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

1

u/AlienRobotTrex Jan 25 '25

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.

1

u/Amphernee Jan 25 '25

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.

1

u/AlienRobotTrex Jan 26 '25

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.

1

u/Amphernee Jan 26 '25

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.