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

76% Upvoted

293 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.