Have you ever considered the problem we have created for ourselves? We let relativists, humanists, and scientistism strip the world of mystery and meaning beyond what they see. Their vision is the revealed truth. Their words are sacred. Take a breath. Think deeply. Are you really allowed to disagree? Are they not, having infiltrated and unraveled nearly every cultural institution, angry earth-bound gods who brook no dissent?
>First, I think we need to agree that human rights apply equally to all humans, as would the violation of those rights. Any ‘right’ that we do not all share, regardless of race, religion, age, or sex, is not a human right.
No argument from me, but the first thing that pops into my head is the difficulty that many -- perhaps nearly all? -- people would have accepting that an 8-year-old would have the right to keep and bear arms. He's human, right?
Does that mean we'd have to back off some, and say that all humans have a human right to self-defense, but only some humans have the privilege of keeping guns, and still fewer the privilege of bearing them? What kinds of adjustments would we have to make to other human rights?
I suppose we could say that humans who are in some kind of 'custody' have human rights, but those rights are held in trust by their custodians (whether those are parents or guardians or prison guards) until custody ends.
I'm happy to take the hard line: If you're human, you have human rights, and no one gets to violate them. Even though this could lead to undesired outcomes, the 'solutions' are almost always worse than the problems. I'm just saying that's a difficult position to rally people around.
It is and for the sake of brevity I did not venture into the fiiner details of questions of majority or what about people who broke the trust. So, thank you for sharing these avenue of consideration. They are important.
There are, of course, other factors at play in any group/society/culture but I think we need to stop creating sectional rights outside the one thing we ought to believe we have in common. We are all human. It is the one thing you'd think we could agree on yet here we are.
>First, I think we need to agree that human rights apply equally to all humans, as would the violation of those rights. Any ‘right’ that we do not all share, regardless of race, religion, age, or sex, is not a human right.
No argument from me, but the first thing that pops into my head is the difficulty that many -- perhaps nearly all? -- people would have accepting that an 8-year-old would have the right to keep and bear arms. He's human, right?
Does that mean we'd have to back off some, and say that all humans have a human right to self-defense, but only some humans have the privilege of keeping guns, and still fewer the privilege of bearing them? What kinds of adjustments would we have to make to other human rights?
I suppose we could say that humans who are in some kind of 'custody' have human rights, but those rights are held in trust by their custodians (whether those are parents or guardians or prison guards) until custody ends.
I'm happy to take the hard line: If you're human, you have human rights, and no one gets to violate them. Even though this could lead to undesired outcomes, the 'solutions' are almost always worse than the problems. I'm just saying that's a difficult position to rally people around.
It is and for the sake of brevity I did not venture into the fiiner details of questions of majority or what about people who broke the trust. So, thank you for sharing these avenue of consideration. They are important.
There are, of course, other factors at play in any group/society/culture but I think we need to stop creating sectional rights outside the one thing we ought to believe we have in common. We are all human. It is the one thing you'd think we could agree on yet here we are.