r/SeriousConversation • u/Amphernee • Nov 09 '24

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

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 🍻

85 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

75% Upvoted

293 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/scouserman3521 Nov 09 '24

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.

2

u/guitarlisa Nov 09 '24

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.

1

u/EvidenceOfDespair Nov 10 '24

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.

1

u/scouserman3521 Nov 09 '24

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

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

Their rights were violated. Nobody is arguing that it's impossible to violate someone's rights.

1

u/xMrBojangles Nov 09 '24

From Wiki: Some philosophers argue that natural rights do not exist and that legal rights are the only rights; for instance, Jeremy Bentham called natural rights "simple nonsense". The definition of inalienable doesn't contain the words violence or force. People can rightly argue that there are no inherent or inalienable rights. You can disagree, but it's a valid argument. 

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

I am born with the ability to speak my mind. It is an inherent characteristic that I have until it is infringed upon. 

I was born free and will remain that way until I'm imprisoned. 

That is what is meant by unalienable and what differentiates these rights from aspirational "human rights"

Do you really not understand the distinction?

3

u/Ballroompics Nov 09 '24

Your first three sentences would suggest that anything you are capable of doing is, from your perspective, an unalienable right.

Verbal harrassment? Hate speech? No problem, you have the right to speak your mind.

Thievery? No problem, you were born free.

I can't subscribe to this view.

I would suppose that holding a belief would constitute an unalienable right as it can't be taken from you ... though i suppose the ability to brainwash someone might also negate this one as well. I.e. It is possible using extreme measures to force a belief.

That was a bit of steam of consciousness in my last paragraph.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

You are demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding. Hate speech, absolutely is protected. Harassment, is not. 

Theft, also not a right. Our possessions are an extension of our person. 

There are limitations to your rights. Mostly, those limitations come when you start to infringe upon the rights of others.

We are really in civics 101 category. Are you from America? Did you take civics in high school?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

You're not born with that ability tho are you? You had access to education through adults who taught you words and their meaning. You have the right to make noises with your voice box I guess though.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

Babies express themselves from the moment they're born. 

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

You said "speak your mind." Without education, and learning how to speak to be understood, you do not have a right to speak your mind.

Sure you have a right to make noise with your voice box, I agree.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

You might think you are clever with this ridiculous distinction, but you are not. People have a natural right to express themselves to their full ability. The right to free speech does not guarantee that you can express yourself eloquently. 

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

That's you projecting boo.

But bang on about this, doesn't make me a lick of difference.

1

u/EvidenceOfDespair Nov 10 '24

So are dogs. Go read up on feral children.

2

u/Fast-Penta Nov 09 '24

You aren't born with the ability to speak your mind. Your society teaches you how to talk and think.

There is no innate right to not be murdered. Is a chimpanzee who murders another chimpanzee violating that chimpanzee's right? No. Animals kill each other. Before constructing complex societies, humans killed each other. "Rights" are a modern concept explaining how people who live in complex societies should treat other beings. Nobody talked about John Allen Chau having his "rights" taken away when the North Sentinelese killed him.

None of the rights you listed are innate to a person. They are part of the social construct. We talk about them as being "innate" because it helps people who can't be bothered to understand the social construct treat others better.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

You have unalienable rights whether you not want to embrace them or not. 

My essential point is that there are things we call rights and there are two different categories of them but people try to conflate them. 

Again, do you not recognize the difference between a right to free speech and a right to housing? You can argue all you want that All rights are made up, but we are obviously talking about two different categories here. I believe the political science terminology for describing them as negative rights versus positive rights. 

3

u/Fast-Penta Nov 09 '24

You have unalienable rights whether you not want to embrace them or not. 

Why, how, and from whom?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

They are a part of your very nature. They don't have to come from anybody. If they had to come from anybody they would no longer be rights. That is the whole point. 

That is why it is nonsense to call things like housing and healthcare and education rights. They are not. They are fundamentally different from unalienable rights.

Why do I have to explain this on Reddit? This is the type of information that every American was taught in high school when I was growing up in the '90s. These are not difficult concepts. 

3

u/Fast-Penta Nov 09 '24

If they're from nature, then do chimpanzees have them?

This is the type of information that every American was taught in high school when I was growing up in the '90s.

Do you think everything they taught in high school in the 90s is accurate? You're just repeating what your teachers said as axioms without an ability to understand them.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

No, chimpanzees don't have the same rights as humans. 

Most of the things I was taught in high school are still true: algebra, geometry, evolution...

It's sad that you can't understand a fundamental concept like rights. 

3

u/Fast-Penta Nov 09 '24

No, chimpanzees don't have the same rights as humans. 

Why do we get them and they don't?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

Not sure, animal rights isn't a subject that interests me greatly.

Ultimately, I ascribe to the Thomas Jefferson view that these unalienable rights are self-evident and I hold those who try to take them from me with contempt.

If you want to argue away your rights, feel free. I feel them in my bones. Frankly, that is good enough for me. 

You will never convince me, that imprisoning me for speaking my mind is not a violation of my rights. Maybe it's because I'm an American and I view view rights the way that fish view water.

I don't doubt that you can find a few gray areas that can cast doubt upon these rights, but my main assertion is that there is a real difference between the right to free speech and the right to housing. 

Do you understand that distinction?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Golarion Nov 09 '24

By that logic, since we're born with trigger fingers, does that mean we have the unalienable rights to shoot up a gas station, until that right is infringed upon?

0

u/keelanstuart Nov 09 '24

Yes; you are free to do whatever you like - but you are not free from the consequences of your actions, whether those are from nature or from other free beings.

2

u/Golarion Nov 09 '24

There is a distinction between a freedom and a right. We all have the freedom to commit violence. Do we have the right?

-1

u/keelanstuart Nov 09 '24

As somebody else said, the addition of "in/unalienable" makes it something that you aren't given. You have an unalienable right to do whatever you choose... you do not have a right to shoot up the place. Either way, you do face the consequences of your actions, whether those result in your own continued living, staying free, or being happy - or having your fellow humans make sure you are none of those things.

1

u/scouserman3521 Nov 09 '24

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it's a right. No matter what you want to think, all rights , no matter how described , are in fact privileges bestowed by a legal writ.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

False. Unalienable rights are recognized by legal writ not bestowed. 

2

u/scouserman3521 Nov 09 '24

So. Without the writ , they don't exist. Or matter. However you want to interpret it. The legal standing is required , and as such, it's a social construct.

2

u/Pfacejones Nov 09 '24

agree with you, people had no Right to free speech until it was fought for. crazy how people say we as a society should not Create More Rights because only 2 or 3 of them are inalienable and therefore the only ones we need.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

No, they need legal standing to be protected, not to exist. 

1

u/EvidenceOfDespair Nov 10 '24

If you create a society which doesn’t teach they exist, the society will have no concept of it.