Talk:Human rights

Citing sources

Edits by 204.182.72.70

Can someone take a look at 204.182.72.70's edits (see here) for NPOV? --InShaneee 04:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I reverted those edits, as they were basically an expression of that editor's personal beliefs. Mateo SA | talk 05:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Doing some research for this article

The contributors to this article need to do some actual research, not just write about their personal beliefs. Someone needs to actually read some books and other sources and specifically cite them. This article as it is now is a jumbled set of unsubstantiated claims and disconnected topics. Many of the claims are dubious and confused, such as the bald statement that rights are divided into positive and negative rights (that is only one way of classifying those concepts).

In particular, someone needs to find the specific definition of the term "rights"; also, research the various concepts of "civil rights", "human rights", "positive" and "negative" rights, and determine how and whether those terms differ from each other.

Mateo SA | talk 05:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Civil rights vs human rights

That's interesting that the US should prefer the term civil rights. I think that cuts right to the heart of the US concept of 'democracy'. Civil rights are granted (and taken away) by the state. Human rights are rights that you *have* and any state (assuming that you believe states should exist) *should* recognize them.

How do human rights relate to civil rights, a phrase that Americans tend to prefer? --Robert Merkel

"civil rights" are not negative. Since the USA rejects the doctrine of positive human rights, and since some positive rights are necessary in a pseudo-democratic society, it's invented a category called "civil rights" to take up the slack.

Human rights are rights you have through being human. Civil rights are rights you have through being a member of a society. Loosely. DJ Clayworth 18:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If your definition of "civil rights" is correct you should add it to thie article.

All of the above conversation is wrong. Historically in the U.S. and in common-law countries three types of rights have been distinguished (this all predates "human rights," a term which has been coined in the last 20 some years): "natural rights," which are explicitly the basis for the Declaration of Independence (so the statement that the USA rejects "positive human rights" and has invented "civil rights" as a substitute is utter nonsense); political rights (the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, etc.), which in the U.S. have historically been granted by local government, but now increasingly are prescribed by the federal government; and civil rights, which are rights enjoyed under ordinary civil government, i.e. the right to travel, the right to police protection, etc. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

"Within the modern American liberal political culture"

Isn't this a little Americo-centric? What about European human rights law?

The word "liberal" may be a bit difficult to understand for non-Americans in that context. In the US, it means, grossly speaking, left-wing, but in Europe it may mean right-wing proponents of laissez-faire economics. I've included a link to disimbiguate the word. David.Monniaux 17:27, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Though civil rights and human rights are regarded as interchangeable, IMO there is a clear distinction.

That is - civil rights arise from citizenship. Human rights derive from one's status as a human being.

Example - the right to vote in a United States presidential election is a civil right that should be available to all US citizens. It is not a "human right", so as a Brit I can't invoke it, even if temporarily living in the USA.

The right to freedom from servitude is a human right. It MAY be enshrined in the constitution or laws of a country, but is not dependent on that.

Well, that's my view - anyone care to comment or disagree?

I'm not sure I can add this to the article unless it's a widely held view.

Exile 15:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't buy the distinction that human rights apply to all humans, but civil rights only apply to citizens. A better abstraction for me is that natural rights never require infringing anybody else's rights, but civil rights (by definition) require infringing one person's rights to give benefit to another person. -O^O

Positive / Negative

Isn't it POV to introduce the -ve / +ve distinction in rights as a statement of fact? -- Tarquin 17:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's very important to note that human rights are philosophical, legal and political. Philosophically, it is possible to distinguish between civil rights and human rights. However, legally it is not. Legally, the civil rights you are talking about are part of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (and are thus 1st-generation human rights). The right to freedom from servitude (slavery)is one of very few internationally recognised laws (with genocide and piracy), with universal jurisdiction-- thus if there's slavery anywhere at anytime, any state can intervene. So it goes beyond human rights, which should still be guaranteed by the state.

The US has been very slow to ratify any human rights documents, even the ones it has drafted. BUT The United States is a party to the following human rights treaties: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime to Genocide (entry into force: 1951, US ratification: 1989), International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (entry into force: 1976, US ratification: 1992), The Convention against Torture (entry into force: 1984, US ratification: 1994) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (entry into force: 1969, US ratification: 1994).

The US has not ratified The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (entry into force: 1976), The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entry into force: 1981) The Convention on the Rights of the Child (entry into force: 1989) or the Rome Statute for International Criminal Court (entry into force: 2002).

Thus whether the US upholds human rights is also a question of whether the US upholds its legal commitments.

Finally, the division into positive and negative rights, should be seen as a convenient tool for analysis, not an absolute division. --Mekri 08:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

...that rights arise from natural law. This theory is considered antiquated in moral philosophy.

For those of us with training in the sciences, this statement seems to be about fashion. Antiquated is a statement which is time-relative, which is the exact opposite of a law of nature, something which is timeless, something which was true, and also something which will be true. It seems especially strange when talking about moral philosophy or ethics. If ethics are something to be dependent upon, then why shouldn't ethical statements be timeless. Ancheta Wis 07:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the division between positive and negative is both real and widely recognized, as reflected in the division of human rights into the ICCPR and ICESCR. The negative rights are central to the identity of capitalist democracies in a way that positive rights are not, as evidenced by FDR's dropping of "freedom from want" as a focus after the Brits and Australians pointed out that, if taken seriously, the ICESCR mandated the creation of a totalitarian state. And the roles are reversed for socialist countries. Regardless of the actual political tension of the Cold War, there is a real tension between the two; and the tensions between equalizing opportunities and equalizing outcomes. BanyanTree 07:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UN Declaration and inalienable rights

The UN Declaration did not introduce the idea that rights are inalienable to the public realm. That idea goes back to at least the 1776 United States Declaration of independence, which I cite as prior art.

Moreover, as Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, and as Jefferson was a Deist rather than a believer in the Judeo-Christian God, it's not quite accurate to say that that Declaration espouses the theory that those rights come from that God. The Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God," which while still being an inherently religious idea leaves some room for interpretation beyond Judeo-Christian interpretation.

Finally, the statement "Humans have rights and they must be respected," at the end of the final paragraph under Hate crimes, explaining the liberal view, is redundant and tends to give the impression that this is a liberal argument and that those who oppose their view do not believe that "humans have rights and they must be respected." The sentence adds nothing factual.

170.35.224.64 18:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alternative groundings of human rights

I hope I'm doing this correctly, but I just wanted to post a concern that grounding human rights in natural law is only one way to do it and to make it sound like all conceptions of human rights come from natural law is misleading. See for instance, History, Human Rights and Globalization, by Sumner B. Twiss, Journal of Religious Ethics 31(1):39-70. In that article alone he outlines several justifications for human rights which have nothing to do with natural law. Thank you, A new person

little changes

I changed things around a bit to make the article somewhat clearer.

Added some references too although didn't yet add references to the text proper.

The "New Person" is certainly correct in pointing out that natural law is only one possible source of rights, and I changed the beginning accordingly. Human rights are also not the same as 'natural rights' so I took the reference out.

I am tempted to make the Hate crimes- segment into a separate article. Any opinions? first and formost, the right to life demands a right to be on the planet homelessness is a retarded concept

Removing Hate Crimes from this article

Just double-checked. There is quite a good article speficially on Hate Crimes making the segment here repetative. I'm going to remove it now.

Human right vs. Human rights

In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), shouldn't this article be called Human right? Rad Racer 22:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google test: 706,000 hits for "Human right" and 18,500,000 for "Human rights" (rato: 1:20). It's just one of those words that people manipulate to get around saying the singular form: "an example of my human rights", etc. By comparison, "scissor", which should never be singular, gets 1,480,000 hits while "scissors" gets 3,630,000 hits (ratio 1:2.5). Naming conventions are not a straitjacket and this article should stay where it is. - Banyan Tree 23:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Major copy-editing

As many paragraphs of the orginal article were rehashses of previous sections, I combined and rearranged sections into 4 major subcategories. It became apparent during the copyediting that some topics related to History, and others to Philosophy, so I created separate sections for each.

Now however my head hurts (it took well over an hour to copyedit). If someone would please be so kind to compare versions and add back in the internal links that were previously pointing to WikiPedia pages, I would much appreciate it LOL. --JeffC 02:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concerns

I have some concerns about this article. First, it is POV. The article asserts that "human rights" 1) exist and 2) are central to the western legal tradition. Both claims are highly controversial. It includes no discussion of criticism of natural rights theory or human rights theory, such as legal positivism, which has also been central to much western political thought (i.e. Bentham, Edmund Burke, O.W. Holmes, Jr., HLA Hart, etc.). Bentham famously asserted that men do not have natural rights, and Bentham probably has been just as influential in inspiring our legal system as natural rights. Rejection of "natural" property rights theory, for example, has been central to the New Deal revolution in law and the implementation of the administrative state in both Britain and the U.S. Second, this article redirects from "natural rights." Natural rights theory developed in a different historical context than human rights theory, but one reading this article would perceive not a whit of difference between the two.

This article honestly is rather disappointing. I have found most "rights" discussion to be ill-informed and imprecise, and this page only adds to the confusion, to be quite honest. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

I was directed to the human rights article by clicking on natural rights in another article. I think there is a bit of difference between the two (three if you want to throw civil rights into the mix.) They may be related in some way but I don't think they are the same. Is human rights theory a branch of natural law? Do rights come from God or from legislature? The article probably needs to be divided into two.

Right to self-defense

I noticed that this article avoids any mention of a right to self defense in either the text of the article or the links at the end. In the US it is a commonly held view that human rights include the right to individual and collective self defense and the access to weapons to make that possible. The article seems biased in this regard. I don't want to add a series of links to gun rights organizations at the end, but there should be some recognition that these organizations exist and that it is considered a human right by many. kpturvey August 8, 2005

Oh dear. If the right to own and use a gun is seen as a "human right" by many in the USA that explains rather a lot, including 20,000 gun-related deaths per annum. The right to life is a human right - how one exercises that right - by defending oneself, or by appointing a private security force, publically funded police force or army to do it, is the MEANS by which that right is maintained. In fact, it's arguable that, if positive human rights do not exist, you do NOT have the right to either weapons or police protection - the only right you have is for others not to infringe your right to life.

Exile 15:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

removed text

The world's oldest recorded charter of human rights was engraved on the famous Cyrus Cylinder, written and confirmed by the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great at around 538 BCE. Cyrus' charter, adopted by the first Persian Empire (Iranian Empire of the Achaemenids), is thought to be very advanced for the age, even comparing favorably with modern declarations of human rights, against which it is also contrasted as being much more spiritual.

This is extremely subjective and may not be NPOV; it also overreads the test of the Cyrus Cylinder, as quoted in that article. Cyrus does not ascribe any rights to all men, but says he rules all men and is benevolent to them. Laudable; but not the same thing. The only suggestion of right or desert is that the inhabitants of Babylon do not deserve to do forced labor; it doesn't befit their social standing. This rather suggests that forced labor is suitable to other humans. Septentrionalis 18:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thumbs up!

great article, our teacher used it in our english major class (on a german high school) and we came along with this article quite well.

thanks and keep up the good work.

Merges

I suggest merging (and redirecting) Natural rights and Inalienable rights into this article. There is much duplication in these various articles, and they are basically about the same thing. It would be more logical to have a single article. --JW1805 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are Two Fundamentally Different Concepts

Human Rights are based on morals. They are used in pleas for fairness, and to show victimhood. Because their basis is subjective, they have no Platonic factual existence.

Natural Rights are based on factual evidence that we can see for ourselves or prove via the scientific method. Because their basis is not subjective, natural rights can only be used for statements about the factual nature of man. A plea for a natural right negates the possibility that the item in question could be a natural right because natural rights are unalienable—-we don't have to ask anybody for them—-there is no way to give up the item in question.

The founding fathers of the United States of America did not create a Plea for Independence. They did not ask permission for their rights. These rights already belonged to them because they were unalienable—-they could not give them up in the first place. They are a natural part of what human beings consist of. They are natural rights. --Zephram Stark 20:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, none of what you are saying makes any sense. What the heck does "Platonic factual existence" mean anyway? What are your sources for these definitions? I don't agree with saying that one terms implies a "plea for fairness" and the other is "provable via the scientific method". Both are just different terms for the same concept that human beings have various rights that are (or should be) inherent to all human beings. The Wikipedia article for Human rights has the statements:

"Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights,"

"In the Western political tradition, human rights are held to be "inalienable" and to belong to all humans. "

Which basically says that "human rights" = "inalienable rights". So, there is no need for a separate article. Your various theories about the subtle differences between various words resulted in a VfD [1] for Unalienable rights (which you claimed was fundamently different from Inalienable rights, when in reality the two words are synonyms. I assume you are trying to do the same thing here. Can we get some other users to comment on this matter?--JW1805 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the reference to Plato. Let's just keep this simple. Do you really see the disparity between moral beliefs and facts provable via the scientific method or observation as being a "subtle difference?" --Zephram Stark 01:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I support merging Natural rights, Unalienable rights, and Inalienable rights together. I don't support merging those with Human rights. Natural rights (by any name) are a distinct concept from Natural law. Human rights is a more general political concept. -O^O

I don't think they are different, really. Take this example from Tom Paine's The Rights of Man, where the terms "human rights", "natural rights", "unalienable rights", and "imprescriptible rights" are all used as though meaning the same thing:

"The representatives of the people of France..considering that ignorance, neglect, or comtempt of human rights, are the sole causes of public misfortunes..have resolved to set forth..these natural, imprescriptible, and unalienable rights."

"Rights of Man 111: The end of all political associations, is, the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression." --JW1805 02:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In current usage[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], Inalienable Rights means the same as Human Rights—-the term is subjective and based on morals. Unalienable Rights, on the other hand, are almost exclusively associated with the United States Declaration of Independence. The United States Declaration of Independence is explicit in its meaning and internally consistent. There is absolutely no mention of a basis in morality or relativism. The DOI only claims to be based on observable facts of human nature.

As far as I'm concerned, you can call pink blue and religion cotton candy as long as you don't try to associate the U.S. Declaration of Independence with subjective morality. There is nothing subjective or moralistic about the Declaration of Independence. It is what it is, it speaks for itself and it reads "unalienable rights," not "human rights" or "universal rights" or "inalienable rights" or anything else except rights that cannot be alienated. It's really simple, and those who try to complicate the term have blatantly obvious ulterior motives. --Zephram Stark 01:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Look, you have already lost this argument. The Wikipedia consensus is that "unalienable" is a synonym of "inalienable", and this page is not the place to revisit that. You seem to have a problem with moral relativism, and want to argue that what is in the Declaration of Independence is "real", as opposed to phoney modern notions. However, Wikipedia is not the place for Original research, or a forum to express opinions. However, that has nothing to do with this, I'm simply saying that these various terms are just different words for describing the same ideas, and need to be incorporated into one article. A discussion about where people think rights come from (are they provable, relative, God-given, etc) should certainly go in that article. --JW1805 02:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please look up the word consensus before you use it again. It grates on my nerves every time you invoke it so blatantly out of context. --Zephram Stark 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Natural Rights is a specific philosophical concept which, to my mind, is not properly dealt with in the current Wikipedia entry (i'm new to Wiki - would be happy to write some more on the topic when I get a moment). It is quite different to, and shouldn't be confused with, the expressly political notion of "human rights". Natural Rights (if there are such things) exist in the absence of and prior to (to use Bentham's word, "anterior" to) any political system, and are relevant to the discussion of any form of community organisation, political or otherwise (including anarchy). As soon as you talk of the rights granted by the American (or any other) constitution you're talking about political, legal, rights - whcih may be *based* on a view of natural rights (though query what the point of that would be), but they are ultimately of a quite different kind. The most famous critique of Natural Rights is Bentham's - he calls the very concept "nonsense", and the concept of *inalienable* natural rights "nonsense on stilts". The reason I was looking to this entry in Wikipedia in the first place is to see whether there have been any subsequent rebuttals of Bentham's position, but Bentham isn't even noted in the Wikipedia entry. Any reference to a constitutive political document such as the American Declaration of Independence (or whatever) is part of a different discussion altogether. Natural Rights is relevant to the discussion of moral objectivism and moral subjectivism (basically, if you don't accept the notion of moral objectivity, then you can't really have a concept of natural rights). Natural Rights should definitely not be merged with Human Rights. ElectricRay 08:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's been quite a little conspiracy going on to subvert the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. To me, the conspiracy is silly since we will always have the original words of the Declaration, they are internally consistent, and they speak for themselves. Yet, sections talking about these principles in their original context, no matter how well written, are summarily destroyed. I wrote an email to answers.com, asking them why they reference an older version of Wikipedia's article on the Declaration of Independence. They wrote back and said that the older version had a Philosophical Background section that has been stripped out of the newer versions. Still, you can find many authoritative sources in other places on the Internet. Here is a philosophical primer that uses the internally consistent linkage of the Declaration as a powerful example of logical connections based on inherent equality. --Zephram Stark 16:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Unfortunately, that section contains many blatantly false statements, in addition to some odd original research. It says that Thomas Jefferson didn't really write the Declaration. It says that John Lilburn was the source of the Bill of Rights. And, of course, deep philisophical discussion about the fundamental difference between "un" and "in" alienable. It also says that the Constitution of Pennsylvania uses "unalienable", rather than "inalienable", which is false [9]. Of course there should be a Philosophical Background section in that article, but it needs to contain correct information.--JW1805 16:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - thanks but being a Limey, I'm not that interested in the US declaration of independence per se, nor conspiracy theories. Would be intersted in any critiques anyone is aware of relating to Bentham's attack on natural rights, though - does anyone know whether it has been coherently attacked? If one exists, it certainly ought to be put in an entry on Natural Rights.ElectricRay 22:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think common sense argues that some rights exist that humans cannot relinquish. A pretty basic example of this would be breathing. Breathing is not something we have a moral right to do. It is part of what it means to be a human. We cannot give up our right to breath. We can't permanently stop breathing even if someone said, "Give up your right to breath, or we will kill all of your family and friends." Breathing is a natural right.

The same common sense argues that some claimed rights have nothing to do with human nature. Suppose a group of terrorists strapped bombs to your family and told you, "The next time you seek nuclear fuel cycles, we will kill them all." Could you save your family? Could your relinquish your right to nuclear fuel cycles? Of course, because you have the physical ability to give them up. You could go the rest of your life without a single nuclear fuel cycle. It is possible. However, what would happen if the terrorists instead said, "The next time you seek a to protect your life, we will blow up your family." Could you physically relinquish your right to life? Could you let someone beat you to death without raising your hands in defense? Could you let someone push you in a pool without trying to stay afloat? The founding fathers of the United States say, "no." Your right to life is unalienable. It is built-in. It is not something that you can relinquish, even if you try—-even if the lives of all your loved ones depend upon it. It is part of the "self-evident" nature of mankind. --Zephram Stark 23:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Ahhh - Okayyy - sorry I asked. I meant a *coherent* response to Bentham - i.e., by someone well known (with the greatest respect), and which doesn't start with a dead giveaway like "common sense argues ...". Sorry to say that the above falls squarely within Bentham's description of natural rights in his Critique: i.e., nonsense on stilts. ElectricRay 16:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights needn't be inalienable; inalienable rights are a putative sub-set of human rights. If the two articles were thin and short, I'd be happy with the merger — but they're not, so I'm not. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason for the article on Inalienable Rights to exist at all. Everything in it is already part of the Human Rights article and written much better.

As ElectricRay said, Natural Rights is a completely different concept from Human Rights. You may disagree that rights can exist that cannot be alienated from human nature, but you cannot logically hold that some people (including every signer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence) believed in the "self-evident" nature of natural "unalienable rights." If you want to merge Unalienable Rights" with Natural Rights" I would love to work with ElectricRay and anyone else on the article to show how this concept is fundamentally different from Human Rights. I welcome Bentham's position in an article about Natural Rights, but Betham's argument simply doesn't apply to an article on Human Rights. --Zephram Stark 15:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

While Paine may have used "human rights" and "natural rights" interchangeably, that is not how they are used today. Natural rights remain those fundamental to persons as part of human nature, and "natural rights" refer to a very specific train of classical liberal thinking. Natural rights can never be "granted" or "taken", but they can be "recognized", "secured", or "violated".

"human rights" and the detestable "civil rights" are different beasts altogether. These so-called rights are formed by consensus or politics and can be granted or taken at will. -O^O

Whether or not natural rights, inalienable (or unalienable) rights, or human rights are all one and the same concept is open to a great deal of current and historical debate--no matter how many philosophers you can find who say that they're really the same thing, you can always find a few others who will fight tooth and nail to keep them apart. I think it would be a mistake to simply lump the ideas together as if those debates didn't exist. But you might try a type of compromise. Cover natural rights and inalienable rights under Human Rights, and leave them their own section as well. After all, natural rights and inalienable rights certainly make up a large part of the rights debates: but they're not the whole ball of wax; but nonetheless, they have their own philosophical histories. Sure, some repetition is bound to occur, but with editing it can be kept to a minimum. And space certainly shouldn't be an issue in cyberspace. --Randy Walden, rightsphilosophyforum.org--82.158.23.247 17:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a context problem in saying that Inalienable Rights is the same as Natural Rights. In most usage today, the term "Inalienable Rights" is used rhetorically.[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] According to usage, it no longer means the same thing as Natural Rights. Instead it refers to rights that have already been lost, or that the petitioner fears losing. A plea for the object of an "inalienable right" negates the possibility that the right could be natural. Natural rights cannot be relinquished. For instance, one doesn't need to demand the natural right to breath. He couldn't stop breathing even if he tried. --Zephram Stark 23:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I disagree with this last part: if a right is "natural," it's usually taken to be a right which all humans have, no matter what the laws of their land. Nonetheless, under many conceptions of the term, a natural right may be sometimes justly usurped: for example, to serve a greater good, like the good of society at large (note that while that's a highly utilitarian viewpoint, it not restricted to utilitarianism, especially among many natural rights advocates with religious tendencies). An "inalienable" right, on the other hand, is one which we may never usurp justly (a claim often made by those who oppose the death penalty even if the suspect could be shown beyond the shadow of any doubt to be a merciless killer). (Obviously, in other contexts, "inalienable" is taken to mean "inherent", and is therefore almost a synonym for "natural", but there are other ways in which the term is taken in philosophical debate as well, where it has more of the sense "inviolate".) "Natural" and "inalienable" are sometimes taken to be the same thing, but they are not necessarily so. Also, a natural right certainly can be relinquished, for instance when someone commits suicide. Further, a plea for inalienable rights in no way negates the possibility of it being natural. It is, in fact, often on the basis that someone considers a right natural that they argue for it being inalienable as well. Both natural rights and inalienable rights, under most conceptions, can certainly be violated by others: that is generally why pleas are made for their protection. Pleading for protection of a right does not entail an admission that the right is not natural or inalienable: often quite the contrary. But hey, this is just a discussion about whether the terms should have separate sections here, right? Natural rights is certainly a different concept from human rights for many people (like utilitarians), but not for everyone: many people argue, in one way or another, that human rights are only meaningful (or truly valid) when fundamentally based on natural rights. Again, why not allow the two terms their separate sections, with cross references, and space under the main entry as well? If the editors can't agree on how the terms should be treated, chances are neither can the rest of the world. --Randy Walden (rightsphilosophyforum.org)--82.158.22.61 15:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem

What we have here are two really bad articles (Natural rights and Inalienable rights), and one sort of good article (Human rights). It appears that everything in the first two is also included in Human rights. Let's look at some examples:

Natural rights: Says that they are called "unalienable" by the Declaration of Independence. Then lists two quotes containing the terms "unalienable" and "inalienable". Also says that "Natural rights differ from human rights in that they cannot be relinquished, regardless of the strength of desire of the person wishing to relinquish them." This definition is essentially meaningless. Of course you can relinquish your life, liberty, or happiness.

You are misrepresenting the Declaration of Independence, as usual. Some rights cannot be alienated, like the right to breath. Whether or not you think Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the same category is irrelevant. The concept exists that some rights cannot be alienated exists and is completely the opposite from the concept of rights based on morals. --Zephram Stark 16:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to misrepresent the Declaration of Independence. I still don't think your "right to breath" is a good example, though. Again, I have to bring up the definition of "natural right" as: "A right considered to be inherent or inalienable, esp. in connection with the individual's relationship to the state and to society.". I don't think bodily functions like breathing really fit into this category. And anyway, breathing is not "inalienable", since it can certaintly be taken away from somebody (if somebody kills a person, they have taken away their right to breath -- also their right to life.) Conversely, if a person commits suicide, they have taken away their own right to breath. --JW1805 19:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if I stated the Bentham critique of Natural Rights, to explain why it's different to "human rights" and "civil rights", and has nothing whatsoever to do with the American constitution, and is not interested in what any putative "natural rights" might be? Natrual Rights is a *metaphysical*, not a sociological or legal, idea. Bentham breaks down the argument for natural rights into the following implied or express propositions:

(1) – That there are such things as “natural” rights which exist in prior to and in the absence of ANY government, and which can be contrasted with LEGAL rights which are contingent on there being a government to enact and enforce them;
(2) – That these natural rights cannot be overridden by government;
(3) – That all (legitimate) governments derive their origin from formal associations entered into voluntarily by all members of the governed community for the purpose of forming a new government where there was none before; the corollary being that any self-styled government (or “knots of persons exercising the powers of government”) having any *other* origin than such a voluntary, unanimous partnership is not legitimate. (Zephram - the consequence of the "natural law" metaphysical argument (which Bentham dismisses by the way) would be that the US Government, not being the product of unanimous agreement, cannot be illegitimate, which I suspect is somthing you will not agree with)

According to Bentham, the first is untrue, except perhaps in a figurative sense: “the moment you attempt to give the expression “natural rights” a literal meaning it leads to error..." the precise error being what exactly are these so-called natural rights, and how do we recognise them, in the absence of a system of social and legal organisation? Clearly, legal rights cannot exist without a legal system. In the absence of one of those, there would need to be some sort of objective method of organisation of individual preferences existing as a state of nature, which could be observed or induced in some sort of scientific fashion in order for there to be any “rights” (a *subjective* organisation of preferences would provide no way of arbitrating a dispute, so would get us nowhere). So, what would this objective system of evaluating individual preferences look like, and where would we find it in nature? Answer, says Bentham, is nowhere. This, as I have mentioned, is a technical argument in the field of metaphysics. It has nothing to do with human rights or civil rights (in the commonly understood sense).ElectricRay 22:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would it look like? That is the subject of a wide range of movies and science fiction books. With the absence of government, such as after a nuclear war, or in a Lord of the Flies or Mad Max setting, social hierarchies instantly start forming. This isn't just science fiction theory. There is an example right here in front of us. Where can we find it? Wikipedia. Social hierarchies that weren't supposed to be part of this project cannot help but form because of human nature. We all want to control our destiny and the destiny of our society to the greatest extent possible. The social side of evolution requires us to do so. Survival of the fittest doesn't only apply to our physical beings, but also to our hopes, aspirations, and thoughts for society. The best ideas should rise to the top. When they don't, we know that the system is corrupt, somebody is using motivations of social evolution for personal gain. To stem this corruption, we create organized systems of government designed to keep people from imposing undue influence on social ideas. If it were possible to keep undue influence from occurring in any other way, we wouldn't need government at all. The potential corruption due to our competing desires to both maximize our personal life and work with others for the benefit of society leads us to put systems of information and tools of equality in place. Historically, those systems and tools had to be managed by other humans, leading to corrupt governments, but today we have the technology to create unlimited systems of information and tools for equality completely within the technology of the internet. We no longer need government by representation. We're about to find out exactly what it will look like when we have only our natural rights to govern us. --Zephram Stark 03:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zephram I think we've drifted away from off the topic at hand - the *ontological* question of whether natural rights are the same as human rights, etc, and are instead debating the substantive issues around natural rights instead. While I agree that is very interesting (I'm trying to write separately about it at the moment, in fact) the narrow question here is whether natural rights and human rights should be combined in a single topic or not, and I think it's slightly beside the point. I would be interested to continue this discussion with you offline (I haven't yet worked out how to private message yet) because I think you're absolutely right that Wikipedia/internet is a fantastic example for analysis in terms of this debate, but I disagree (to the extent you frame it in terms of words like "should") with your conclusion. Even though I suspect we'll never convince each other, I would find it very helpful to "spar" with you to test the robustness of the programme I am trying to argue (which involves no recourse to "oughts" or other natural rights, which I agree with Bentham are basically nonsense).ElectricRay 08:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inalienable rights: Says that this term "refers to a set of human rights that are absolute..." which seems to imply that "Inalienable rights" are a subset of "human rights". However, no examples are given. What is an example of a human right that is not a natural right, and vice versa? Then says that "inalienable rights are said to be based on Natural Law". Does that mean that they are the same as "natural rights"?
Human rights: At least this article is much more comprehensive. Says that they are "universal rights" that all people have. Says that "Natural law theories base human rights on the “natural” moral order..." (seems to imply equivalence between natural and human rights). Then goes on to say that "In the Western political tradition, human rights are held to be "inalienable" and to belong to all humans." This seems to say that "human rights" are equivalent to "inalienable rights".

So, to summarize, we have three articles that seem to be about the same subject: "Rights" possessed by humans. There may be some differences as to the supposed origins of these rights, their philosophical basis, how they are applied, etc. But wouldn't those issues would be better compared and contrasted in a single article? The current state of affairs is very confusing.--JW1805 16:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to unconfuse it for you. Each term was coined to mean exactly what it says. Human rights means rights that belong to humans. As Mel said, this would make it a super-set of other rights. Unalienable rights are rights that cannot be alienated. Unalienable rights have never been confused with rights granted by a government except here at Wikipedia. 200 years ago, Inalienable rights were used in the same context as Unalienable rights, but now they mean something completely different in usage. Inalienable rights today means rights based on morals and granted by a government. Does that help? --Zephram Stark 17:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out Civil rights, which has this quote:

"Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights"; civil rights are rights that persons do have, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars think that people should have." which, of course, contridicts the other definitions.--JW1805 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously many different definitions and usages, but there are two concepts. Whether or not you agree that there are two concepts does not change the fact that history's most respected philosophers recognize unalienable rights like breathing to be in a separate category from government granted rights like sexual expression. We can argue about which "rights" fall into which category, and what to call the categories, but two fundamentally different concepts have been recognized throughout history from Plato to Bentham and beyond. --Zephram Stark 17:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that it is not clear in the various Wikipedia articles. The distinctions you are making above aren't in there anywhere (at least I don't think so). --JW1805 19:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JW, I looked through the "Human Rights" article - which I think is the one you think is the good one - and it doesn't mention Bentham once. This is a compelling argument that the *metaphyiscal concept* of natural rights that I keep banging on about is something different which ought to be kept separate.ElectricRay 08:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

It might be an interesting exercise to provide a list of rights grouped into categories. For example, a right that is inalienable but not natural, a right that is natural but not inalienable, etc. How about it? --JW1805 19:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you are trying to say (See diagram): That some rights are Natural, Inalienable, Natural and Inalienable. But all rights are human rights?--JW1805 19:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you include breathing as a human right, I think that diagram is a fair representation of general usage. The problem you run into by using that diagram is that some people will say that all Human rights are based on morals. If Natural rights are a subset of Human rights and it becomes accepted that all Human rights are based on morals, that would change the meaning of Natural rights. (It would no longer include breating, for instance.) Since Human Rights are used in various different contexts, some of which exclude the right to breath, it is better to keep Natural rights completely separate to avoid confusion. --Zephram Stark 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I oppose the merge. Clearly, these are closely related concepts, but they have shades of meaning which have been discussed in very different ways in the past. Generally, I propose the following distinctions between the articles in questions:

Right - discusses the basic idea of rights
- Natural rights - discusses whether or not some rights arise from natural law
- Inalienable rights - discusses whether or not some rights are inalienable
- Human rights - discusses that muddy morass of thought that describes itself as "human rights", especially the definitions used by the UN and similar such groups, along with their legal implications
- Civil rights - discusses citizens' rights to interact with their governments, etc. I'm not sure how universal "civil rights" is ever going to be; as a distinct concept it seems to be tied in quite closely to specific conflicts and legal relationships in Western countries in the late 19th-through-mid 20th centuries.

Does that sound about right? - Nat Kraus e 05:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is about spot on. You've summarised my view extremely succintly.ElectricRay 08:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger: I agree completely. Check out the human rights entry from the internet encyclopedia of philosophy to see natural rights in the context of human rights. Further, I don't think a categorical listing excercise of rights would be helpful to anyone. TreveX^talk 09:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Krause, You have done an excellent job of describing how these terms should be used as succinct and different ideas with the possible exception of "Inalienable Rights." The Inalienable rights article links to only examples that are either "Natural rights" or "Human rights." The example it gives of Unalienable rights as used in the U.S. Declaration of Independence is clearly talking about the concept of Natural rights as you describe them. Whereas, Iran's "Inalienable right" to a nuclear fuel cycle, and Palestine's "Inalienable right" to Mediterranean property are clearly talking about the concept of Human rights as you describe them. Because archaic usage of "unalienable" is already covered by the concept of "Natural rights" while the modern usage of "inalienable" is covered by "Human rights", no article on "Inalienable rights" is needed at all. Its weak attempt to link the Declaration of Independence with Moral_universalism and Moral_relativism amounts to nothing but primary source original research. Nothing in the articles themselves claims that the Declaration of Independence is, in any way, an example of these arguments. The "Inalienable rights" criticism of the Declaration as a Naturalistic_fallacy is absurd since the Declaration obviously does not "appeal to a definition of the term 'good'" in any fashion. --Zephram Stark 18:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nat Kraus suggestion. I'll go ahead and drop my merger request, since I guess arguments can be made that these terms are different. Although I did put in the Rights article a statement that they are sometimes used interchangeably. Of course I disagree with Zephram Stark's interpretation about the Inalienable rights article.--JW1805 18:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction needs to be redone?

The introduction has several problems, which I'm listing below. I think the introduction needs to be redone but before I change it, I wanted to ask you for your opinions.

Here are the problems I see: 1.Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing factors, such as ethnicity and nationality.

--"regardless of legal jurisdiction"-- No, human rights may be universal but nonetheless they are guaranteed by individual states (and can be revoked by individual states as well). There are some universal principles (e.g. genocide, slavery) that go beyound state jurisdiction, but most human rights do not. --The phrasing of this sentence seems a bit iffy to me... why is "human rights" not a concept in itself, why does it refer to a concept of human rights as having universal rights?

2.For many, the concept of "human rights" is based in religious principles, or else is otherwise directly related to them. --"religious principles"--perhaps for many, but for many others human rights transcend religious belief and thus claiming that they are based on religious principles is to undermine their universality.

3.However, because a formal concept of human rights has not been universally accepted, the term has some degree of variance between its use in different local jurisdictions —difference in both meaningful substance as well as in protocols for and styles of application. --"not universally accepted". I quickly counted that had only about 15% of the states in the world have not ratified the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights or in other words 85% have. In legal terms, this means that at least some human rights can be called customery law and are thus universal principles, regardless of whether an individual or an individual state accepts universal human rights.

4. Ultimately the most general meaning of the term is one which can only apply universally, and hence the term "human rights" is often itself an appeal to such transcendent principle, without basing such on existing legal concepts. --"such transcendent principle, without basing such on existing legal concepts"? What? Unclear formulation and no point that I can see. Perhaps the writer means "discourse on human rights are an attempt to uncover a transcendent principle" in which case, I disagree as human rights are clearly defined in the legal documents.

5.The term "humanism" refers to the developing doctrine of such universally applicable values, and it is on the basic concept that human beings have innate rights, that more specific local legal concepts are often based. --Humanisms should be discussed somewhere else but here. Perhaps in philosophical schools of thought close to human rights.

6.Within particular societies, "human rights" refers to standards of behavior as accepted within their respective legal systems regarding 1) the well being of individuals, 2) the freedom and autonomy of individuals, and 3) the representation of the human interest in government. --"particular societies", "respective legal systems"-- a legal system does not exist in a society but in a state. Wrong phrase here.

7. These rights commonly include the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, the prohibition of genocide, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to education, and the right to participation in cultural and political life. These norms are based on the legal and political traditions of United Nations member states and are incorporated into international human rights instruments (see below). --"prohibition of genocide" is actually not a human right but a part of international humanitarian law as put forward in the " Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"