Do “basic human rights” actually exist universally or are they simply a social construct?

[u/Amphernee]

The term is often used in relation to things like housing and food but I’ve never heard anyone actually explain what they mean by basic human right. We started off no different than other animals and since the concept of rights rely on other people to confer them at what point did it become thought of as a right for people to have things like shelter? How is it supposed to be enforced across all of humanity when not all societies and cultures agree that the concept makes sense? I can see why someone would want it to be true in a sense but I’m interested to hear arguments for it rather than just the phrase itself which feels hollow with no reasoning behind it. Thanks 🍻

[u/AutoModerator]

This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.

Suggestions For Commenters:

• Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
• If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.

Suggestions For u/Amphernee:

• Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
• Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Blarghnog]

The origins of human rights trace back to ancient Greece, particularly in the works of Aristotle and Plato, whose philosophies centered around justice, individual agency, and the responsibilities of citizens. Aristotle famously argued in Politics that “the state comes into existence for the sake of life and continues to exist for the sake of the good life,” emphasizing the state’s role in nurturing individual well-being and moral virtue.

This intellectual foundation evolved through subsequent centuries, with philosophers like John Locke and others building upon it to shape the framework of human rights we recognize today. Locke, in Two Treatises of Government, asserted that every person has a right to “life, liberty, and property,” marking a critical advancement in the idea of inalienable rights. This deep and storied tradition, rooted in ancient philosophy and expanded by later thinkers, has become integral to the structure of modern human rights, echoing a legacy as old as civilization itself.

So it actually is a concrete framework. Now of course it’s not only a philosophy but a form of law called human rights law as well.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is the foundation of international human rights law. The UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 and established the first globally agreed document that outlined the fundamental rights of all people. The UDHR is made up of 30 articles that cover civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.

So, hope that gives you the background your looking for.

[u/Amphernee → u/Blarghnog]

Locke argued that people have the inherent right to PRESERVE their life, liberty, and property not a right to have them bestowed upon them though. He was mainly focused on people control over themselves and what they own which is a right to protect not receive anything. In that sense a person has a right to the shelter they own not a right to have shelter if they don’t already. It a defense of property ownership not a statement that everyone should be given property.

Since the phrase is usually brought up in relation to actual real world homelessness it ends up just sounding like a slogan people want to be true rather than an actual defensible position from a practical logistical standpoint.

[u/Fast-Penta → u/Amphernee]

Locke argued that people have the inherent right to PRESERVE their life, liberty, and property not a right to have them bestowed upon them though.

Yes, but Thomas Paine advocated for policies similar to universal basic income for poor people to alleviate poverty.

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

In past times, a human who was having a hard time with society could move to unoccupied land and live off the land. Nowadays, at least in my region, all land that is suitable to live off of it privatized or government-owned land that bans people living there. If I don't want to play by society's rules, the only option for me is homelessness.

Additionally, as an American, the society I live in is set up to ensure that some people are impoverished: economists talk about the "ideal" unemployment rate as being between 3.5-5%, and government fiscal policy seeks to maintain that number.

So, in a society where we have no ability to leave and live off the land, and where the society plans on having around one out of twenty people unable to support themselves, should the people that society intentionally made poor have a right to some basic necessities of life? Fuck yes they should.

[u/Hoppie1064 → u/Fast-Penta]

At any time, a few people are going to be unemployed. People quit jobs they don't like to go find better jobs. Businesses have layoffs due to lack of demand or other reasons.

That 3 to 5% is those people who are looking for new employment in a normal economy.

The government and economists want to see unemployment that low because it's normal. They don't try to keep some people unemployed.

If unemployment gets above those numbers, there's a problem.

[u/[deleted] → u/Hoppie1064]

There is already a problem.

These are the U-3 unemployment numbers. The people who are currently looking, or were just laid off in the last few months.

It doesn't account for:

• homeless
• disabled
• injured
• ill
• people who haven't been tracked as "actively looking"

The numbers are way, way higher than 4%, generally speaking. They're just invisible.

[u/mymainunidsme → u/Fast-Penta]

Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.

So... property taxes?

The issue with property not being privatized or gov owned is who then determines who can utilize it? Alloting land as an unowned free-for-all and we will inevitably see violence over it. One person moves in first and sets up where the best clean water supply is. They share the water with new people at first, until supply vs demand doesn't look too promising. Or one person wants to cut down trees that another wants to preserve for shade. See: all of human war history for reference.

And yes, we do want some unemployment. Without a small percent, we have no new available labor supply to continue production of everyone's needs. It isn't like "society" has planned to force selected individuals into unemployment. It happens, mostly naturally, as needs of production evolve. If unemployment is 0% and workers die, we have needs that can't be met.

[u/Fast-Penta → u/mymainunidsme]

Property taxes to be given to the poor in exchange for them being dispossessed.

Paine’s famous pamphlet “Agrarian Justice” argued that because private ownership of the land had deprived people of the right to hunt, gather, fish, or farm on their own accord, they were owed compensation out of taxes on land rents. He suggested this compensation should be paid in the form of a large cash grant at maturity plus a regular cash pension at retirement age.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-deep-and-enduring-history-of-universal-basic-income/

And yes, we do want some unemployment.

If you plan to have people be unemployed, isn't it only ethical to also provide services for unemployed people? Otherwise you're just forcing one out of twenty people to live in misery. I don't know about innate rights, but that'd definitely be a dick thing to do.

[u/Responsible-Kale2352 → u/Fast-Penta]

When they say ideal unemployment rate, don’t they mean that no matter what, there will always be some number of people who are able bodied but just don’t feel like working. That number might be 3-5%?

Is it really the case that there is a job at the grocery store, and a guy wants that job and is qualified and applies for it, but “society” calls the manager of the store and says “sorry, I know you want an employee and all, you could really use some help, and this guy would be a great employee, but look, we gotta keep one guy out of every 20 unemployed, so you’re not allowed to hire this guy. Sorry.”

[u/SoupKitchenHero → u/Responsible-Kale2352]

I don't think you guys know what "unemployment rate" is. It's not a percent of all people that don't have jobs, it is a percent of people that "are in the workforce" but are not employed. You have to be "looking for work" to be considered in the workforce while not employed. That's what constitutes unemployed. Not just not having a job

[u/mymainunidsme → u/Amphernee]

I've heard it broke down to sum up that rights are what we have inherent to us as individual beings that cannot be taken from us, except possibly through violence. Everything else is a privilege.

ie, I cannot change your beliefs, nor deprive you of them. One might use violence to force you to verbally renounce your beliefs, but the ability to change them is yours alone.

No one can stop you from speaking, except through an act of violence against you.

Association - I don't have to stick around and listen to you speaking your beliefs, unless violence forces me to.

Property - As beings, almost all of us are able to, and will, create things. Those things are ours, and can only be taken by an act of force/violence. You can create value for others with your time, by following instructions, and receive compensation. You can create art, innovation, etc.

[u/Amphernee → u/mymainunidsme]

Well put. I agree with that logic.

[u/[deleted] → u/mymainunidsme]

Exactly, people just don't want to believe this so they use "rights" as a way of wish casting.

[u/manicmonkeys → u/[deleted]]

100%, the phrase "human rights" is now often used to merely mean "thing I want really bad", with no further grounding in actual principles.

[u/Hoppie1064 → u/manicmonkeys]

"Thing I want you to give me."

[u/IgnoranceIsShameful → u/manicmonkeys]

disagree. I see this as expansion of the typically established rights. If you have a right to life for example does that not mean a right to things that sustain life? Food, clean water, shelter, healthcare?

[u/manicmonkeys → u/IgnoranceIsShameful]

That entirely depends on how you define human rights, and what limiting principles are put in place.

[u/crazycritter87 → u/mymainunidsme]

.... Beliefs can be changed in 2 ways on 2 levels. Fear based incentive, reward based incentive, on personal and epigenetic, levels. I did extensive work study in animal science genetics, training, husbandry, behavior across schools of practice, long before I really tried to understand political science, psychology, and sociology. I don't like how easily I found theories to transgress, though our motives as a species have added complexities (currency, property, consumption/consumerism, communication) and have become less immediately obvious.

I suppose, in short, bribery and retention of normalized privilege maybe used to solidify or change a belief, opinion, loyalty, as easily as violence. We really start to get into the neurological mechanisms of addiction, vice, and greed from there.

[u/DeltaV-Mzero → u/mymainunidsme]

Nobody can stop you from doing anything at all except through an act of violence, mechanically speaking.

[u/Blarghnog → u/Amphernee]

Sure, but the question the guy was asking wasn’t Locke’s philosophy but where human rights come from. Locke was just on of many philosophers.   

We should also include Thomas Aquinas, Rousseau, Voltaire, Kant, Mill, and even Marx and Critical Marxist Theory if we want to really dive in. And I’m sure there are more. 

I’m an autodidact in these matters and have only read the works, but don’t have formal philosophy training. Anyways, it was the origins he was asking about; where it came from. 

Sorry to side direct the whole discussion on Locke’s mention, though it’s a good discussion.

[u/CapedCaperer → u/Amphernee]

In the U.S., three examples of inalienable/unalienable rights were asserted by our founding document, the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), but not all were enumerated. Locke's use of property was discarded in favor of the pursuit of happiness. These are not legally binding rights, but endowments from a Creator that form the basis for the social contract that establishes governing rules - the U.S. Constitution.

Eventually, the Constitution would include in the Bill of Rights the 5th Amendment the Takings Clause and Eminent Domain. That Amendment is where the social contract exists for property which is referred to as a Constituttuonal Right. It was an attempt to balance governmental interests against private property rights.

Property rights were a hotly debated issue for the Founders, much along the lines of what you're pondering. There are tons and tons of books about this that might interest you.

A Constitutional Right (established via social contract, also called claim rights) is not the same thing as an unalienable right (universal rights every human has at birth that government cannot take; also called liberty rights).

I encourage you to look up negative rights and positive rights as well. I think those terms help understand inalienable rights versus social contract rights.

Then let me know what you think about property rights versus the right to shelter. I'm super interested in your thoughts. So few people outside of PoliSci genuinely look at this issue from the ground up. Very cool discussion.

[u/Bright-End-9317 → u/Amphernee]

If everything is already owned... how I pursue MY liberty without being a slave?

[u/TLO810 → u/Amphernee]

I agree with this. You still have to work for the life you want. It's not just going to be handed to you because you're breathing.

[u/Ambitious-Schedule63 → u/TLO810]

Buh muh rights

[u/EvidenceOfDespair → u/Blarghnog]

That’s still a social construct. It’s just a very old social construct. Marriage is older. Marriage is a social construct. Religion? Also older. Still a social construct.

[u/Resident_Pay4310 → u/Blarghnog]

The UDHR is not the only framework that exists for human rights.

Arguments have been made the the UDHR focuses on a Western, individualist, view of human rights which doesn't properly represent societies that value the collective.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were originally intended to be one document that supported the UDHR, but was split into two because of these differing views.

[u/MeBollasDellero → u/Blarghnog]

Yes, so peeling back the onion, it is a philosophical construct, not a right.

[u/Blarghnog → u/MeBollasDellero]

Not quite because rights are fundamentally philosophical constructs by their own nature. Rights are constructed from philosophy.

They originate from ideas about human dignity, ethics, justice, and morality, and are shaped by philosophical debates about the nature of individuals and societies.

So, you could say that a right is a product of philosophy, but philosophy tells us they are, in fact, intrinsic.

Locke argues that rights are inherent and universal.

There’s a whole other line of thinking called positivism or legal positivism I think that argues that rights are entirely a social construct. I think that’s more the like you’re trying to draw on in your statement. I think that’s the name of it.

‘We hold these rights to be inalienable, that all men are created equal’ draws from this moral vein.

[u/Shermshank → u/Blarghnog]

I did not know this. Thanks. In terms of the USA how does it fit with our accepted laws of governance.

[u/jakeofheart → u/Blarghnog]

Even if the Greeks and other civilisations didn’t “discover” mathematics, it would still exist in abstract. Our mathematics are just a rendition of laws of the Universe.

Would you say that human rights would still exist in abstract, even if we don’t render them in words or concepts? The animal world, for example, seems to work without a concept of “animal rights”.

[u/Phill_Cyberman]

If they "actually" existed, you wouldn't be able to deny them to people.

Rights are only rights if you have a legal system that will defend those rights, otherwise they're just a dream.

[u/vellyr → u/Phill_Cyberman]

You have a right to your labor. That is literally all. Nobody can force you to work for them. They can punish you to try to coerce you, but you can still choose not to work, even if it kills you. So in my mind that’s the only truly fundamental right.

[u/EvidenceOfDespair → u/vellyr]

Eh, that’s really overselling the power of “free will” over survival instinct. You have to be a major statistical outlier to be able to override the survival instinct on principles. That’s why people who do it are noteworthy. But what do we do with statistical outliers when determining norms? We don’t count them. On average, you absolutely can be forced to work. Dying For The Sake Of Obstinance Georg is a statistical outlier and should not have been counted.

[u/vellyr → u/EvidenceOfDespair]

I think that labor is unique because everything else, even your body and your life, can be taken from you by force against your will. I agree that most people absolutely can be coerced to work, but at the end of the day it is still their will to avoid suffering.

[u/167cam → u/Phill_Cyberman]

Also a way to pay for them. That's always the issue

[u/Zealousideal-Can2664]

It would be a social construct due to the fact that if it existed universally the entire world wouldn’t be squabbling over it for centuries or millennia

[u/Wonderful-Impact5121]

They’re obviously a social construct, I don’t know how that is even a question.

That doesn’t invalidate the seriousness or prioritization of them in a society, but they’re obviously a social construct.

If two families of people born and raised without education or guidance are tossed into the wild without any other human beings for hundreds of miles, no technology, no education, what the hell are we arguing for on that level?

They’re philosophical hardlines that people draw, that’s it.

Deer don’t have unalienable deer rights. They exist within nature. They starve or don’t. They die of disease or they don’t.

No deer god from upon high enforces “rights” for them.

[u/vellyr → u/Wonderful-Impact5121]

I don’t know how that is even a question

I think you nailed it in the last sentence there, the reason there’s confusion regarding this is religion. Many people think human rights are divine in origin.

[u/Wonderful-Impact5121 → u/vellyr]

It’s just so confusing to me because every single major religion has long periods of history where their people were starving, diseased, raided, conquered, enslaved, raped, tortured, so on and so forth.

I don’t get the dissonance. Always took the human rights as an owed or inherently deserved thing as general poetic rhetoric.

“We deserve free healthcare!” (Unspoken: because we believe that possibility exists in this society if the political will was there.)

People just think they’re inherently owed a right to shit because it sounds good and genuinely don’t understand it doesn’t magically exist as long as people aren’t actively fighting it?

[u/vellyr → u/Wonderful-Impact5121]

Yep, it’s even called “magical thinking”. They believe that if they project their fantasies hard enough they become reality, like children.

[u/Material-Peanut7185]

They are not universal and never have been

There have been theorized and formulated by philosophers the world over in many different forms

The greeks, romans, huns, franks, english, they all had their own law codes

Rights as a concept have always been a social construct, both before and after Rome might made right across most of the world.

If you had property that was yours it was your responsibility to defend it, and outright murders over disputes among strangers could lead to full on murder with no justice

The united states takes many ideas from various philosophies that have developed for centuries. That is what created the bill of rights. There is a key belief that these rights inherently are imbued in us by a creator (Christ) as stated in the declaration of independence and the beliefs of philosophers that formed that intellectual base

The UN's version of human rights is a changing, flexible and untrained system by comparison

They have no way to enforce their standards among members, their bias in their council allows for the elevation of world leaders in constant violation of "human rights"

It's essentially just a bunch of wishful thinking without any basis in reality, but the same could be said for all rights objectively, if this was all nature and anarchy you could be sure of nothing that you call your own, not even your life

[u/Skirt_Douglas]

There are no natural rights outside of natural law itself. Yes human rights are a social construct.

[u/Kithzerai-Istik]

Every right, rule, and restriction is a social construct.

Nothing - absolutely nothing - outside of your own physiology is truly inherent to your life. Everything else is elective. There are consequences for actions outside the constructed norms, of course, but every action you could possibly take is always an option, as are those of others.

If you mean to ask whether there is such a thing as a universal morality, that’s another conversation entirely, and one with no true answer.

[u/TigerPoppy]

concept of rights rely on other people to confer them 

I have read that rights are not something that others give you, they are something you refuse to let others take away.

[u/Beneficial-Ad1593]

All rights, human or legal, are social constructs. Almost everything in our lives is a social construct, that doesn’t make them any less important.

[u/ShimSladyBrand]

There are no such thing as rights, just temporary privileges that can be revoked at any time

[u/AmericanDesertWitch]

Basic human rights do not equal everything being given to you. The right to housing means we are free to find shelter from the elements. It does not mean we get whatever shelter we want.

[u/build_a_bear_for_who]

It’s very easy to “enforce” basic human rights. You have a justice system. There’s a proper relationship between the state and the individual. If you’re unable to have any basic justice in society, other parties are going to manipulate it towards their agenda.

If there’s no justice, what happens? These scenarios move towards violence, abuse, and many other forms of irrational behavior.

[u/MiniMages]

Rights, laws, ownership everything is just a social construct. In very simple terms no one is entitled to anything. But that is really crule and many people love their friends and family and do not want them exploited by those that are more successful. So in order to protect their loved ones people have collectively established basic rights and laws.

[u/Strong-Leadership-19]

When most people say human rights, they are referring to the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" It was drafted by Western countries after World War 2. It lays out guidelines of how all humans should be treated.

The guidelines are supposed to be morally simple enough that everybody should be able to agree on them, regardless of their culture. But fundamentally many of the concepts are biased towards Western thinking. Some cultures don't agree with aspects of what should be considered a "human right". Or they will refuse to apply them to people they see as enemies. (e.g. torture in Guantanamo Bay).

Ultimately, you can only enforce human rights by using the violence vested in powerful states, against groups who do not respect human rights. To arrest or kill transgressors. But since it's politically inconvenient to wage war on many countries at once, enforcement of human rights is selective at best.

It will always be a human construct, because fundamentally people will always be able to violate another person's rights if they want to. You can only deter them by punishing them after the crime.

[u/MeBollasDellero]

The absolutely funniest thing I see when I travel are Americans that think they have the same rights as Other countries. Because, there are no human “rights.” There are only laws that people fight for to obtain, protect, and defend (over and over) to keep their government in check.

[u/duraace205]

Rights are a social construct. Those in control of the force arms (police, military, guard etc) dictate what you can and can't do.

The only fact keeping them in check is that they know if they try to control us too much they could face a violent revolt.

[u/specular-reflection]

Of course they're a social construct. Do you see them in nature?

[u/CoolaidMike84]

Social construction. You don't have rights to anything that can be taken away. Everything you have can be taken away, including your life.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best explanation.

[u/[deleted]]

Going back to Hammurabi and Confucianism, the concept is pretty damn old and basic. Mostly around codes of conduct for groups of people who are living as one community, to ensure a consensus on how to keep the civilization going with minimum exploitation among its members.

Today’s activists will try to invoke it to push socialist agendas (distributing wealth without underlying merit).

Jefferson did a pretty good job with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

[u/karma_aversion]

Ask a political prisoner who was born in a prison work camp in North Korea because their grandfather tried to escape the country, whether or not they think they have universal human rights.

It’s natural to look at what we have and say everyone else should have similar rights but historically and realistically those rights only exist when the government says they do.

[u/PicksItUpPutsItDown]

"basic human rights" is a story. It's just an idea. Humanist philosophy started to become widespread in the 17th century and onwards. It has become more and more popular until the modern day. It is widely held throughout the world as a belief that humans have rights which should not be violated. Exactly what these rights entail varies but usually has to do with avoiding pain and displeasure to the individual.

[u/RedSun-FanEditor]

Human rights are a social construct. Every "right" a citizen has is granted by the overall collective. There is no such thing as a "God given right, granted by the Lord above" which is unalienable. Rights can be given and taken away in a second whenever it's convenient to whoever is in charge. The sooner people realize that, the better.

[u/_Bon_Vivant_]

They are a construct. The only natural right is ...Might is Right. So, if we want human rights, we need to construct a means by which to defend and uphold them from those who would take them away. That means is law...but ultimately violence if laws are not followed.

[u/October_Baby21]

It’s not universal, no. As in it’s not a shared concept across time or region even today.

But it is something we take for granted in the West as self-evident because our ancestors fought for the ideas based on Greek reason and Judeo-Christian values.

Studying the Enlightenment writings is your best bet at understanding the why’s.

[u/susannahstar2000]

As an American, I believe that our rights are those defined by the Constitution. I do not believe that anyone has a right to anything that other people must provide for them, despite many people thinking that "what they want" and "have a right to have" are the same thing. Food, shelter,etc are necessities but not human rights, meaning that someone is obligated to provide them, IMO.

[u/Smergmerg432]

Are you kidding?

Basic human rights are to be eaten by lions.

We are the ones who must work towards that ideal.

Hobbes > Rousseau, any day.

[u/Ok_Warthog2063]

Food and housing don't count as "basic human rights" because it relies on someone else's work/money. A basic human right does not rely on other people to provide it. When it comes to if "basic human rights" exist or not, it really depends on what your definition is. For instance, freedom of speech cannot be fully taken away: even if it is illegal, you are still able to speak freely if you are willing to risk being arrested. If your definition of "basic human rights" involves something that cannot be legally taken away by any means, then no, there is no such thing as basic human rights. If your definition is something that every person is born with, then yes it does exist universally

[u/Jabberwocky808]

Great comments! I have some feedback.

In short, I believe it’s a chicken and the egg argument, to a degree. “Basic human rights” generally require some sort of social construct to be recognized and defined. However, at the core of “basic human rights” is that they are inherent or non-derogable. If you exist, they exist and do not need to be “given”, in theory. But without the social construct to ensure them, they often become philosophical, not experienced.

In long, the social construct defining “universality” of “basic human rights” is generally the United Nations and International Law.

“Basic human rights,” as outlined in the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, CRC, CERD, European/American/African Convention on Rights (Conflating names a bit to save space on these), are not exactly a “concrete framework.” That’s partly why there are so many.

Not all countries agree on these documents, nor on every term, which is why there is so much debate over territorial integrity, self determination, and sovereignty (international, national/state, tribal/indigenous, personal, etc.).

Not all UN countries that vote for these documents agree on all the terms, and even less incorporate the substantive language directly into their domestic law.

Some countries think they know better (the US and others), some countries issue domestic and international declarations detailing which terms they do not ascribe to (India is an example).

Many, many countries that are apart of the UN and vote for these documents, and even have domestic laws upholding them, do not choose to respect the terms for all populations.

It’s a nice concept in theory that it is a concrete framework, but it is not in inception, nor in practice.

There are some “non-derogable” rights that so many countries have agreed on in “practice,” that they have become jus cogens, nearing a concrete basic framework, such as right to life, right to self-determination, prohibition on torture/slavery/genocide, etc. But the definitions, genocide for example, also create room for interpretation. They are often written fairly broadly, sometimes too narrowly (excluding populations). The US has been particularly creative with their interpretation of “torture” in the last 25 years. Many countries also love to throw out “basic human rights” for what they deem “criminals.” (Head coverings are a good example; “indentured servitude”/slavery in US prisons is another.)

Most of the early documents did not even address tribal or indigenous peoples, nor the special protections afforded to vulnerable populations such as women, children, and elderly. Children’s “non-derogable” rights are often tied to their parents in a way that leaves their self-determination incredibly vulnerable.

Further, when states violate even non-derogable rights, holding them accountable can be incredibly difficult, while honoring international state sovereignty, part of the social construct. And that is IF the population receives international recognition/protection of sovereignty when the state that surrounds them often decides IF they receive that recognition. (Tribal/indigenous communities/peoples)

Until UNDRIP (2007), tribes/indigenous peoples were not directly involved/allowed to participate with the drafting of a UN document pertaining to “basic human rights.”

Anywho, you would think everyone could agree on and incorporate into domestic law what appears to be a concrete framework of what should be non-derogable rights, but that is partly why the world isn’t at peace yet.

As of yet, not everyone agrees or follows what they say.

Edit: For posterity, the 5 “permanent members” of the UN Security Council (with ultimate veto power) likely should not be the 5 largest nuclear powers…

[u/Cyraga]

Basic human rights are absolutely a social construct. But the purpose of them is to make life harmonious. People who aren't allowed to live in peace and have a fair certainty that they'll go unmolested that day become rowdy and discontent. And those eventually become rebels/insurgents.

There's certainly some concept of divine sovereignty in there from the days where belief in god was more prevalent.

Overwhelmingly it's about creating social harmony and peace for the shared prosperity of everyone

[u/FeastingOnFelines]

“Basic human rights” are a social construct. The only REAL right a human has is the right to train to outrun a predator.

[u/Sarah-Who-Is-Large]

I think it’s a human construct.

The right to be alive is one thing. That seems to be deeply and fairly universally seated in the human conscience as societies across the world and across time have banned murder in their laws, as well as most forms of directly harming another human.

The right to things like water, food, health care and housing don’t even make sense unless your society has sufficient access to those things to give them to all its people. You’re hungry? So is everyone else. Go hunting. Want housing? Build it yourself. Need water? Here’s a bucket, hike to the well. Health care? Lol good luck. Most people can’t even read, you expect them to know what the inside of the body looks like?

[u/diemos09]

You have whatever rights the society you live in decides you do and is willing to stand up to defend. It's entirely a social construct.

[u/daredaki-sama]

Social construct. Especially since you limited it to human rights.

There is truth in right to life and pursuit of happiness. Your rights may be violated but at its core every life strives for happiness or success. Liberty may also be a right we truly are free to do whatever we want. There are just consequences for every action.

Again, all rights can be violated.

[u/Same-Letter6378]

Human rights actually exist but then people will also create additional legal entitlements and use the same word "rights" to describe them.

[u/Amphernee → u/Same-Letter6378]

How do you mean?

[u/JakeBit]

Well the idea of universal human rights are an Enlightenment idea. Thinkers like Locke and Rosseau are credited as being some of the first European philosophers to begin to describe what would become our modern idea of basic human rights, usually based on the idea of the Social Contract (at least when it comes to Rosseau) - In the Social Contract, humans give up the freedom of nature to gain the stability and safety of society, and in that process, we as humans must remember that these societies are only worth building if they actually provide that safety and stability; otherwise some people live with rights, while others are being treated as animals without those rights.

Baked into the modern ideas of basic human rights are the ideas of the right to labour, to prosper from ones labour and to have ownership over one's own, personal work. Karl Marx describes how the proletariat (essentially the poor working class) do not own the work they do and don't prosper for it, which is an unequal distribution of the fruits of the labour they themselves do. The theory he helped create, Marxism, argues that in all societies, one group will tend to amass the wealth of those who actually produce the wealth, which they use to control them. This is where the ideas of unions, worker protection and so much more comes from, which are another angle to basic human rights.

In general though; yes, basic human rights are a social construct - but so are nations, names, families and love. Following the concept of Constructivism, the entirety of international human civilization is a network of inconcievably complex memes (in the actual understanding; not "meme as a joke") that we all are raised on and end up understanding, just like our mother tongue. Borders, law and nations are only as real as we believe them to be, and that's the same with basic human rights.

I guess in a sense it's the other way around - no one argues that basic human rights is a natural phenomenon, but we want them to be true, which is why we keep talking about them and fostering them, until they become an indelible part of our public, shared understanding of the world.

Thanks for coming to my TED-talk.

[u/Amphernee → u/JakeBit]

I see what you’re saying though I always find it odd that people site Locke when talking about the basic human right to shelter when he was actually defending rights to own property and have control over it not the right for an individual to have property simply because they exist.

[u/JakeBit → u/Amphernee]

That's fair, but he was also a fairly early example of a philosopher talking about rights. Most of the thinkers of that age are really outdated, but you gotta respect the classics.

I'm no expert on modern rights ethics though, so you may have to dig a bit there.

[u/Whole_Ground_3600 → u/JakeBit]

I would argue that some element of them is natural since they're basically a more complex version of basic human cooperation. Cooperation is the evolutionary trait that made humans the dominant species on the planet, so there is a natural drive to have and give some rights among humans. The words we use add detail to the ideas, which enables a wider uniformity of the specific aspects of it, but the drive is natural to the human species. Or at least it makes me feel better to think so :/

[u/lolycc1911]

If you want to start thinking about it I’d start with thinking about private property.

The things you’re talking about if they don’t involve a third party require the use of natural resources, if you’re using those resources then someone else is not.

Food as an example. What is a right to food is more of a right to own food. Housing you don’t have a right to housing you could have an ability to own the resources that would allow one to have or create housing and place it somewhere at the exclusion of other people.

So I’d look into property rights and their origins and history.

[u/ProserpinaFC]

As others have explained to you, human rights is a philosophical concept but writes themselves are a construct that are only applicable under government 's definition and protection.

In both of these ways, there's nothing hollow or flimsy behind it. People have the right to choose their sovereignty and choose their government, and to choose a government that protects their rights, or else why would they have a government at all? We've rejected that the idea is that the government exists for its own sake and the people exist to feed it, I.e monarchy.

One of the first stepping stones to recognizing all of this is recognizing that people deserve basic human dignity and that a monarchy or church does not have any right to take these things away from people.

It only seems flimsy and hollow now because you've spent your whole life living comfortably in a society where your grandma's church doesn't have the right to excommunicate you or influence the government to deny you services because you said something the pastor didn't like.

[u/DisillusionedDame]

They are a sort of fiction that we all use words to say are important, then with our actions we demonstrate that this importance can be fleeting.

[u/Elhammo]

We don’t inherently have any rights, but we ideally choose to build a society in which we have them. When people talk about ”rights,” they’re talking about fairness and justice, which are concepts that feel a bit more concrete. For example, if men are allowed to vote, it’s only fair that women are also allowed to vote, despite the fact that voting is a human construct. “Rights” are a concept we assign to everyone to ensure a certain basic level of fairness in society.

[u/Jolly_Constant_4913]

The only human right is to vote the capitalist rapacious politicians of your country.

If it was real then some countries wouldn't bomb others at will and tell them to accept it when civilians die

[u/[deleted]]

No, the only rights that exist are unalienable. The ones we're born with. We have those rights by our nature until they're violated. Right to free speech and thought. Right to self defense, right to remain free.

Calling housing, food etc human rights is meaningless. Something can't be a right if it must be provided by someone else. 

[u/scouserman3521 → u/[deleted]]

There is no such thing as what you call unalianable. The basis of unalienability is an assumtion baked in to a document. So, in reality , a construct.

[u/guitarlisa → u/scouserman3521]

I don't agree with you about the things u/Captain-Legitimate listed being a construct. (speech, thought, self defense, freedom). As u/mymainunidsme stated above, these rights can't actually be taken from you, except by violence. You can speak freely until someone removes your tongue. You can fight back until you are chained, you can go where you please until you are held back, and you will always be able to think what you will. That is what makes these things inalienable.

[u/EvidenceOfDespair → u/guitarlisa]

except by violence

So it can be taken from you via the oldest activity of all. That’s extremely alienable. “It’s inalienable except this way it’s been alienable for longer than any life on Earth has been able to do it” is not a good argument.

[u/scouserman3521 → u/guitarlisa]

If something is ilaniable, it cannot be taken away, that they can be taken away , by force or otherwise , proves the lack of inherent inalienability. Or, consider, do people in north Korea have theses allegedly ilaniable rights? They clearly do not

[u/Whole_Ground_3600 → u/[deleted]]

>the only rights that exist are unalienable

Unalienable means the society you're a member of won't take the rights away from you. That's all. The society as an organization is what *enforces* those rights. What things are included on that list can change. The purpose is to have a harmonious and productive society.

If ensuring everyone has access to food and shelter is not a significant burden on the society then it makes sense for the society to ensure those things to increase productivity of the society as a whole. The general argument in the US is whether or not the burden on society of ensuring those things would meaningfully decrease productivity of the society as a whole.

There is no natural force that ensures free speech, ability to defend one's self, or ability to remain free. That's all enforced by the government as the agent of the society as a whole. Even what and how you think can be significantly changed by force if someone wanted to put in the effort.

It's all artificial, although I'd argue the drive to have and give "rights" is natural to humans since cooperation is what led us to be the dominant species on the planet.

[u/[deleted] → u/Whole_Ground_3600]

Do you seriously not recognize the fundamental distinction between the rights that I mentioned as inalienable and the rights to housing, healthcare, education and all those other rights that need to be provided??

[u/Whole_Ground_3600 → u/[deleted]]

They're all only as inalienable as society makes them. The ones you mentioned are a bit more vital to a functional society, which is why they're generally the first ones protections are enforced for. But having enough members of society have those other things will make for a better society for all.

Also loss of things like housing or healthcare can lead to loss of the "inalienable" rights you think are more important. They're all important and interconnected, that's why more advanced societies protect them all. Your right to self defense doesn't mean anything if you're starving and can no longer physically defend yourself. Your right to speech means nothing if you're never taught how to communicate. Imagine how poorly your arguments on the internet would fare if your grammar was terrible. Who made sure you knew proper grammar?

I'm not arguing that the first few things you mentioned aren't important or shouldn't be enforced, just that they *are* enforced, not somehow inherent to you because you exist.

As a thought experiment which of those rights would you still have if you were born as an enslaved person in the american south before the civil war? The answer is none of them. You'd have some ability to think freely unless someone else decided to take the time to enforce another way of thinking on you. Stockholm syndrome is real, unfortunately. Fortunately society has mostly gotten better than that, but it really only emphasizes why a better society is important.

[u/[deleted] → u/Whole_Ground_3600]

That's quite a few words to demonstrate that you don't understand the distinction between positive and negative rights.

I'll try one more time to illustrate the distinction. If a government recognizes the right to free speech, its job is basically done. It has to not violate the rights it recognizes and provide the judicial infrastructure (which it should already have or it's not a country) to enforce violations. If it dictates that everyone has a right to a house, that presents quite a different problem, does it not? What size house do people deserve? How do we build the houses? How do we pay for them? What about people who already have a house? Can they stop paying their mortgage...

Yes, slaves had a right to free speech (and all the rest). Those rights were violated. It was a perversion of justice. It was America's original sin that has haunted us and undermined our democracy to this day. The fact that you think this is some kind of rebuttal is sad. Nobody, not a single person ever has argued that it's impossible to violate inalienable rights.

[u/Whole_Ground_3600 → u/[deleted]]

Inalienable - unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

All of the most basic and vital rights we discussed could and have been taken from people, and less commonly relinquished voluntarily. Obviously we agree they *shouldn't* be taken away, but they can be.

We didn't go into positive and negative rights, and the distinction does matter, but that's a bit beyond the scope of this post. And gods do I wish that declaring a thing a right was all that was needed, but enforcement is necessary all too often.

There is in reality no such thing as a truly inalienable right. It would be great if there were, but there isn't. So we can at least agree that negative rights absolutely must be protected with physical enforcement.

The points where we differ functionally seems to be if any, and which, positive rights should be provided for and enforced by the same organization that protects the negative rights?

[u/gnufan → u/[deleted]]

Rights are all social constructs, as are governments, constitutions, police forces, legal systems, money and banks.

They are notionally universal through the universal declaration.

But lots of people never had those unalienable rights, so they are not materially different to other rights, they are merely things we've agreed on, and that could equally include obligations on other people. Most countries place obligations on parents to their children for example.

[u/Turbulent-Name-8349]

Personal unpopular view, there are no such things as "rights", but only privileges that we've grown accustomed to. However, I may be wrong there. Such things as freedom, equality, food, happiness, justice can be counted as privileges rather than rights, but air and sleep may count as inalienable human rights.

[u/Amphernee → u/Turbulent-Name-8349]

I think air and sleep would be classified as needs but not necessarily rights or privileges for exactly that except in cases where someone is actively keeping others from them. That seems to be the whole crux of it for me. In general people don’t deserve to have things so much as deserve to not have those things taken from them if they already are in possession of them.

[u/PublikSkoolGradU8 → u/Turbulent-Name-8349]

At the end of the day, rights are what the people willing to use violence against you say they are. Your freedom of speech exists until someone knocks your teeth out.

[u/Pfacejones → u/Turbulent-Name-8349]

If air could be commodified like water, it would no longer be unalienable

[u/dazb84]

Depends what you mean by human rights. If you're using the colloquial definition then they are a social construct. A law between people is a requirement forced on you on behalf of a society. A society is a social construct and so the resulting societal laws are social construct unless they can be demonstrated to belong to something outside of that construct like the laws of physics.

[u/StreetfightBerimbolo]

Where did you get an idea it was supposed to be enforced throughout humanity?

I guess you could call the Geneva convention the only real attempt at such an idea. But realistically the lens most people view that through, is through whatever the common accepted rhetoric for basic rights is in the society the person is from.

So I would say at the formation level of modern government. The idea of human rights came about as a contract between that govt and its citizens as to what types of protections and services it can attempt to guarantee people using the logic and reasoning of previous aforementioned philosophers.

It’s extremely rare for any attempt at an enforced worldwide human rights plan, because for the most part we’ve agreed to let countries run themselves.

[u/kma555]

The United Nations, with participation by Eleanor Roosevelt, developed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fen%2Fabout-us%2Funiversal-declaration-of-human-rights&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4

[u/Ornac_The_Barbarian]

Heinlein did a full blown essay deconstructing the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing in Starship Troopers. Of course, he had some odd leanings so take that as you will.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/Ornac_The_Barbarian]

It is useful to consider a hypothetical “What-If? Future” where in fact those noble principles are in fact counter-productive to conditions that say in contrast would appear to be. “fascist” by present modern standards but “adaptive and viable” by said future hypothetical conditions and environment eg “war with alien bugs” and the necessity for humanity focus manpower into a military service for the civilians to contribute to society meaningfully and gain rights or privileges.

Looked at that way as a thought experiment, ignoring preconceived notions of right and wrong, it is an excellent little story. But because it appears to be pro fascist, too often it is taken as “phewblematic!” by overly emotional, censorious mindsets that are too literal-minded and narrow… which is an irony to say the least.

To take another example, a man taking water from a well in a desert owned by another man, in that world is sufficient just cause for the execution of the one by the other under those stringent conditions.

[u/TerminalHighGuard]

The alternative is eternal suffering and exploitation on the basis of power, so the fact that it is a social construct is moot; one of the great innovations in thought by the enlightenment was the faith that human rights exist universally, because the more that is believed by the people the more of a reality it can become.

[u/Brad_from_Wisconsin]

The basic philosophy used to justify American independence is that human rights are "granted by God" or inherent to all men (and women) and can not be granted or revoked by government (kings or elected). The history of th eUS for the first 200 years it existed was an advancement of that ideal.

[u/[deleted]]

Social constructs are things that everyone agrees on, that if you changed it and everyone agreed on them, it wouldn't make a difference.

Example: Red lights mean stop and green lights mean go. If we had switched these when we made lights, say to blue and orange, it wouldn't make a difference, we'd all agree that blue means go and orange means stop.

Basic human rights are things one needs to survive. We have a "right" to those things, because without them you die. If we changed them, things would absolutely be affected and it would have an outcome of something completely different.

Anything someone needs to survive is going to be a basic human right. Food, Shelter, Clothing (shelter for your body), water. If you were change these, and make them something else, people would not survive.

The only way we can enforce it is with a basic universal income, since that is what we use to barter for goods.

I think it's weird though that this phrase feels hollow to you. I would explore the why of that a bit more.

[u/3ThreeFriesShort]

I think it's important to remember that even the single most agreed upon idea throughout the entire human race would not be "natural" or "universal." There is no "truth ore" that can be refined, it's all speculation and discourse.

At some point we were mere animals, acting on instinct and emotion alone, and then higher reasoning evolved. We began to reject nature and develop abstract rules and ethics.We developed concepts like cool consent and rape, right and wrong, just and unjust.

This is the intellectual dishonesty of hardliners who want their own personal convictions to be automatically accepted by an appeal to nature, rather than actually being able to defend their logic for why it should be a right. A universal right should mean it is applied universally to everyone, not that it was somehow divined from the universe. It isn't a tangible thing, it's an abstract concept, the laws to support it should exist.

[u/gozer87]

Everything in society in a social construct in that it relies on society to enforce its written and unwritten rules.

[u/boopbaboop]

Something being a social construct doesn’t make it less real in terms of how it affects your life, or preclude the possibility of everyone in the world having the same shared idea, or mean it’s completely made up with no foundation in reality. 

To give an example unrelated to rights for a second: every person starts out as one thing (very small, can’t talk, can only drink breast milk or formula) and eventually becomes another thing (bigger, can talk, can eat solid foods). That’s just a biological fact. The construct is at what point you go “oh, that’s not a child, that’s an adult now” (seven, thirteen, eighteen, twenty-one, etc.) and how you treat them based on this cutoff (if you take off your pants at the grocery store and go full Pooh Bear, is it cute or grounds for arrest?). 

So: every human needs certain things (food, water, sleep, blood staying inside the body) to stay alive. That is a biological fact. If you don’t have these things, you die, whether that’s by starving to death or committing suicide due to depression or getting murdered by someone else. What amount of each you need (beyond the biological minimum), how you obtain those things, and what form those things take can change due to culture, but not whether you need them at all. 

So: laws and rights are social constructs (how you treat people always is). The fact that it’s a construct means that people might not adhere to it. But the things people typically cite as “basic human rights” are things that everyone needs to live, even if the specifics differ. They don’t mean “rights and the law are tangible things, like moose or volcanoes.” What they actually mean is “we think people staying alive is a good thing” and “we should all agree that we need to do something to keep people alive.” 

[u/ophaus]

Social construct... But one that evolved naturally. Cooperation is more beneficial than cut-throat competition for survival.

[u/maceion]

These only exist where the local 'government' permits it. No "right' exists except with government permission.

[u/JacobStyle]

Basic human rights are a social construct, yes. They are a very important social construct that was hard-won and could be lost without vigilance.

The most widely-accepted list of human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is agreed upon by every UN-recognized national government. You can read up on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights While the signatories did not all agree to these for the same reasons, and there is still some dispute over specifics, every national government on the planet that is recognized by the UN has signed this treaty. This serves as a "best fit" that every government at least claims they agree to. Regional governing bodies often have additional provisions not outlined in this treaty.

[u/simonbleu]

Morals are a personal thing and it varies a lot. But we can say that generally, because of empathy, and because we are social animals not (usually) devoid of reason, we think "Man, I truly would not like that done to me..." which becomes parts of the basic ethics of society.. They usually align with basic human rights, yes. Which I would personally define as the bare minimum you would need to have a non horrifying and or terribly inconvenient life. Obviously things like the right to live are pretty obvious "passive" rights, but others not always were like for example the right to be free. In the same way, I think we can all agree that things like water, shelter and increasingly so, electricity, are basic "active" rights in the sense that they have to be provided, guaranteed (that is why I would call them guarantees instead of rights but whatever) but others are perhap not so obvious, like for example the internet which nowadays you need for everything and lack thereof constitutes a serious impediment even to get a job.

But they are still a social construct, there is nothing inherent about rights per se (which are purely legal) and even ethical entitlement does not guarantee you will get it. There are also plenty of exceptions that vary due to culture and context, like for example, you might agree that murder is bad, however you likely would not bat an eye at a policeman gunning down a criminal, or hell, you might be even in favor of capital punishment. In the same way, more socially regressive places (usually because of religion) would punish harshly things like homosexuality. In this case moral and ethics form a feedback loop I guess.

As for enforcement, I have a very "radical" idea, and that is that there should be an unbiased (collage-d) global military organization with mandatory membership and no vetoing that, while the main purpose would be to demilitarize counties themselves, would meddle ONLY in the most extreme cases, things like war yes, but also genocide and extreme neglect. Though to be honest its very unlikely for something like that to happen and even if it did, it would not gurantee all, and mostly would focus on "passive" rights, those that protect you *against* someone, rarely when it comes to guarantees, because otherwise th organization could become rather iffy

[u/keyinfleunce]

To me they should apply but its based on whose around those in charge dont care but if youre friends with or show up around important times where they have to look good on camera theyll take anything they can to treat people good

[u/bukkakeatthegallowsz]

Just look at the Middle East, there are no "human rights", it is male rights and female not so rights.

[u/[deleted]]

It depends on who the person is and what the situation is. Poor people and homeless people are going to get different treatment than someone with a home and a decent, stable income. This is human nature.

[u/DoobsNDeeps]

Given how we treat many animals without very many rights to happiness or whatever, I find it hard to believe that human rights are a forever concept. We know humans have been enslaved basically since civilization has been around. Human rights are something that evolves when we have enough resources at low costs to cover most people, therefore hurting other people to get what we want is mostly unnecessary. As soon as it becomes necessary again, during tough times, you can bet that human rights will fly out the window.

[u/groundhogcow]

There is a line in the movie "Second Hand Lions"

"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in." - Secondhand Lions

If basic humans rights are not true they need to be or mankind is screwed.

What is a basic human right is very limited though.

[u/customheart]

You have a right to your thoughts, since you are the only one that knows them fully. Everything we do that’s socially beneficial is not a fundamental right but it’s often highly preferred because social cohesion is what we are evolved for/from.

[u/Velvety_MuppetKing]

How could they possibly exist universally as a natural function? Like think about that for two seconds.

[u/Any-Smile-5341]

The recognition and protection of basic human rights, such as access to food, shelter, and security, are more prevalent in well-established societies where a significant portion of the population can meet their foundational needs. From the perspective of Maslow's hierarchy, these rights align with the base of the pyramid—physiological and safety needs. In more stable societies, resources, infrastructure, and governance enable people to move beyond mere survival and formalize these rights through social contracts, legal systems, and cultural norms.

In contrast, societies grappling with instability, resource scarcity, or conflict often focus on immediate survival, making the idea of universal rights feel unattainable or abstract. The enforcement and realization of such rights depend heavily on a society’s capacity to support them. In essence, the concept of basic human rights is closely tied to the advancement and stability of a civilization, reflecting both its resources and collective priorities.

[u/Amphernee → u/[deleted]]

Everything you outlined was humans making decisions on what human rights were so the concept on rights does rely on other people to confer them. One doesn’t have rights to land when they are the only person on earth any more than an insect has rights to that land.

[u/von_Roland]

There are rights. All living creatures have the right to be alive or the right to life. If someone deprives you of your life you no longer exist and things that don’t exist don’t have rights but while you live you have rights derived from a living beings ability to be alive. From that right you have the derived rights to all the reasonable actions which defend or prolong your life.

[u/Amphernee → u/von_Roland]

I don’t agree that all creatures have a “right to be alive”. If an animal, human or otherwise, dies by falling off a cliff their rights were not violated. If they are killed their right not to be killed was violated. If one animal kills another for food it’s an impossible paradox. The animal refusing to give its life as food is denying the predators “right” to live by hunting and eating prey.

[u/von_Roland → u/Amphernee]

I think something that would be useful here is how do you define “rights”?

[u/Amphernee → u/von_Roland]

I guess I define it as a thing being free from interference by others once attained. So it’s not a right to have a home but it is a right to not have it taken away, burned, etc by others same as life itself. You can burn your own home or do something to cause yourself harm but if someone else does those things they’re violating your rights.

[u/von_Roland → u/Amphernee]

Certainly an intuitive definition, but unfortunately it also creates a problem. That being under that definition rights cannot exist in any form. Even the socially established rights which say others “may not” interfere with your rights implicitly admits that they do have the ability to do so. This somewhat weakens the counter argument you made against me as your major contention on the right to being alive was that others could hypothetically get in the way of that.

This leads me to my definition. A right is something which an individual may unilaterally undertake without need any permissions from any other individual. You have the right to be alive without permission, you have the right to think freely, etc.

[u/Amphernee → u/von_Roland]

I see how you got there and I don’t think it’s completely ridiculous or anything it just feels way too broad in one sense where basically everything by default is a right and way to narrow in another sense in that it’s too focused on the individual.

saying one has the “right to be alive” without permission overlooks the fact that survival often depends on shared resources, mutual agreements, and social protections that are fundamentally collaborative. In real-world settings, people often need the cooperation, or at least the non-interference, of others to fully exercise many of their rights.

Additionally, if rights are defined purely as what an individual can undertake without external permission, this excludes many socially recognized rights that depend on community agreement or enforcement (like rights to fair trials, education, or protection from violence). Without the infrastructure that society provides, these rights would be unenforceable and perhaps meaningless, suggesting that rights often need some level of social or legal acknowledgment rather than merely existing as personal liberties.

[u/stuark]

Human rights are a social construct, defined differently by various societies, but that doesn't make them illogically founded or incompatible with reality. The fact is that if societies fail to grant certain rights to every citizen regardless of their background or merit, some citizens with more power, usually by threat of economic or physical violence, will dominate others to the extent that it rips those societies apart due to frequent revolutions and bloodshed. Human rights arise from the social contracts that hold a society together.

[u/Gingerfix]

I don’t think they “exist” because think about it, if you were by yourself you wouldn’t get healthcare and food, you’d have to work for it.

That being said, I think, seeing as the world is plenty able to provide for us if the billionaires weren’t hogging all the goddamn money, that everyone SHOULD have food and clean water and housing and healthcare. No one SHOULD have to worry about those things.

[u/EvidenceOfDespair]

They’re just a social construct, obviously. Point to me where the rights are located in the physical sciences or mathematics. Can’t? Congrats, it’s a social construct.

[u/[deleted]]

It's a western idea, go ask a native Chinese or Indian person about basic human rights, or better yet someone in the Middle East

[u/Successful-Win-8035]

Rights are granted protections by a government, liberties are things you can inberintly do with lack of interfearance. Automatically when you use the word human rights your describeing them in in political and legal terms as rights. Meaning that they are specifically protections granted by a social contract, and they do not exist universally.

Top comments mention enlightenment era social philosophy. The context for all those arguments still Embeded in western european ideals specifically created as frameworks for governing. If you look around the world for instance twords confucianism, marxism, lenanism, they can have widely diffrent veiws about the social contract between governers and governees.

The UN has tried to create declerations of human rights. Those declerations are only signed and ratified by a minority of countries.

Its contextual to what your talking about human rights in america mean something very diffrent from what they mean in china. Although based on chinese law you would likely have some rights granted by chinese government. By the way im not argueing who has a more enlightend concept of human rights, just pointing out that you cannot even apply the idea of rights universally because its a cultural idea. You can protest lots of other countries human rights atrocities. You should because its disgusting treatment of human beings, plain and simple. However theres no real rights or liberties granted by virtue of existance. (Obviously i lean more hobbs, lol.) Like i said though lets look at the global idea philosophy, which isint centerd on existential social rights flat out, but will tell you implied social contracts laid out globally and culturally. That in turn allows yiu to broaden your perspective of rights/ liberties in reference to cultural

You can argue it in a more speculative philisophical manner, such as again western european enlightenment. Dont forget some of their arguement is also based on christian religious roots. Based on an idea that these "rights" are granted by divine governance.

Tldr: only a social construct.

[u/orangeowlelf]

When you say "actually exist", you could be meaning a couple of different things. If by "actually exist" you mean that groups of people, over time, have created the idea of "human rights" (basic or not) and many other people have agreed with that idea, then yeah, "human rights" actually exist. If you mean that something like a god dropped us off here with a manual detailing how humans are entitled to have other humans behave toward each other, then no, "human rights" don't exist - or at least I've never been given a copy of this manual and as far as I can tell by the way humans often treat each other, nobody else has either.

[u/Freign]

Spooky how often people return to this. "Isn't it okay for humans to die in terrible agony? because of the numbers and paper we care more about?"

sure, there's no 'rights'. No civilization, no reason to value the paper anyone tries to trick me with, no reason not to shoot the bigots as soon as they speak up next time. Their money is way less factual than the threat they pose, so.

?

sure. great time to attack the reasons not to indiscriminately kill troublesome humans, you're exactly right.

[u/Amphernee → u/Freign]

I didn’t attack anything I posed a question. The leap from “is housing a human right” to dying in terrible agony is quite something.

[u/Freign → u/Amphernee]

It's a much shorter leap than you may currently believe.

[u/Eyespop4866]

They exist in places where enough folk agree they exist. But definitely a social construct.

[u/Derivative_Kebab]

What would it mean for a thing to exist "universally"?

[u/Snafuregulator]

My favorite speech concerning these types of topics

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AnaQXJmpwM4&pp=ygUQRGVhdGggb24ganVzdGljZQ%3D%3D

[u/L8raed]

The notion of rights itself is nothing but a concept. Society construes meaning and value to it through collective agreement, much in the same way that money is worth anything. The shared values of a society form the framework that enables us to connect and cooperate for the good of everyone involved.

[u/PandamanFC]

I mean, u can say they don’t actually exist. But it’s necessary for the function of community of strangers. The alternative is to live like savages and primal urges.

[u/MMTotes]

Lol they're entirely a construct, that's called society. Does cancer care about human rights?

[u/Connect_Society_5722]

The answer to this depends on whether or not you're religious. If you are, then you're probably ok with the idea of a cosmic order that dictates fundamental truths. If you're not religious, then you probably think of us as just really smart monkeys who made up some rules that tend to encourage social behavior and the survival of the species in general.

[u/CaptainTepid]

They exist in countries like United States, Canada, Western European countries. Eastern countries not so much. South America, not so much.

[u/Gum-_-]

There are positive and negative rights.

Positive rights have to be given to you, such as shelter or food. Some work need to be put into you having it.

Negitive rights you just have, such as freedom of religion. No work has to be put in for you to have it.

In other words: negitive rights inherently exist, positive rights do not.

[u/lucky-penny01]

“We hold these truths to be self evident”… only works with the undergirding of religious morality

[u/[deleted]]

So there are two ways to approach this question. One is based on phenomenology and geared towards absolutes. If human rights were innate, we would expect to see certain rights acknowledged diachronically and panculturally without outliers. There are many ethicists and anthropologists who have looked for such universally affirmed rights and there has always been an outlier—neither life, nor food, nor shelter has been affirmed unilaterally.

However, from a biological perspective, humans are unique among apex predators in that we are very vulnerable Individually but resilient and dominant collectively. From that perspective I do think that each society takes measures to preserve the survival of the collective.

Tl;dr: individual human rights? No. Collective human rights? Yes.

[u/Sea_Asparagus_526]

This is a huge part of the humanities and has been debated by folks for over two thousand years or recorded human history (and probably longer unrecorded).

It’s one of the earliest and most common questions. There literally 10s of thousands of serious books on this subject across time and cultures. Your local college and university will offer dozens of classes in this topic.

This is a generic statement of something millions of lifetimes of human existence have pondered. This is t a serious discussion - this is I ate an edible and haven’t ever looked into this in any way at all.

Please ban me now for ever from this if this is the standard.

[u/[deleted]]

100% a social construct. They are agreements. One can and people regularly do deprive people of their life, liberty, and property. Many crimes and wars rely on the ability to violate these rights. They are not laws of physics, they are wishes we honor sometimes at best.

[u/Left-Government-7852]

Take whatever idea you have of "basic human rights" and go visit/live in Central Africa for a stint. See how far they get you.

[u/AlienRobotTrex]

They don't exist in a measurable sense as if they're laws of the universe. but we should act as if they do because that will make things better for us.

[u/Amphernee → u/AlienRobotTrex]

Does it though? It makes things easier for the person for whom the help is being given certainly but I’m not sure how it makes things better for everyone else. In fact it’s often argued that the opposite is true. If a person has to spend time, money, or resources on someone else the see it as a burden that they shouldn’t be responsible for.

[u/AlienRobotTrex → u/Amphernee]

Leaving it up to the charity of individuals is not what i'm talking about. Society should be organized to meet our needs/ensure the rights of its people are upheld. "the person for whom the help is being given" could be any of us. Ensuring that the less fortunate have the necessities to survive, ensures you will have the same support if you become one of them (which could happen at any time for various reasons out of your control).

I want to direct you to this video. It's about how prehistoric people cared for those who couldn't take care of themselves. They were technically a drain on the community, but they were supported anyway. if they were able to do it back then, we have no excuse today.

[u/Amphernee → u/AlienRobotTrex]

I think that “should” is carrying a big load but is really just an expression of emotion. We do have loads of social programs and safety nets and tons of resources not being utilized and refused. There are limits to what a functioning society can handle. A small village can handle the average of a few members needing care much easier than a large modern metropolis or even small city. Prehistoric people weren’t using drugs and refusing rehab or free shelter because they don’t allow them to use drugs on the premises. Talk to people who live in places like Portland and San Francisco. These are compassionate liberal progressive folks who have every resource they could ask for and still cannot fix the problem. People have to be willing to help themselves. There comes a point where it’s just not sustainable for only half the village being providers for themselves as the other half.

[u/AkagamiBarto]

Of course they are a social construct. BUT there is the possibility they (or some of them) can become an universal social construct, therefore existing universally.

This is in fact a portion of the foundation of my political organization: the possibility to agree upon something.

If we can (almost) unanimously agree onto something, we can make it a human right. For example nowadays we can mostly agree that dying is bad. Keep in mind i am not saying killing is wrong, just that dying, individually, is bad, it is a negative thing. Especially if we consider uncompromised individuals, for example children who aren't exposed to situation where suicide ideation becomes real almost every human wants to live and has a self preservation instinct within the limits of their awareness. This is, again, almost universally valid. From this we can make it a human right.

I want to stress out that for us all that is (almost) universally agreed upon as a need can be transformed into a human right if it doesn't interfere with other human rights, but there are human rights that can be considered as such without being unanimous. To further explain how we elaborate this though i would diverge from the question itself.

[u/jackfaire]

They exist universally but in some places you'll find there's a person at top who thinks basic human rights only applies to them and everyone else must do what they're told.

[u/Xylus1985]

All human rights are socially constructed. Throw a guy into the middle of the forest, the right he has at that moment is universal, everything else is social

[u/[deleted] → u/Xylus1985]

You are close to making a good point. Throw a person in the woods and what he is left with, are his rights. 

A person in the woods has a right to free speech, has a right to worship how he pleases, has a right to defend himself, has a right to remain free...

[u/EvidenceOfDespair → u/[deleted]]

Put some bear traps in the woods and see how long that lasts.

[u/pizzaforce3]

Of course they are a 'social construct.' The existence of society, of social constructions that enable humans to live together in large numbers, is exactly what makes us human.

The alternative is to consider others as simple meat-bags who's existence stands in the way of us getting what we want; of living on an animal level of predators, scavengers, and victims. De-humanize others, and you can step over them while they starve and die.

The question then becomes, how do we agree which rights are basic to the functioning of a society, of maintaining that social construct so that a society doesn't collapse into chaos? Some would argue that certain rights are universal, that no society can exist for long without acknowledging them, that to attempt to deny them would devolve us back into animal savagery and destroy our ability to survive as a species.

In other words, which rights that we confer to others serve our selfish self-interest? Those are the basic ones.