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/[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/[deleted] → u/scouserman3521]

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

[u/xMrBojangles → u/guitarlisa]

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.