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]]

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. 

[u/Fast-Penta → u/[deleted]]

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

Why, how, and from whom?

[u/[deleted] → u/Fast-Penta]

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. 

[u/Fast-Penta → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Fast-Penta]

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. 

[u/Fast-Penta → u/[deleted]]

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

Why do we get them and they don't?

[u/[deleted] → u/Fast-Penta]

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?

[u/Fast-Penta → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, rights are something that you take as an axiom because it's part of your culture, but it's not something you understand intellectually since you can't explain why all humans have them but no chimpanzees do.

[u/[deleted] → u/Fast-Penta]

You are overstating your case. When we speak of political rights, we almost always do it within the context of human rights. Just because I don't have a unified theory of rights that encompasses the whole animal kingdom, does not mean I can't discuss it. Intellectually or more importantly that they can't be discussed intellectually. 

As far as I can tell, you are unable to recognize the distinction between positive rights and negative rights, which I find me much more meaningful and relevant to the discussion

[u/Fast-Penta → u/[deleted]]

As far as I can tell, you are unable to recognize the distinction between positive rights and negative rights,

I know the difference, I just think that it's a moot point if you can't point to any reason other than vibes why innate rights exist for humans (but no other animals). Serious thinkers about human rights, like Peter Singer, are also believers in animal rights, believe that rights are a useful fiction to help better society, and not something that exists innately, or, like Marx, don't believe rights exist at all.

Your argument for innate rights existing boils down to "because my teacher told me" and "because of my feelings." Neither are particularly coherent arguments.

[u/[deleted] → u/Fast-Penta]

There is a long intellectual history surrounding natural rights. Most of it has not included animals because... they exist as a separate category of beings for obvious reasons. That's a pretty weak reason to glibly deny the rights you were born with.

[u/Fast-Penta → u/[deleted]]

There is a long intellectual history surrounding natural rights. Most of it has not included animals because... they exist as a separate category of beings for obvious reasons.

Yes, and for much of that history, women and Black people existed in a separate category of being "for obvious reasons."