What rights should we fight for?

[dimreepr]

We need to recognise the difference between a fundamental ‘human right’ and a right born of privilege and be prepared to give up a few privileges for the greater good, sometimes.

 

So... where do we draw the line?

[Greg H.]

What do you consider the difference to be?

[dimreepr]

Good question.

 

I’ll start with an obvious example of a privilege that over time becomes a right; let’s say your employer, for the last ten years, has given you £/$ 1000 Christmas bonus and this year they retract it, my question, how many unions would let that slide?

[Greg H.]

A bonus is never a right. It's a bonus - it doesn't matter how long you received it. Unless the company is contractually obligated to provide it, you have no right to expect it,

 

For example: My employment contract states that I am entitled to a bonus of a certain percentage of my yearly salary, based on certain criteria. If I meet those criteria, then the company is legally bound to pay me that bonus. If I don't, then they aren't (and won't). That doesn't make the bonus a right - it's simply part of the payment under that particular contract.

 

Let's make sure we aren't conflating "Things I am legally entitled to" with "My rights". While I am legally entitled to my rights, not all the things I am legally entitled to are rights.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Greg H.

[Delta1212]

A union's job is to try to get the best deal for its members in terms of working conditions and compensation. If it's someone's job to negotiate a favorable contract, negotiating for a favorable contract isn't the same thing as conflating the desired terms of that contract with a civil right.

[dimreepr]

A bonus is never a right. It's a bonus - it doesn't matter how long you received it.

 

 

So is a pension?

 

Let’s forget legality, just for the moment, in order to determine the line that it’s legitimate to fight for.

[Greg H.]

 

 

So is a pension?

 

Let’s forget legality, just for the moment, in order to determine the line that it’s legitimate to fight for.

Not everything worth fighting for is a right. I would fight to save my marriage (were it in trouble) but that doesn't mean I have the right to keep it (or even to be married in the first place).

 

So which question are you trying to answer - what's worth fighting for, or what rights are worth fighting for?

[dimreepr]

Not everything worth fighting for is a right. I would fight to save my marriage (were it in trouble) but that doesn't mean I have the right to keep it (or even to be married in the first place).

 

So which question are you trying to answer - what's worth fighting for, or what rights are worth fighting for?

 

 

I'm asking the question, not trying to answer it.

[MigL]

Is there such a thing as a 'fundamental human right' ?

The only one which even comes close is the right to free thought, as that is difficult to control.

 

Every other so called 'right', is actually a privilege bestowed by the society you happen to belong to.

One only has to look around the world to see what other societies control and allow.

 

Do we have the 'right' to impose on other societies, our notion of a fundamental human right ?

[dimreepr]

Is there such a thing as a 'fundamental human right' ?

 

 

Indeed, that. seems to be the question.

[Phi for All]

Is there such a thing as a 'fundamental human right' ?

 

I think there should be. If we agree to the laws governing our particular part of society, and also agree to be a functioning member of that society, we should benefit from some rights that can't be taken away.

 

If your country can ask you to die for it, isn't there something profound it can do for you?

[DimaMazin]

When russian people ask Putin that why their employers pay them salary less than minimal salary then Putin cynically explains to them that such salaries don't exist in Russia.

[imatfaal]

 

I think there should be. If we agree to the laws governing our particular part of society, and also agree to be a functioning member of that society, we should benefit from some rights that can't be taken away.

 

If your country can ask you to die for it, isn't there something profound it can do for you?

 

Fundamental human rights should not depend on your membership of any certain polity - these rights (if they exist) flow from a shared humanity and a desire to set a lower limit of treatment of any member of our species.

 

Civil rights depend on the state/nation - I have a right to vote in the UK General Election because of my nationality.

 

Due to this definition of human rights they can never really be said to exist absent the agreement that they should exist. It boils down to the same category of question that we often get in science forums - that is to say the "ultimate why" question. Science knows it cannot explain at the most basic level - we just take each successive theory to a lower level ie more abstracted from daily experience but there is no finish and no level that does not rest on a more basis idea. In parallel human rights exist at a level of complexity of society - no matter how you try to simplify, which small scale communities you look at, and whatever you try to trim off and ignore etc you cannot remove the fact of society.

 

Very few polities have any absolute human rights - I would like to think that EU members, through the acceptance of the European Convention, would count freedom from Torture as an absolute (non-derogable) right. But the eagerness of many of the member states to be involved in, facilitate, turn a blind eye to torture in the wake of 9 11 show that this was a right easily swept away when the executive were enjoying pretending to be war-time leaders. I think some of the Scandewegian states are closest to actual having such rights

[ajb]

Is there such a thing as a 'fundamental human right' ?

....

Do we have the 'right' to impose on other societies, our notion of a fundamental human right ?

This an interesting direction.

 

For sure there is no such thing as a 'fundamental human right'. We as a society declare what we mean by 'fundamental human rights' and try to implement them in our laws through the governments and courts. Hopefully many nations will agree with our definitions and we should end up with a collection of states that more-or-less agree on human rights. There will be some legal issues, discussions and difficulties implementing all this, but a nation or collection of nations through international agreements impose these 'rights' upon themselves.

 

There is nothing exactly fundamental about this and different societies may well have differing views on many of these rights. I imagine this is more so when comparing stable Western states to other states that are fighting for their survival. Don't misunderstand me, I am not claiming we should not have a global charter on this issue and implement it, just that I accept the world is very complicated and peoples priorities can be wildly different. Getting full global agreement may be near impossible in the foreseeable future.

[John Cuthber]

"What rights should we fight for?"

Other people's

[dimreepr]

"What rights should we fight for?"

Other people's

 

 

Most would consider “ours” supersedes “others”.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Most would consider “ours” supersedes “others”.

Indeed, but that doesn't seem to help.

 

I'm reasonably wealthy, white, male and live in the affluent West. I hardly need anyone to fight for my rights- I pretty much have them.

So perhaps it would be better if I fought to the rights of those less well off than I am, and left them to fight for my rights.

Obviously, their disadvantaged state means that they can't put a lot of effort into supporting me, but it hardly matters- I'm already doing OK.

On the other hand, I'm relatively well placed to improve their lot.

At worst, I don't lose much, and they gain a lot.

 

Seems a better approach to me.

[iNow]

What rights should we fight for?

Isn't it obvious?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk?t=31s

[dimreepr]

Indeed, but that doesn't seem to help.

 

I'm reasonably wealthy, white, male and live in the affluent West. I hardly need anyone to fight for my rights- I pretty much have them.

So perhaps it would be better if I fought to the rights of those less well off than I am, and left them to fight for my rights.

Obviously, their disadvantaged state means that they can't put a lot of effort into supporting me, but it hardly matters- I'm already doing OK.

On the other hand, I'm relatively well placed to improve their lot.

At worst, I don't lose much, and they gain a lot.

 

Seems a better approach to me.

 

 

 

Indeed it is...

 

But my question isn’t so much ‘what can I gain’ from the fight but ‘what can WE gain’ from it.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

Indeed it is...

 

But my question isn’t so much ‘what can I gain’ from the fight but ‘what can WE gain’ from it.

So was mine, but with a rather more inclusive "we".

If we all fight for the rights of those less fortunate than ourselves we make the whole world better.

[Gees]

Dimreepr;

 

My consideration is that there are two fundamental rights that other rights stem from.

 

The first is the right to preserve the "self". This is an innate right that is recognized universally and is evidenced by the survival instincts in every specie. This does not mean that someone can not kill you, justified or otherwise, it just means that you have the right to fight back and to defend yourself -- it is expected. This right is often extended to include the larger "self" -- the immediate family -- your spouse and children.

 

But this right can also be interpreted as a right to defend your extended family, or your home, or your favorite team, or school, or business, or neighborhood, or religion, or country. It can be extended to include anything that you put the word "my" in front of, so I think this is where we lose our perspective of what is "fundamental".

 

The second right, is that we have the right to expect that our rights match our responsibilities. This is the basis of ownership. Back in the day, if you claimed an area, drove off the wild animals, built a cabin, and worked the land, you could become the owner of that land. Taking responsibility for the land gave you the right to own it, and there are some places where this still applies today. In this time, it is more like paying the mortgage gives you ownership of the house, but it is still a case of rights and responsibilities matching.

 

If you build a boat, then it is your boat; if you buy a car, then it is your car. You can not be held responsible if your neighbor gets in an accident with his car, because you have no right to tell him how to drive, but if he gets in an accident while driving your car, you may very well be responsible. We can only be responsible for things that we have authority and control over, so we must have that right to be responsible.

 

I am not sure that privilege has anything to do with fundamental rights. If a king is a good king and is responsible for his people, then he can have all of the privilege that he wants -- it won't matter. But if he is a bad king, and his people are not taken care of, then he can go without any privileges at all and still end up being overthrown. The right to lead people means that one has to take responsibility for those people, or eventually that right will be lost to another.

 

So I think the ideas of privilege and expectations can blur the line of what is a fundamental right.

 

Gee

[dimreepr]

So was mine, but with a rather more inclusive "we".

If we all fight for the rights of those less fortunate than ourselves we make the whole world better.

 

 

I couldn’t agree more but I wonder which ones would make a better world and which hinders a better world.

 

For instance does my right to a pension supersede an African villager’s right to clean water?

Or does my right to free healthcare, for petty issues, harm my children's right to free life saving surgery?

Dimreepr;

 

My consideration is that there are two fundamental rights that other rights stem from.

 

The first is the right to preserve the "self". This is an innate right that is recognized universally and is evidenced by the survival instincts in every specie. This does not mean that someone can not kill you, justified or otherwise, it just means that you have the right to fight back and to defend yourself -- it is expected. This right is often extended to include the larger "self" -- the immediate family -- your spouse and children.

 

But this right can also be interpreted as a right to defend your extended family, or your home, or your favorite team, or school, or business, or neighborhood, or religion, or country. It can be extended to include anything that you put the word "my" in front of, so I think this is where we lose our perspective of what is "fundamental".

 

 

That’s not so much a right as an instinct, that’s like fighting for the right to breath.

 

 

The second right, is that we have the right to expect that our rights match our responsibilities. This is the basis of ownership. Back in the day, if you claimed an area, drove off the wild animals, built a cabin, and worked the land, you could become the owner of that land. Taking responsibility for the land gave you the right to own it, and there are some places where this still applies today. In this time, it is more like paying the mortgage gives you ownership of the house, but it is still a case of rights and responsibilities matching.

If you build a boat, then it is your boat; if you buy a car, then it is your car. You can not be held responsible if your neighbor gets in an accident with his car, because you have no right to tell him how to drive, but if he gets in an accident while driving your car, you may very well be responsible. We can only be responsible for things that we have authority and control over, so we must have that right to be responsible.

I am not sure that privilege has anything to do with fundamental rights. If a king is a good king and is responsible for his people, then he can have all of the privilege that he wants -- it won't matter. But if he is a bad king, and his people are not taken care of, then he can go without any privileges at all and still end up being overthrown. The right to lead people means that one has to take responsibility for those people, or eventually that right will be lost to another.

 

 

 

Ownership is far from being a fundamental human right; “Arguing over who owns the land is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog” - Crocodile Dundee

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I couldn’t agree more but I wonder which ones would make a better world and which hinders a better world.

 

For instance does my right to a pension supersede an African villager’s right to clean water?

Or does my right to free healthcare, for petty issues, harm my children's right to free life saving surgery?

 

I don't know; but it would be interesting to ask them.

[dimreepr]

I don't know; but it would be interesting to ask them.

 

 

Or does my right to free healthcare, for petty issues, harm my children's right to free life saving surgery?

 

 

 

I think eventually it must, when a case can be made, and won, for expensive cosmetic surgery (not included: as a result of injury or birth defect), then a collapse seems inevitable; even the NHS can’t last if they always live beyond the budget.

 

So maybe that conversation would be not so much interesting as excruciating.

[John Cuthber]

There are two (rather questionable) justifications for cosmetic surgery on the NHS; the psychological harm of not getting the surgery or the fact that the NHS would end up paying to repair a botched job done elsewhere.

 

The "optional" nature of cosmetic surgery isn't as relevant as you might expect.

No matter how much money you spend, people will still die. so the NHS can spend an infinite amount of money and still fail.

 

Once you accept that you also accept that it has to make very difficult choices.

If you can't afford to treat everything, how do you decide who you don't treat?