Human rights are a fallacy in my opinion.
Rights don't exist much in the same way time does not exist, but where time is generally used as a multi-faceted form of measurement, rights seem to be seen as a consensus of rules that magically protect people from/with their choices via entitled justification. We do not have rights, we have choice. People will proudly claim "I have the right to life, or to speak my mind." No you do not, you have the choice to defend yourself, or the choice to say what you like.
I'm not for a moment saying "do not defend yourself because you don't have the right" or "don't speak your mind", by all means, do. It's your choice, but rights themselves won't do you any good if someone who disregards them decides to violate them. You cannot rely on them, they're not really there. They will not act in your favor or back you up, you merely have choice.
Rights do not exist. The power of choice does. Men are free to act with respect for the individual liberties of others, or to act without respect. There is no such force as a natural right that will reward virtuous action, or punish evil. There is only one force in human affairs. That is the force of individual will. Freedom is a choice, not a right.
In response to the Yes column, in particular the line "without basic human rights, humanity has no right to exist in the first place" - yes, we don't have a /right/ to exist, we just suddenly /are/ existing and our choices generally revolve around surviving. Nothing at all has the /right/ to exist, what defining force is there to suggest and enforce that we are justified in existing? Nothing whatsoever.
Humans have no "rights".
Who says that humans have the "right" to exist anyway? I understand that humans have the basic capacity to determine their own fate (in theory), but does society, as a whole? When we use the word "rights" we are acknowledging that something or someone superior to us must allow for our existence and/or our positive welfare.
Unless you are in a position of power over the lives of others, you have to admit that your right to exist is subject to the whim of others.
A person can assert their "rights" until that last shot blows their head off. Unless the person holding the pistol wants to rethink splattering your brains everywhere, it's "lights out". Logic does not work with our species. Appealing to compassion or empathy may work better. Logic tends to piss us off.
Human Rights are Earned - by you or for you
Human Rights are misnamed. You only have them whilst you live in a community that endorses and protects them. If your community or you do not have human rights, then you may have to fight for them like countless people have done in the past and will continue to do. Australia, generally speaking, advocates for all humans to have some basic rights and we are prepared to challenge those who do not believe in this principle. Our allies generally operate the same way.
There are no human rights without champions to gain and protect them.
Human Rights = Western Cultural Imperialism
Human rights are nothing more than a thin veil behind which we Americans and Europeans practice cultural imperialism. We control our own fate. If we wish to overthrow our leaders we can vote against them or attempt to assassinate them or otherwise remove them from power. The citizens of the United States have no right to tell the Russians or the Chinese how they should write their laws.
No, human rights don't exist
Fundamental human rights don't exist because we are nothing but an intelligent animal, who managed to evolve to the point where we became self-conscious. Human rights exist but they are not fundamental, since we aren't born with them, they are given to us by other humans. If we acknowledge fundamental human rights should we begin to give fundamental rights to fishes, to birds and to mammals.
The maniplation And control of human existence.
When you see that right from when people are young there told by tv by mum by teachers that you have to be good and listen to authority and never challenge the policy's or rules, well I have come to the conclusion that everybody is following and accepting pointles rules and policy because of individual comfort fear and ease when you look at the norrow minds of our leaders when you see that they are dis connected illusional and evil as they are using humans to stop other humans from feeding themselfs because people think dictating intimerdating and stoping freedoms is right well it is not because of this one level narrow way of thinking we are all stoping everlution and going around pointlesley making our world or societies less evolved and we are just going backwards. Hope strength and truth will always profail and will always be correct and right because beleive in togetherness unity truth and freedom to exist will always be evolution and of more significance, I think we behave like imitate school children with the good and bad and the tit for tat and the wars and the fact that we call ourselfs evolved but really we are part of a world that is crumbling as a result of ignorance of truth greed and narrow thinking towards humans and life, because we are seeing our very world giving us miserey and turning its back on humans because of our leaders and the follow up of ignorance and selfishness from population in the world because it's become a world of selfishness and desperatenes through people who do not want to cross people to be free and leaders that will just
Lie and lie again and will give no security or protection because they are drunk with crazed obsessive business and money that will leave behind all people who are not of signifficance to their policy of control or their systems that take and only give control and words of control and will imply unfairness and will dictate because they can and they think that hope and strength will never cross them but it can because you will never ever evolve or see the world prosper by sleepwalking and just taking the world for granted but fearing when it punishes us. It will be that inner strength will bring hope and will beat down Al the time weakness and cycles of repeating pointless ignorance and disbelieving people of freedom and hope.
The universe doesn't care
I understand if are religious and believe in human rights, but if you use science and logic, what force in the universe says that humans have to have certain things. I'm not saying if someone is trying to hurt you to just let them, I'm just saying that you have to earn everything in life. For example, you work to grow crops, you work to hunt(animals too), you also have a right to safety, because the taxes you pay are the reason the government is strong enough to protect you. If someone is trying to kill you or someone you care for then you may react in kind, because it is nature.
Might makes Right
"Rights" are a human definition; and who does the defining? Those with power. There is nothing unassailable or fundamental about it.
The modern concept of human rights was originally created not to protect the downtrodden but to safeguard the troops of world powers after World War I. Even today, human rights are used by said powers as a tactic of international diplomacy, as an economic and military lever to be used against rival states. To justify their actions, 'fundamental' rights could easily be removed or added to.
"Rights" are a human invention.
Just because something might be/have been supported by a majority (free speech, bearing arms, guilty until proven innocent, etc...) doesn't mean that they exist. I personally have beliefs in things I'd support, and that I'd fight for. But I am tired of people calling out their "Rights" as if that makes them right, it makes them support something. Neither right nor wrong, just yourself.
The concept of intrinsic human rights is illogical, and above all, imprecise
Human rights cannot exist in the form currently envisioned by most pressure groups and governments. Human rights arise in terms of social interaction with others, and as such cannot be inherent. What we refer to as human rights are not physical laws, they are cultural elements of a common courtesy which can be interpreted in a legalistic sense, but which likely arises from simple biological and adaptive reasons. Moreover, all "human rights" cannot always be taken for granted and exists only in certain equilibrium conditions, i.E. When there are plenty resources. Those which cater to the individual are either logical tautologies or are simply manifestations of our current socio-economic condition. This is not to say that the concept of Human Rights cannot be helpful and perhaps even valid, but it is imprecise, and I can't bear imprecision. Thus one should not speak of fundamental rights in the same way one does of fundamental forces as though they were one and the same because they are not.
- Color choice for paint house
- What making is USA financially strong
- How many layers does Google Syntaxnet have
- What is a reasonable retention rate
- Why are emotional people deprived of friendship
- How can I make money writing poetry
- Does GE fire the bottom 10 percent
- What is 2 4 6 and 8
- Why are albatrosses called that
- What is a court certified disposition letter
- Is Snoop Dog still a drug addict
- Does Atlanta have a good bus system
- How normal and simple your life is
- Is there absolute freedom of speech
- How many wives did Shahanshah Akbar have
- Why do I have so much attitude
- How do I purify water without technology
- Is Instagram planning a Web app
- Where do steroids get shipped in from
- Can loans with prepayment penalties be refinanced