives couldn't compete on the battlefield?


Was Jefferson playing "Deist" here?
The Creator "established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws", but otherwise abstains?
de·ism (dēĭz′əm, dā-)
n.
A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation.
[French déisme, from Latin deus, god; see dyeu- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
 
mm #2
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif


Of course Bentham devoted much of his life to formalizing thought on such matters. I don't recall any particular Bentham publication that specified an origin, or separability of rights.
But Bentham's contributions to pragmatism, "utilitarianism" it was called, survive into the new millennium. Thanks mm. A philosophical chuckle can beat a mug of stout java on a sabbath AM.

If I may leverage your #2:
Is it a distraction? Is it basically an issue as Lowell described it above? "They have rights who dare maintain them." -- James Russell Lowell

And if that, then the principle of reciprocal Liberty is merely a pragmatist's rephrasing of the Holy Bible's "The Golden Rule"? "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." KJV Matthew 7:12
Treat others as you would wish to be treated?
 
"They have rights who dare maintain them." -- James Russell Lowell
Click to expand...

A thought that I have much agreement with but these fought for rights are in no way inalienable, universal or "god given"

What sort of silliness is it that would maintain that I have the same rights as you or that you have the same rights as me when we inhabit different worlds
 
mm #4
Your perspective here seems to be more technical than practical.
No law against that ! BUT !!

a) I don't consider it imprudent for society to have a standard. And I can't name a more fundamental human standard than "The Golden Rule". I'm not disagreeing with you. & I still get a chuckle from your #2. But there are useful myths that may help soothe the anguish of children, etc.

b) Even if god doesn't stand there with an invisible rubber stamp mashing each newborn on the forehead with "unalienable ... " does it matter, if most of us go along with it, regardless of whether we actually believe it or not? Therefore

c) I think what may matter more than - is it or isn't it - is whether we can get populations to comply. You have a right to flail your fist. Your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins. If we BOTH respect that (regardless of whether god endow us with it or not), the I won't flail my fist in your face, and you won't flail yours in mine.

Deal ?

This nonsense about being priggish about whence cometh rights should be the scorn of rational pragmatists the world around. Philosophers can squabble about whence cometh. While they're bickering pointlessly, the rest of us can get some work done.
"we inhabit different worlds" mm
Click to expand...
You're soooo 15th century.
Eurasia and the Americas might have been different worlds in 1492. BUT !!
It's a "global village" now.

I'm not merely waxing metaphorical, because there's a slim chance I might get away with it. President Biden can talk face to face with Putin, Biden in DC while Putin's in Moscow.
With this globalization it's not imprudent to have sensible global standards. You shouldn't punch a stranger in the nose while visiting the palace at Versailles. And no stranger should punch you in the nose when you're trying to get out of your car at the Piggly Wiggly (a retail store).

I sense you're doin' this for exercise mm. A dull Sunday for you?
 
our "rights" come from the society and culture in which we live, they are not fixed nor predetermined.

People in some countries have rights that you dont have you have rights that they dont have.
As an American you famously have the right to keep and bear arms a right held by no other country.


After 10 days of wall to wall dead queen every day is a dull day!
I would find it hard to express in words how little I care that Harry and Andrew were allowed to wear military uniform whilst standing guard over the royal coffin.
We had a TV channel that showed people lining up to walk passed the royal box 24 hours a day....well at least thats over.
 
"our "rights" come from the society and culture in which we live, they are not fixed nor predetermined." mm #6

"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" U.S. Founder Thomas Jefferson / DOI
Click to expand...
Important to note:
this dispute is purely philosophical. In either case it is government that defines & enforces.

< Topic Change >
"After 10 days of wall to wall dead queen every day is a dull day!
I would find it hard to express in words how little I care that Harry and Andrew were allowed to wear military uniform whilst standing guard over the royal coffin.
We had a TV channel that showed people lining up to walk passed the royal box 24 hours a day....well at least thats over." mm #6
Click to expand...
We are all victims of news displacement mm. I've wondered about how much of this is guilt-driven. Institutionally allied nations may feel obliged, understanding the potential appearance of indifference or disrespect without ceremonial display of their own, commensurate to the occasion.

I too noticed the military uniform issue. I suspect there's a checklist, protocol to be followed in appalling detail.

A distinction:
- is the expression deficit because of the royal kerfuffle? Or
- is it displacement? Because of the "wall to wall" we're not getting news from Ukraine, Puerto Rico, and other issues of responsible concern?

There's such an abundance of non-productive ceremony in 3rd Millennium Western culture I've become inured to it. High-brows may disdain Mussolini allusion, but if they want to wear tuxedos for a few hours, fine with me, as long as the trains run on time.
 
I noticed (mea culpa) that at the actual funeral neither again wore military attire
For 10 days BBC1 has suspended pretty much all normal programming and today full length coverage of the funeral was wall to wall (I took the dog out for a long walk)
One thing that does stick out though is that for a man in his 70s Charles has done a very great deal of marching at slow pace (5 or 5 miles of it some days) and general standing around

His one lack of cool was when signing important papers he was provided with a table that was rather too small and a fountain pen which leaked and blotted.


People including the famous stood in line for up to 18 hours to spend a few seconds beside the coffin and there was only one idiot that broke protocol and tried to touch the coffin (some say remove the flag)
 
Oh perhaps I should mention the arrests of several (not many) protestors including one who was shouting abuse at Andrew calling him a "nonce" (= sex offender) who was arrested for a public order offence shortly before the assembled crowd tore him limb from limb and slightly more humorously a man was threatened with arrest for holding up a blank placard although I am uncertain what the details of the offence would be going prepared to cause a breach of the peace perhaps?
 
I hopped across the pond in my leer jet long enough to snap this pic.
Perhaps they split the baby, wearing some military medals, but on a jacket without epaulets.

QE2a.JPG
I haven't figured out who the woman before him is. She seems to out-rank him.
""nonce" (= sex offender)" mm #9
Click to expand...
Exhausting trying to teach English to the English. In the U.S. we do our cussin' with four letters per word.
 
the were awarded their campaign medals in the same way as any other soldier is awarded campaign medals I think once you have a medal it cannot be taken back.
You cant see in the picture but the uniformed William has significantly fewer medals than Harry who is in civilian attire

The woman beside Andrew is his sister princess Anne

The only one of the three male siblings who did not have a significant military career was Edward he dropped out of training after 4 months
Anne holds several honorary military ranks

Charles served in the air force the navy and the army he was at once time the commander of mine sweeper
Andrew was a pilot during the Falklands war
 
Mark, that was more interesting, concise than anything I've seen on TV about it, though I haven't seen much TV lately.

"Andrew was a pilot during the Falklands war" mark

Didn't Prince Charles pilot a helicopter in or near combat during the Falklands war?
 
mm #11

Excellent history smash.

mm #12

Ha!
Wear it on an evening out, and it could be dismissed as decoration, "jewelry" as you say.
Wearing it on that occasion, on that march would seem to me to be fraud. I won't lose sleep over it, but it seems bad form to me.

t #13
I've seen a few glimpses into British royals serving in the military. I've wondered about that the way I've wondered about President Carter in his Habitat for Humanity. What does Carter's Secret Service detail do while the president is swinging a hammer? When royals serve, do their commanders insure they're in safe zones? Her majesty QE2 reportedly drove an ambulance during WWII. I don't recall how close to the front lines she was.

R #14
I remember the Exocet, a successful missile strike. I had to look up the rest. I found this:

Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard

Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard

It's the plane the Argentine pilot flew to launch the missile. Thanks guys. 3 interesting perspectives.
 
when Charles was made "commander in chief" of the parachute regiment he insisted on doing the training for the regiment....his first jump ended with him upside down in a treee
 
What a pastoral mental image! mark mywords, your lively descriptions, worth the price of admission.
Keep em coming.
 
The Super Etendard is not stealthy, it could have been detected by British fleet radar.
To minimize that risk the Argentine pilot flew low over the water, below radar, and circled wide around to take advantage of curvature of the Earth.
The pilot circled as wide, as far away as he could and still have enough fuel to return home after launching the Exocet.
He launched the Exocet near the maximum design range of the missile.
Was the British ship sunk by the missile the specific vessel of the British fleet the Argentines intended to sink? I don't know.
It may be a useful example of asymmetric warfare where in the attrition balance one missile was traded for one HMS, and yet this battlefield victory was not decisive in the eventual outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top