[Punktrash23]

I need a definition of Human rights, who determines these rights, and who they apply to.

I'm not sure if this goes here or philosophy, or somewhere else but they seem the most relelvent to government.

[Insane Drummer]

"and who they apply to."

That one is easy... Humans.

[Ridley's Own]

Behold! I bring tidings of great Joy: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Behold! I bring tidings of great Joy: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I agree with those.

[VAPOREDGE]

YES! Thank you Punktrash23 (what's your name), i have been wondering the same thing lately. I have noticed a huge difference in how different ages have different rights. Post some more ideas, i like this subject.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by VAPOREDGE

YES! Thank you Punktrash23 (what's your name), i have been wondering the same thing lately. I have noticed a huge difference in how different ages have different rights. Post some more ideas, i like this subject.

Hmmm... kind of an old thread but I'm not going to acuse anyone of raising a dead subject - this forum needs people doing that .

Personally... while I definately agree with the UN's definition of human rights - it troubles me that it's not realistic in being applicable to everyone. It's obviously not in the UN's power for example to see that they're always met. I suppose it's better than not declaring such rights. It's interesting to see why cultures don't adopt something that seems like it should be universal and is good to us...which raises an interesting question: do you guys think that it could be considered "ethnocentric" to consider another culture as ignorant of universal human rights? Ethnocentric meaning that you're unfairly judging another culture on your own standards by the way...

I think it's an interesting topic. While the good of humanity should be in our best interest - can we go to far?

[Punktrash23]

My main question is how can rights be universal, if they aren't recognized universally? If one culture doesn't agree to those rights, then who are we or the UN to say that they must abide by western morals? Self-determination?

An interesting lil tid-bit is that the US hasn't even agreed to the UN's decleration of human rights.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by Punktrash23

My main question is how can rights be universal, if they aren't recognized universally?

I agree... it's a good point... and what I was getting at... but...

If one culture doesn't agree to those rights, then who are we or the UN to say that they must abide by western morals? Self-determination?

...but... is there a time when we *need* to step in? I think the UN would be more concerned with extreme cases (I'm saying the UN in theory, not in action - and certainly not the "world community" as a whole). For example - a genocide is a lot more important and urgent than "simple" burning of the opposition's books and jailing of political leaders preaching what amounts to what the state determines are illegal ideals.

Universal human rights have indeed been created by western liberals who decided against the ideas of religion, superstition, theocracy, etc. etc. etc. I would certainly be in favor of them being applicable regardless of culture because I believe that in allowing them to be applied cross-culturally even while we may be losing the culture and its identity in a way we are basing the rights of human beings not on ideological superstition or beliefs - but on reason.

An interesting lil tid-bit is that the US hasn't even agreed to the UN's decleration of human rights.

Doesn't surprise me... we also aren't involved in the International Criminal Courts, the Kyoto treaty... la la la... the list goes on...

It would be viewed by some that we would be giving up soverignty to abide by treaties such as this. If nation X says to the world community that it agrees that it shouldn't be stopping left handed koala bears from singing - then the world community will be holding nation X more accountable for that. Even if left handed koala bears who happen to sing bring in plenty of money to the national economy and seek out and kill terrorists.

Yeah. That anaology was weird. It's too late. I need to take less classes.

[JerryLove]

...but... is there a time when we *need* to step in? I think the UN would be more concerned with extreme cases (I'm saying the UN in theory, not in action - and certainly not the "world community" as a whole). For example - a genocide is a lot more important and urgent than "simple" burning of the opposition's books and jailing of political leaders preaching what amounts to what the state determines are illegal ideals.

Isn't it the US that's boycotting Cuba over ideology, and bashing Venusilia and Palestine's democratically elected leaders for their ideology while practically ignoring the Sudan and Ruwanda (where the international community, specifically the French, do indeed have a presence trying to stop the genocide)?

It would be viewed by some that we would be giving up soverignty to abide by treaties such as this. If nation X says to the world community that it agrees that it shouldn't be stopping left handed koala bears from singing - then the world community will be holding nation X more accountable for that. Even if left handed koala bears who happen to sing bring in plenty of money to the national economy and seek out and kill terrorists.

Interestingly, the president of Afghanistan (which supplies 90% of the worlds opium) said that he would not act to remove the opium trade for 10-15 years because if would have an adverse effect on the economy of Afghanistan.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Isn't it the US that's boycotting Cuba over ideology, and bashing Venusilia and Palestine's democratically elected leaders for their ideology while practically ignoring the Sudan and Ruwanda (where the international community, specifically the French, do indeed have a presence trying to stop the genocide)?

I agree. I never said anything about what the US is/isn't doing.

Interestingly, the president of Afghanistan (which supplies 90% of the worlds opium) said that he would not act to remove the opium trade for 10-15 years because if would have an adverse effect on the economy of Afghanistan.

That IS pretty interesting. I take it opium doesn't have non-illegal drug uses? I thought it might for some reason - but without really looking I guess it probably doesn't.

[bobthecockroach]

Codeine comes from opium. Then again, so do poppy seeds.

[JerryLove]

That IS pretty interesting. I take it opium doesn't have non-illegal drug uses? I thought it might for some reason - but without really looking I guess it probably doesn't.

It does, though 75% of the worlds heroin comes from Afghanistan opium.

http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/opium/default.asp

[Punktrash23]

I was thinking more tribal groups, such as cannibals. Maybe the only reason we perceive these rights as essential, is because we have never been without them, or really couldn't imagine a world without them. Do we really have a right to enforce western ideology on different cultures.

Eastern cultures didn't have a problem with opium till the western world enforced their morals on that area.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by Punktrash23

Maybe the only reason we perceive these rights as essential, is because we have never been without them, or really couldn't imagine a world without them. Do we really have a right to enforce western ideology on different cultures.

Good anthropological question. But what about the other way around? Can we ethically ignore such things as genocide?

Eastern cultures didn't have a problem with opium till the western world enforced their morals on that area.

I'm not so sure about that. I'd have to read more into it... but the Opium Wars for example (1848ish?) involved a British blockade of China because of China's refusal to trade opium. The British used opium in medicine and it was important to their economy. China on the other hand didn't have the opium trade in their interest as it was creating social problems.