Does liberalism value human rights over ethics?

[danieldemol]

Would be helpful if more Western liberals understood the intellectual traditions behind why 'universal' human rights emerged when and where they did though. If people get complacent about the innateness, stability and permanence of their belief systems, they could be in for a big surprise.

Do you think that we should not stand up for ‘universal’ human rights just because the beliefs which underpin them might eventually be out bread due to the overproduction of humans with more primitive ‘revelation’ based beliefs?

 

[PureX]

Does (western) liberalism value human rights over ethics?

My initial thoughts on this is that it is a contradiction in terms. Human rights are rights because they pertain to the ethical treatment of humans.

By comparison allegedly “revealed” religions tend to value these alleged revelations over ethics and human rights (at least as far as traditional Islamic sects such as the ahl e hadeeth are concerned).

Please discuss.

Choosing our own ethical imperatives is our right as human beings. Acting on those chosen imperatives, however, must be limited by the equal right of our fellow humans not to be harmed by our actions. So equality trumps ethics by the necessity of social function. As a cooperative social species, we are free in thought, but controlled in action. Such is the relationship between rights and ethics.

 

[Augustus]

Do you think that we should not stand up for ‘universal’ human rights just because the beliefs which underpin them might eventually be out bread due to the overproduction of humans with more primitive ‘revelation’ based beliefs?

If you want to stand up for your values, it's best to recognise where they come from. Otherwise you are just like the economists who are shocked when the real world economy fails to do what their models suggested it should do.

It wasn't all that long ago that the default position of the Western liberal was to assume 'progress' would ensure that everyone around the world would become Western liberals as they became wealthier and more educated.

Some have been 'mugged by reality', as the world clearly has failed to conform to their prediction, but not all.

Many still cling to a version of this myth as they believe secularism and humanism are simply a product of the neutral application of reason rather than a culturally contingent ideology that grew out of a particular historical and cultural circumstance.

Western liberalism is a relatively new, minority belief from a part of the world declining in importance and obsessed with its own sense of superiority.

History goes in cycles, and the longer a belief system has survived, the better we can predict its survival into the future. Who knows what will happen, but the odds are liberalism goes before revealed religions do.

 

[danieldemol]

If you want to stand up for your values, it's best to recognise where they come from. Otherwise you are just like the economists who are shocked when the real world economy fails to do what their models suggested it should do.

It wasn't all that long ago that the default position of the Western liberal was to assume 'progress' would ensure that everyone around the world would become Western liberals as they became wealthier and more educated.

Some have been 'mugged by reality', as the world clearly has failed to conform to their prediction, but not all.

Many still cling to a version of this myth as they believe secularism and humanism are simply a product of the neutral application of reason rather than a culturally contingent ideology that grew out of a particular historical and cultural circumstance.

Western liberalism is a relatively new, minority belief from a part of the world declining in importance and obsessed with its own sense of superiority.

History goes in cycles, and the longer a belief system has survived, the better we can predict its survival into the future. Who knows what will happen, but the odds are liberalism goes before revealed religions do.

But my question which I think got lost in your response was essentially suppose universal human rights are due to die out anyway, is this any reason not to stand up for them? It looks to me like ‘revealed’ religions only tool in its arsenal is reproductive success.

So should we fail to stand up for that which is correct (ie human rights) just because we are possibly going to be outnumbered by primitive people in the end?

I feel that you are giving up before the proverbial fat lady sings. Before the curtains are drawn on liberalism by fanatics keen on enforcing their allegedly revealed dogmas.

Why give up so soon? That’s what i’m failing to understand.

 

[stvdv]

2. Mispercieved affilliation of a poster from the Islam DIR who shall not be named due to RF rules who used the cover of the DIR to bash liberalism.

I never thought about this kind of sneakiness to misuse a DIR for such a thing. Good to know this happens though.

 

[stvdv]

Does (western) liberalism value human rights over ethics?

I think this is a very good question.
Ethics is about "right and wrong behavior"
Liberalism is about "freedom"

Many times I see "in the name of freedom (having a human right)" people acting so very wrong, that I wonder "does freedom create inhumane"

 

[stvdv]

My initial thoughts on this is that it is a contradiction in terms. Human rights are rights because they pertain to the ethical treatment of humans.

That would be the ideal, I would also think

By comparison allegedly “revealed” religions tend to value these alleged revelations over ethics and human rights (at least as far as traditional Islamic sects such as the ahl e hadeeth are concerned).

Yes, this I have seen happening more than once.

Probably they forgot certain Wisdom mentioned in various scriptures:
"Do unto others what you want them to do unto you"
"...And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of these is love"
"A humans is an embodiment of the Divine; so are other humans (all humans)"

 

[PureX]

If you want to stand up for your values, it's best to recognise where they come from. Otherwise you are just like the economists who are shocked when the real world economy fails to do what their models suggested it should do.

It wasn't all that long ago that the default position of the Western liberal was to assume 'progress' would ensure that everyone around the world would become Western liberals as they became wealthier and more educated.

Some have been 'mugged by reality', as the world clearly has failed to conform to their prediction, but not all.

Many still cling to a version of this myth as they believe secularism and humanism are simply a product of the neutral application of reason rather than a culturally contingent ideology that grew out of a particular historical and cultural circumstance.

Western liberalism is a relatively new, minority belief from a part of the world declining in importance and obsessed with its own sense of superiority.

History goes in cycles, and the longer a belief system has survived, the better we can predict its survival into the future. Who knows what will happen, but the odds are liberalism goes before revealed religions do.

Yes. The sad truth is that the more we humans gain in wealth, power, and opportunity, the more greedy we become. It's not rational, but it's been clearly born out by experience as modern societies have gained so much in the last several centuries, and become increasingly exploitive and greedy as a result.

 

[osgart]

But my question which I think got lost in your response was essentially suppose universal human rights are due to die out anyway, is this any reason not to stand up for them? It looks to me like ‘revealed’ religions only tool in its arsenal is reproductive success.

So should we fail to stand up for that which is correct (ie human rights) just because we are possibly going to be outnumbered by primitive people in the end?

I feel that you are giving up before the proverbial fat lady sings. Before the curtains are drawn on liberalism by fanatics keen on enforcing their allegedly revealed dogmas.

Why give up so soon? That’s what i’m failing to understand.

I don't think anyone should give up on human rights and equality for all peoples. Not everyone deserves the same rewards in life, but everyone deserves basic human dignity, and rights. The day we stop valuing ourselves is the day hatred takes over.

Everything costs time and resources to make things work. People shouldn't have to survive at the expense of others. There has to be a government and value system that corresponds to the values we want to have as people. If we continue to waste the Earth's resources for the sake of competition, greed, and power then eventually we will ruin life for future generations by not living judiciously.

Technology could enable better systems of economy and government. Right now everything costs and we must pay our way to survive and exist. Our current money systems are not very judicious. We don't seem to place value on human life under current systems. A lot of life on Earth has no representative value.

As humans we need to find ways of helping all humans become productive citizens. No system on Earth has that focus right now.

 

[Mindmaster]

Does (western) liberalism value human rights over ethics?

My initial thoughts on this is that it is a contradiction in terms. Human rights are rights because they pertain to the ethical treatment of humans.

By comparison allegedly “revealed” religions tend to value these alleged revelations over ethics and human rights (at least as far as traditional Islamic sects such as the ahl e hadeeth are concerned).

Please discuss.

Many of the founding ideas of modern liberalism find their origins in the beliefs of secular humanism. On its face, that would say that it's vaguely incompatible with many religions or philosophies which are the source of a majority of our concepts of ethics. Though, in their stead, humanism provides an alternative set of ethics, and that sort of deals with the issue.

There are basically several ways to look at rights.

1. Inherent or God-Given. (You have them automatically, generally the US model.)
2. Derived By The Will of The People. (Generally, a liberal concept here, as #1 trumps this. Though originally constitutional favors inferred some of this...)
3. Derived By The Government. (You have no rights unless given.)

Modern liberalism basically moved from classical liberalism after WW2 (and German scientists and educators were imported) and incorporated their progressive leanings. But, they also took the idea that #2 means nothing without #3. (Which was an obvious carry-over from the Socialists in Germany, a country that didn't have a concept of #1.) Thus, you have liberals largely trying to force "identity specific" laws because they presume that you don't have the rights that are unspecified. (Actually, the constitution was real clear on this that you had all rights not specifically prohibited.)

The end result is that modern liberalism pretty much ignores ethics in lieu of rights because they don't see enough explicitness in the current incarnation of the government. Where they do have ethics they line up with secular humanism, etc., and they supersede any religion they claim to participate in. (Which they may identify with only for novelty or ancestral reasons.) For obvious reasons, this violates the basic tenets of nearly every religion under the sun.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By comparison allegedly “revealed” religions tend to value these alleged revelations over ethics and human rights (at least as far as traditional Islamic sects such as the ahl e hadeeth are concerned).

Please discuss.

From Jewish Virtual Library:

[a gentile] came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it." - Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a​

 

[Augustus]

But my question which I think got lost in your response was essentially suppose universal human rights are due to die out anyway, is this any reason not to stand up for them? It looks to me like ‘revealed’ religions only tool in its arsenal is reproductive success.

So should we fail to stand up for that which is correct (ie human rights) just because we are possibly going to be outnumbered by primitive people in the end?

I feel that you are giving up before the proverbial fat lady sings. Before the curtains are drawn on liberalism by fanatics keen on enforcing their allegedly revealed dogmas.

Why give up so soon? That’s what i’m failing to understand.

The problem with 'universal' values which belies their monotheistic roots is the perceived duty to proselytise these values. It's better to focus on the human rights than the universal.

People are better off ensuring their values survive in their own societies rather than seeking to ensure that other people in very different societies subscribe to their value system.

Create the kind of society you want to live in and let the people of other nations take responsibility for their own societies.

 

[epronovost]

The problem with 'universal' values which belies their monotheistic roots is the perceived duty to proselytise these values. It's better to focus on the human rights than the universal.

People are better off ensuring their values survive in their own societies rather than seeking to ensure that other people in very different societies subscribe to their value system.

Create the kind of society you want to live in and let the people of other nations take responsibility for their own societies.

That's the problem. If you believe humans have rights and that you are compelled to help people in distress; you end up trying to fight for human rights in societies where people see their rights trampled. Note that this practice does help solidify the beliefs in human rights in your own society since it allows you to "perform" your morality. Trying to spread a moral and ethical system out doesn't "weaken" it in it's society of origin. You can't be charitable without doing charity work or donation once in while. You can't support justice without fighting injustice once in while. Think of the mental gymnastic it would take for someone to maintain a strong belief in justice all the while closing their eyes and keeping their hands in their pockets when they witness severe injustice in other parts of the world. Plus, it implies that those who believes and espouse anti-humanist values do not try and would not try to proselytise their values and this is obviously wrong. Authoritarian socialist in China, authoritarian capitalists in Russia, theocrats in Saudi Arabia and Iran, ultranationalists in the US, Brazil and India are trying to spread their own brand of anti-humanism around.

 

[Nakosis]

I don’t have specific examples in mind here, but I’m sure that western liberals would not value all of the rulings of conservative political parties, even where such rulings were the result of a democratic win.

The Bill of Right provides a baseline for human rights. Obviously not everyone is going to agree on moral issues. That's why enforcement is necessary. I may not agree with all the laws but civilization requires compromise.

 

[Tambourine]

But my question which I think got lost in your response was essentially suppose universal human rights are due to die out anyway, is this any reason not to stand up for them?

What is that question supposed to mean?

Universal human rights do not exist in reality, how would they "die out"?

 

[danieldemol]

What is that question supposed to mean?

Universal human rights do not exist in reality, how would they "die out"?

They exist on paper as the universal declaration of human rights, it is up to you whether you take a stand for or against those values.

 

[Tambourine]

@danieldemol
I still don't understand what you meant by human rights "dying out".
What would that entail, how would it look like in your imagination?
What would be different, compared to right now?

 

[Augustus]

That's the problem. If you believe humans have rights and that you are compelled to help people in distress; you end up trying to fight for human rights in societies where people see their rights trampled. Note that this practice does help solidify the beliefs in human rights in your own society since it allows you to "perform" your morality. Trying to spread a moral and ethical system out doesn't "weaken" it in it's society of origin. You can't be charitable without doing charity work or donation once in while. You can't support justice without fighting injustice once in while. Think of the mental gymnastic it would take for someone to maintain a strong belief in justice all the while closing their eyes and keeping their hands in their pockets when they witness severe injustice in other parts of the world. Plus, it implies that those who believes and espouse anti-humanist values do not try and would not try to proselytise their values and this is obviously wrong. Authoritarian socialist in China, authoritarian capitalists in Russia, theocrats in Saudi Arabia and Iran, ultranationalists in the US, Brazil and India are trying to spread their own brand of anti-humanism around.

Humans have a bias towards 'doing something', even when 'doing something' is unlikely to work and may even make things worse (think people demanding antibiotics when they have a cold). This is especially true in complex, volatile situations that you don't really understand very well.

Trying to spread your values abroad often doesn't work out the way you wanted it to, yet you are not held accountable for the unintended consequences of your actions.

Attempts to spread human rights to spread human rights in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan didn't work out too well, and then those responsible washed their hands of it and left the local to pick up the pieces.

Humans are hubristic and believe they understand situations and have more control over outcomes than they actually do.

 

[danieldemol]

Attempts to spread human rights to spread human rights in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan didn't work out too well, and then those responsible washed their hands of it and left the local to pick up the pieces.

You are referring to militant attempts at spreading human rights here.

I see no reason why we should lessen peaceful attempts at spreading human rights just because millitant attempts which took a backseat to other interests did not work.

 

[danieldemol]

@danieldemol
I still don't understand what you meant by human rights "dying out".
What would that entail, how would it look like in your imagination?
What would be different, compared to right now?

Human rights exist in practice to a certain extent in the western world (though less so under trump’s leading of the US).

Some people are (or appear to be) of the opinion that as we are outbread by people with no respect for human rights, they (who don’t respect rights) will eventually take over here in the west and any human rights we currently enjoy in practice will disappear.