Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
A post at the Utah Amicus this morning shared a short video based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The video and the overall message is good, but starting at 2:51 in the video the message departs from the reality of human rights and enters the Utopia of idealism. I think it is important to recognize the difference between the real and the ideal if we are to have any hope of establishing true liberty. Of all the categories which this declaration lists as distinctions which cannot alter basic human rights there is one category which they fail to list which tears some of their "rights" to shreds – placement in history. We have no rights today that were not also the rights applicable to our great grandparents. I do not mean to say that those rights have never been infringed upon, but if we call something a right today which could not have been delivered in all ages of civilization then it is not actually a right.
Those who subscribe to the Conservative/Libertarian philosophy would rightly point out that there is no such thing as gay rights, womens rights, or minority rights of any kind – there are only individual rights. In other words, membership in any group, majority or minority does nto grant any rights that are not equally applicable to those outside the group. The same holds true of responsibilities. Society, nor any group in society, has no responsibilities. Only individuals have responsibilities.
So, while it is nice to say that society has a responsibility to help you develop the truth is that for better or worse society does help you develop. It is the moral responsibility of every individual to encourage those they interact with to develop in a positive way according to their individual capacities. In other words, a teacher can help a child to learn and a police officer can encourage a child to respect the law. The teacher and the police officer may have some influence outside those spheres, but we cannot expect one to fill the role of the other. The real truth is that we cannot expect society to take on any responsibility – we can only expect ourselves to take on any necessary or desirable responsibility (and we can encourage others to do the same).
There is no right to employment – only the right to receive the fruits of your labor. It is the responsibility of others to treat you fairly, but that does not entitle you to a any given job nor does it mean that employers must make work for you. I can appreciate the idea of a right to a fair salary, but I am confident that the meaning of those promoting this Universal Declaration of Human Rights mean a social guarantee of some minimum salary – which is not a right and cannot be enforced without taking away true liberty.
The happy sentiment that each workday should not be too long is completely meaningless. First we must define "too long" and second we must find a way to enforce it. A standard definition of "too long might be 8, 10, or 12 hours per day. Tell that to those who produced their own food on a family farm when an 18-hour workday was little better than subsistence. We no longer live in that age, but it goes to prove that needs, resources, and capacities are outside the control of society and thus the "too long" workday cannot be artificially defined or equitably enforced. The same argument holds true wtih the reference to "a decent standard of living."
The right to go to school was not available in any for for long ages of many societies and that lack had nothing to do with oppression – it had to do with subsistence. I have the right to be treated fairly regarldess of my economic curcumstance, but I do not have the right to go to school when school is not avaliable or when I do not have the capacity to go to school and still meet my real human needs. The same holds true for participation in the arts and sciences of my community.
While it is nice to think about an education that promotes peace and understanding among all people the reality is, again, that this tries to place on society a responsibility that every individual has to treat (and teach others to treat) all people with respect and dignity. Education (meaning public or formal educaiton) should focus on academic disciplines and teach/promote respect and understanding by example more than indoctrination.
In short, there are no group rights or responsibilities. We must each shoulder our responsibilities – which include protecting and respecting the rights of others. Second, real rights are rights regardless of historic reference point. Any right which could not be enforced (as distinct from simply "was not enforced") at all points in history is not a right, no matter how noble or desireable it is.
4 replies on “Human Rights”
Maybe we should articulate our views regarding “equal rights for gays, women, and others who for whatever reason have been barred those rights without some egregious societal reason (i.e. felons, sexual predators, etc.).
I base the value of a human’s dignity not upon whether past generations granted that dignity. Our founders, for all their positive attributes, also restricted the vote to land-holding males, and continued the practice of slavery.
Luckily, we as a nation have evolved into something better than our founders had envisioned. And we should continue to press for this. And we should openly oppose those backward institutions that oppose progress in this arena. That includes the LDS Church, which for some reason believes in “traditional values” when those traditions are discriminatory and harmful to citizens who have done no wrong to our society.
Of course, you know me, a hopelessly and openly opinionated cyber-jedi. But I have to say, my patience with institutions, particularly those who are tax exempt, who want to use the apparatus of the state to suppress equality under the law is beginning to wear thin.
Prop 8 is like the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. It was a success on many levels, but the backlash will ultimately engage the institution that led the charge into a deadly war of attrition that will cost it dearly. I think the LDS Church seriously misplayed their hand and their “inspired” leaders have done untold damage to the “good will” listed on the secret balance sheet of the “Corporation of the President.”
BTW, David, I hope you and yours have a very wonderful holiday season. Or if you prefer, I hope you have a merry Christmas.
Best regards.
I don’t expect to ever believe that gays, women, or any other group identity should grant anyone a right that is not applicable to everyone – that obviously does not address the issue of gay marriage (it addresses things like affermative action).
I get the feeling from you comment that the following statement form my post was either missed or misunderstood:
Again, this does not (nor was it intended to) address issues related to gay marriage. It was intended to address issues such as the right to not have a “too long” workday, the right to go to school, or the right to affordable healthcare. There have been times in history when such things could not be delivered regardless of any worthy intent. Those things are not rights even though making those conditions universally available are admirable goals which we should strive to achieve.
Restricting the right to vote is an example of when rights have been infringed in the past due to the prevailing thinking of the time – obviously our more universal suffrage today could have been granted back then even though it wasn’t.
I too wish you and your family happy holidays Obi wan (and I’m no Buttars-Grinch about how other people choose to wish me well or acknowledge the season).
David, you know the degree to which I respect and appreciate your opinion. I have genuinely appreciated your insight for a very long time, even when I have disagreed with you.
But let me ask you this point blank. Do you believe that the LDS church’s campaign to deprive gays of marriage rights in California was justified, inspired or well-intentioned?
I have through various forums tried to discuss Mormon issues as an apastate Mormon with the intention of doing so in a civil manner. Whether I’ve accomplished this I have no idea. I only know my intent, rather than my ability.
But I admit I’ve had a real struggle with Prop 8. On what basis does the LDS Church feel they need to dicate to the citizens of California, and pour money into that state to further an agenda I can only interpret as maliscious and evil? (Yes even we atheists believe in evil)
Perhaps I did misinterpret your quote, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because I have found you to be a very reasonable individual whom I have a great deal of respect for. But I’d like to hear your perspective on the LDS Church’s efforts to harm gays and whether you think those efforts were justified.
Obi wan,
I appreciate your candor and I will answer directly and trust in your ability to recognize the difference between hatred for gays and simply holding a different viewpoint.
First of all, I absolutely believe that the LDS church was perfectly within their rights to take the position they did. For those who disagree with that – they should know that I also think that white supremacists are perfectly within their rights to protest against non-whites and to promote laws of discrimination. I think they are absolutely wrong, but they are within their rights so long as they do not commit acts of aggression etc.
To answer your direct question – was the campaign justified? That’s impossible to say I would ask “justified based on or in relation to what?” It was definitely justified based on the church’s beliefs regarding moral and eternal law, which beliefs I share. I would not attempt to argue the justification for their actions on any other basis, but I fully understand that there are those who do not share our belief in eternal law and human morality who would not recognize those efforts as justified. Was it inspired – I would have to assume that the answer is yes or else they would not have put such an extraordinary effort into it – their efforts on this campaign definitely stand out compared to their activity on other political issues. Was it well-intentioned? I believe that everything they do is well intentioned – even if the effects are not all positive.
Now for my perspective on the church’s efforts. I do not believe they were trying to harm gays. As far as I understand it, gays in California both before the supreme court ruling and after Prop 8 enjoyed all the rights of married couples with the exception of federal tax benefits.
I absolutely believe that all people should be free to choose who will inherit their goods or who can visit them in the hospital or make medical decisions for them when they are incapacitated. I also believe that the purpose for those laws which benefit married couples were instituted for a purpose, namely to promote a stable society for the future, which benefit is absent among the homosexual community. The benefit is also undermined by the high divorce rates that have come as a result of unwise changes in the law in the past. I trust the research from Scandinavian countries where gay marriage has been sanctioned for years showing that after that sanction was granted the marriage rates in the nations plummeted, the cohabitation rates rose drastically, and the number of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households rose substantially. None of those trends is beneficial to society.
I need not have any hatred for gay people to oppose the idea of altering the definition of marriage – indeed I don’t know a single gay person who I dislike because of their orientation (there are a few I dislike for other reasons). The gay community would seek to define marriage as a sexual relationship between two people who are committed to each other and to their continued relationship – they argue that the historical inclusion of the “between male and female” is discriminatory and arbitrary – that is where we disagree. Though I do not hate people for being gay I am staunchly opposed to some aspects of the dominant lifestyle among the gay community which I believe are very detrimental to society.
I do not believe that the male and female aspect of the traditional marriage definition is arbitrary. I believe that a committed relationship between a homosexual couple lacks aspects of what marks the difference between “friends with benefits” and marriage. I don’t believe that the law can adequately quantify what is a marriage, but that is no reason to make up an arbitrary legal definition that is clearly outside the fundamental definition of marriage. I really could not confine my perspective on what marriage is even to this long comment. For those who want to see a more complete rendition of my position you can click here.
You ask on what basis the church would dictate to the people of California – I would ask on what basis the justices on the state supreme court would contradict the citizens of California when they had clearly and within the bounds of the law made their collective opinion very clear on this matter only a few years previously.
Finally, I would like to make it clear that I am merely stating my position here. I do not do this in an attempt to convert anyone to my position, only to articulate that position. I fully respect that many people both inside the church and outside the church do not share my convictions as articulated here.