ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th May 2017, 07:53 PM   #1
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,644
Is there such a thing as Universal Rights?

A friend and I had a discussion about healthcare as a universal right.

I support a universal healthcare style system because I believe it provides a wide variety of benefits both to individuals and to society as a whole (reduced suffering, increased health and happiness, improved productivity, not being stuck at a job because you need insurance) , but I don't believe it is a universal right because I don't believe in universal rights.

He disagrees and believes it is a universal right in that it is something everyone deserves simply by being born.

It seems to me very much like religion

The Theist says: "Healthcare is a god given right!"

The Atheist/Agnostic/Spiritual says: "Healthcare is a universal right!"

In both cases it's a person taking their own moral viewpoints and attributing/associating them to something of a higher power whether that's god or the universe.
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 08:22 PM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,475
I don't even know where to begin with this. Can you focus on one part of your question, and start there?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 09:24 PM   #3
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
There is no universal right. By that I mean you can only get the right the government enforce and protect. Think about it , if for some unknown reason the executive and judiciary (both branch of the US government) decided to not enforce the first amendment, e.g. start censoring everybody speaking against the president , put them in prison, do you still have that first amendment right ? No. On paper you have it, but the reality is that without judicial and executive enforcement you have nothing.

So that take care of the universal part.

Now do you have the right of health care ? Nope neither. It is just that it makes sense for the society to have such a protection net , as it allows productive member to be more productive, and non productive member to be protected, from what are stochastic elements. Stop completely healthcare and you have people dying literally in the street ("bring out yer dead!"), and due to one random accident being removed from productive society for ever, because they can't pay for a simple operation.

The question that is left is , how much healthcare make sense for a government to pay for, and that is a combination of cultural and economic problem (it has to be taxed, and beyond a certain point it does not bring positive effect to society , e.g. there is no reason to pay for most aesthetic surgery - except some like reconstruction surgery).

Even in that "commie socialistic" paradise of UHC countries, there are difference of value and care given.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 10:21 PM   #4
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,359
Is there such a thing as Universal Rights?

Yes.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 10:33 PM   #5
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,950
Not this again...

Rights are an incredibly useful fiction that allows people to free themselves of most survival-related anxieties.
As such, including a right to healthcare would be very useful for the functioning of a society.
__________________
“I don’t believe in astrology; I’m a Sagittarius and we’re skeptical.” - Arthur C. Clarke
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 01:00 AM   #6
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,644
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
There is no universal right. By that I mean you can only get the right the government enforce and protect. Think about it , if for some unknown reason the executive and judiciary (both branch of the US government) decided to not enforce the first amendment, e.g. start censoring everybody speaking against the president , put them in prison, do you still have that first amendment right ? No. On paper you have it, but the reality is that without judicial and executive enforcement you have nothing.

So that take care of the universal part.

Now do you have the right of health care ? Nope neither. It is just that it makes sense for the society to have such a protection net , as it allows productive member to be more productive, and non productive member to be protected, from what are stochastic elements. Stop completely healthcare and you have people dying literally in the street ("bring out yer dead!"), and due to one random accident being removed from productive society for ever, because they can't pay for a simple operation.

The question that is left is , how much healthcare make sense for a government to pay for, and that is a combination of cultural and economic problem (it has to be taxed, and beyond a certain point it does not bring positive effect to society , e.g. there is no reason to pay for most aesthetic surgery - except some like reconstruction surgery).

Even in that "commie socialistic" paradise of UHC countries, there are difference of value and care given.
This is pretty much what I said to my friend
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 01:01 AM   #7
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,644
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Not this again...

Rights are an incredibly useful fiction that allows people to free themselves of most survival-related anxieties.
As such, including a right to healthcare would be very useful for the functioning of a society.
That is a pretty accurate description actually
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 02:39 AM   #8
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
In the UK we apparently no longer have a right to healthcare even if you pay into it all your life. You can spend 50 years paying into the NHS and then, when it comes to needing it later in life you are forced to pay with your own savings and, eventually, your house.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 05:36 AM   #9
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 12,070
I agree that the idea of rights of any kind are a societal construct; but a very useful one that reflects on the society itself.
An ideal situation would be universal healthcare of high quality on demand. However the society has to decide how to fund this as it tends to be very expensive.

The current attitude of some of our august political leaders is pretty callous; just shut up and go die somewhere. "No one dies in the USA for lack of health care." Right....
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:00 AM   #10
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
In both cases it's a person taking their own moral viewpoints and attributing/associating them to something of a higher power whether that's god or the universe.
That is what moral viewpoints are for.

(See Kantian Ethics and the Categorical ImperativeWP.)
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:42 AM   #11
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,062
It's very simple. Inherent rights are those you are born with, and nobody else has any right to take away. In this way, the concept of kings and man-gods with metaphysical (as opposed to merely physical brute) authority to lord over you disappears as a concept.

Statutory rights are those created by legislation (where the legislature is created by the people and granted certain listed powers and no others) that anybody may take advantage of. However, they are not inherent in you. The fact someone squoze you out and you have a heartbeat doesn't mean others must serve you to keep you alive by dint of them having a heartbeat, too.


"Universal" doesn't enter into it except as a concept that everyone is equal under the law and thus said statutory rights would apply to them.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 20th May 2017 at 06:45 AM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:01 AM   #12
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
A friend and I had a discussion about healthcare as a universal right.

I support a universal healthcare style system because I believe it provides a wide variety of benefits both to individuals and to society as a whole (reduced suffering, increased health and happiness, improved productivity, not being stuck at a job because you need insurance)...
Why does the result matter? Isn't appeal to consequences a fallacy?

Quote:
... , but I don't believe it is a universal right because I don't believe in universal rights.

He disagrees and believes it is a universal right in that it is something everyone deserves simply by being born.
What does it mean for something "to be there"?

Are there rights at all? In what way are property rights different from universal rights, if at all?

Are there numbers, like the number 2?

Are there atoms or photons?


Quote:
It seems to me very much like religion

The Theist says: "Healthcare is a god given right!"

The Atheist/Agnostic/Spiritual says: "Healthcare is a universal right!"

In both cases it's a person taking their own moral viewpoints and attributing/associating them to something of a higher power whether that's god or the universe.
Metaphysically, there is a deep difference. There is lots of variety among theists but I'll just write with only the euro-american variety in mind.
They believe that disrespecting god's wishes has negative consequences which are not at first obvious (ie you go to hell for your sins). That means sinning is like smoking. At first it feels good but bad things eventually happen to you.
Since they believe god is almighty and has designed the universe, god is as much responsible for the consequences of smoking as he is for punishing sinners. The only difference is wether the consequences is before or after death.

This dimension is not implied by the universal right concept.

Socially there are obvious parallels. In both cases, the declaration serves to assure others that one will behave in a certain way. If you convince people that you sincerely believe then they will trust you.
It's a much more credible way of saying: "I wouldn't kill you even if it were to my advantage," than actually saying it.
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 12:37 PM   #13
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,115
I don't think the idea of human rights really stands up to scrutiny.

Let us consider two possible worlds: A and B. There is a version of Jack and Jill in both worlds. World A has universal rights (life, liberty, etc.), and World B does not. In both worlds, Jack shoots Jill to death for no particular reason.

What is the practical difference between the two, either in terms of what has actually occurred, or what will likely occur as a result? For example, in World B, would the local police officer say to Jack, "Well, I was going to arrest you, but then I realized that I would only be enforcing man-made laws, not universal rights, so I guess I'll just let you go."
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 12:55 PM   #14
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,950
Without a shared belief in Human Rights, no one could make any important deals with people they haven't build extensive trust with.
Human Rights form a norm for how we treat others and can expect to be treated by them regardless of differences in hierarchy between us.
Innovation would crumble if we couldn't bring our bosses bad news fro fear of them literally shooting the messenger.
__________________
“I don’t believe in astrology; I’m a Sagittarius and we’re skeptical.” - Arthur C. Clarke
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 04:53 AM   #15
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,091
Human rights are a legal fiction established generally through a mix of tradition and legislation for a particular society. As a result they are not fixed across different societies and cultures, and are only as real as society's willingness to enforce them.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 05:37 AM   #16
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,597
Originally Posted by baron View Post
In the UK we apparently no longer have a right to healthcare even if you pay into it all your life. You can spend 50 years paying into the NHS and then, when it comes to needing it later in life you are forced to pay with your own savings and, eventually, your house.
In England & Wales. (not sure about Northern Ireland)

In Scotland, Personal Care is free (for those aged 65+). One could argue where you draw the line between healthcare and other care, but regardless of that, Scotland decided to make it free.

That's not to say that care charges aren't high. They definitely are. Care is expensive.

Also, the amount of care we are now providing is constantly rising. People are living longer and have higher expectations of the care they expect to get. in previous years, when families and communities would support people, state provided care provision was seen as a last resort. Now it is seen as almost inevitable.

I don't have any answers, but it's not easy. Care costs.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 07:10 AM   #17
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I don't think the idea of human rights really stands up to scrutiny.

Let us consider two possible worlds: A and B. There is a version of Jack and Jill in both worlds. World A has universal rights (life, liberty, etc.), and World B does not. In both worlds, Jack shoots Jill to death for no particular reason.

What is the practical difference between the two, either in terms of what has actually occurred, or what will likely occur as a result? For example, in World B, would the local police officer say to Jack, "Well, I was going to arrest you, but then I realized that I would only be enforcing man-made laws, not universal rights, so I guess I'll just let you go."
It seems to me that one possible conclusion would be that a world without universal rights is simply not a possible world...

Suppose we do the same with numbers: There's two possible worlds, one where things can be numbered and one where they cannot be. In both worlds, Jack and Jill go to fetch two buckets of water, except in the world without numbers they can't fetch two so... uh... a bucket for each? Or would that imply the number one?

Eventually, I think that both thought experiments fail because they make an implicit category error.
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 07:18 AM   #18
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,642
Rights are human inventions. If they're built into law so that everyone has them automatically, then they are called universal.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 04:04 PM   #19
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,812
A right that you have to depend on anyone else providing for you, is no right at all..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 24th May 2017 at 04:06 PM.
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 11:59 PM   #20
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,002
A parable.

Human rights are like ten spirits that were in the Ideal World while waiting to be sent to the Earth of Senses. These spirits didn’t know what kind of life was reserved for them. They could be a woman, a man, a king, a slave, soldier, a priest… Suddenly a big ideal screen opened and the spirits could see a lot of scenes of the life in the towns of the earth. Some were awful. Other not. Then the Demiurge came and asked them: What are the things that you don’t want for you in any case when you will be in the Earth of Senses?

We can imagine what things would be chosen. Nobody want to be a homeless old man in a cold night of winter, a woman that has not money to pay a doctor to her sick child, a slave, a poor girl in Ethiopia, a soldier burned alive, etc., etc.,

The total set of these wishes are the Human Rights. They are not universal in the sense that were written in some Tables of the Law; they are not similar to the law of gravity; but they are universal in the sense that we can suppose that they would be chosen by every rational men and women in these specific circumstances.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 02:54 AM   #21
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,785
If you mean "God given" rights then that depends on what your religious views are. Otherwise, it is just what others say your rights are.

The closest there is to a universal right might be in commerce where everybody has an equal right to enforce a contract that they may have entered into. Even then, that is not a guaranteed right.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 07:05 PM   #22
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,812
Having a right to enforce it, doesn't mean it will be enforced.

That puts us back to a ' right ' being something you have the power to enforce..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 10:55 PM   #23
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If you mean "God given" rights then that depends on what your religious views are. Otherwise, it is just what others say your rights are.
“My” proposal is independent of any particular belief, gods included. Of course, some particular beliefs –political, religious, moral, etc.‒ can obstacle the compliance of a right. For example: some fundamentalist religions are against gender equality. But my proposal avoids this point by supposing that the “spirits” know neither their sex nor social position, nor cultural background. They are supposed to be under a “veil of ignorance” and their decision will be only sustained by natural disgust or fear to affliction.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The closest there is to a universal right might be in commerce where everybody has an equal right to enforce a contract that they may have entered into.
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Having a right to enforce it, doesn't mean it will be enforced.
That puts us back to a ' right ' being something you have the power to enforce.
I agree with Skeptical Greg. A human right is independent of any fair play, trade, etc. It is something that you cannot put at stake, win or loss. You have this right, whatever you do. For example: if you are playing tennis and you win the first set you cannot take the racquet from your opponent. He has the right to have a racquet under any circumstances. This is how Human Rights work. You cannot lose the right to a fair trial, even if you are a killer.

Last edited by David Mo; 25th May 2017 at 10:59 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 02:11 AM   #24
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 346
While the phrasing was awkward, the question's interesting.

From my perspective there are moral absolutes (I'm not a relativist, even a majority belief or even near-unanimity doesn't change some things). But my conception of human rights while informed by my moral beliefs, doesn't match exactly to it, or in a sense may be based on more important moral considerations.

For instance, I think free speech is an important human right, and people should be free to engage in speech I think is morally wrong (e.g. blasphemous racist sexist tirades?). Or competent consenting adults should be free to engage in behaviour I or others may consider morally wrong (e.g. drug use I'm in favour of a more liberal policy than is currently the case, though even then with some drugs the risk to innocent third parties justifies restrictions because of toxicity or risk of inducing violent behaviour etc.).

But in other places morality and rights match up, e.g. people should be free not to be tortured or murdered, as a human right that corresponds to moral absolute values also.

For healthcare, I think universal healthcare is a good idea, and a good ideal, however it is achieved. But even then it's not going to be fully universal, there will always be finite resources and some things not covered for that reason. Or food and water and shelter, should people be entitled to receive those things, it seems easy answer yes. But what about someone who (while not addicted) likes a particular drug and to not work even though physically able, they just want to beg for money for drugs and get food and water and shelter provided as their right, is it appropriate to tell them no?
epeeist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 02:15 AM   #25
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 346
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
“My” proposal is independent of any particular belief, gods included. Of course, some particular beliefs –political, religious, moral, etc.‒ can obstacle the compliance of a right. For example: some fundamentalist religions are against gender equality. But my proposal avoids this point by supposing that the “spirits” know neither their sex nor social position, nor cultural background. They are supposed to be under a “veil of ignorance” and their decision will be only sustained by natural disgust or fear to affliction.



I agree with Skeptical Greg. A human right is independent of any fair play, trade, etc. It is something that you cannot put at stake, win or loss. You have this right, whatever you do. For example: if you are playing tennis and you win the first set you cannot take the racquet from your opponent. He has the right to have a racquet under any circumstances. This is how Human Rights work. You cannot lose the right to a fair trial, even if you are a killer.
Just to quibble re fair trial, I think e.g. the right to have a trial and be represented etc. are fundamental to a fair trial. But if someone e.g. flees to avoid arrest/trial/conviction and are tried and convicted in absentia, I don't necessarily see that as unfair because they chose to flee (I'm assuming a generally fair system - someone fleeing to avoid an unfair trial is different from someone fleeing a generally fair trial process).
epeeist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 04:24 AM   #26
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,091
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
Just to quibble re fair trial, I think e.g. the right to have a trial and be represented etc. are fundamental to a fair trial. But if someone e.g. flees to avoid arrest/trial/conviction and are tried and convicted in absentia, I don't necessarily see that as unfair because they chose to flee (I'm assuming a generally fair system - someone fleeing to avoid an unfair trial is different from someone fleeing a generally fair trial process).
A fair trial in absentia is almost a contradiction in terms. A fair trial is one where the state presents the evidence supporting its case and the defence is able to make a full response to the evidence provided. Without the defendant actually being present, it is highly unlikely that a full response to the evidence of the prosecution will be tendered, leading to a potentially unjust verdict.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 05:31 AM   #27
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,642
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
A right that you have to depend on anyone else providing for you, is no right at all..
Then there are no rights.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:14 AM   #28
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 346
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
A fair trial in absentia is almost a contradiction in terms. A fair trial is one where the state presents the evidence supporting its case and the defence is able to make a full response to the evidence provided. Without the defendant actually being present, it is highly unlikely that a full response to the evidence of the prosecution will be tendered, leading to a potentially unjust verdict.
While I agree generally, if someone has the opportunity to participate and chooses not to - let's say someone is released before trial and flees the country - they've chosen not to participate. Let's say it's a situation in which all/most witnesses will be dead soon. I see it as less unfair to have the trial in absentia, than to allow the accused the benefit of fleeing, staying away a year or two for witnesses to die, and then returning to face no trial.

And yes there are statements that can be taken, but same problem, no testing of their evidence by the defence (e.g. cross-examination).

And inquisitorial as opposed to adversarial systems work differently.
epeeist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 11:20 PM   #29
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
A friend and I had a discussion about healthcare as a universal right.

I support a universal healthcare style system because I believe it provides a wide variety of benefits both to individuals and to society as a whole (reduced suffering, increased health and happiness, improved productivity, not being stuck at a job because you need insurance) , but I don't believe it is a universal right because I don't believe in universal rights.

He disagrees and believes it is a universal right in that it is something everyone deserves simply by being born.

It seems to me very much like religion

The Theist says: "Healthcare is a god given right!"

The Atheist/Agnostic/Spiritual says: "Healthcare is a universal right!"

In both cases it's a person taking their own moral viewpoints and attributing/associating them to something of a higher power whether that's god or the universe.
Morally yes, legally no.............
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:47 AM   #30
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,091
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
While I agree generally, if someone has the opportunity to participate and chooses not to - let's say someone is released before trial and flees the country - they've chosen not to participate. Let's say it's a situation in which all/most witnesses will be dead soon. I see it as less unfair to have the trial in absentia, than to allow the accused the benefit of fleeing, staying away a year or two for witnesses to die, and then returning to face no trial.

And yes there are statements that can be taken, but same problem, no testing of their evidence by the defence (e.g. cross-examination).

And inquisitorial as opposed to adversarial systems work differently.
Where do you draw the line? When a known suspect flees the jurisdiction after arrest, but before trial? When a known suspect is not physically in the jurisdiction and so hasn't been arrested or is not transported to the trying jurisdiction?

Trials in absentia tend to be show trials. They are not justice, they are at best the appearance of justice. Any legal process that has serious consequences for the party found at fault should require the participation of both parties.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 08:31 AM   #31
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 346
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Where do you draw the line? When a known suspect flees the jurisdiction after arrest, but before trial? When a known suspect is not physically in the jurisdiction and so hasn't been arrested or is not transported to the trying jurisdiction?

Trials in absentia tend to be show trials. They are not justice, they are at best the appearance of justice. Any legal process that has serious consequences for the party found at fault should require the participation of both parties.
I agree with tend to be and should and that that's an aspirational goal. I disagree with an absolute judgment that they are never appropriate.

And also, no human system is perfectly just - if that were the requirement, no system ever has or could meet that standard.

Let's say a war crimes mass murderer, who murdered again to escape, and is hiding under an unknown assumed name somewhere, is a fugitive. News reports make it abundantly clear throughout the world that there are criminal charges and a trial. There are only a few living witnesses left who will probably die soon. Their co-accused are on trial. If the missing fugitive accused were tried under those circumstances, I wouldn't be complaining assuming the rest of the process tried to be fair, they had a court-appointed lawyer to cross-examine witnesses (who are also cross-examined by lawyers for the other accused), etc.

Now, if years later they are caught, I would agree that they should have a right to challenge the ruling of the trial in absentia either in terms of conviction or sentence. But I would not necessarily start with the presumption that the trial was unfair when the only reason for trial in absentia was the choice of the fugitive to flee (and in this scenario, murder to escape).
epeeist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 09:36 AM   #32
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,091
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
I agree with tend to be and should and that that's an aspirational goal. I disagree with an absolute judgment that they are never appropriate.

And also, no human system is perfectly just - if that were the requirement, no system ever has or could meet that standard.

Let's say a war crimes mass murderer, who murdered again to escape, and is hiding under an unknown assumed name somewhere, is a fugitive. News reports make it abundantly clear throughout the world that there are criminal charges and a trial. There are only a few living witnesses left who will probably die soon. Their co-accused are on trial. If the missing fugitive accused were tried under those circumstances, I wouldn't be complaining assuming the rest of the process tried to be fair, they had a court-appointed lawyer to cross-examine witnesses (who are also cross-examined by lawyers for the other accused), etc.

Now, if years later they are caught, I would agree that they should have a right to challenge the ruling of the trial in absentia either in terms of conviction or sentence. But I would not necessarily start with the presumption that the trial was unfair when the only reason for trial in absentia was the choice of the fugitive to flee (and in this scenario, murder to escape).
All the crimes heard by the International Criminal Court are not done in absentia.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 10:06 AM   #33
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 346
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
All the crimes heard by the International Criminal Court are not done in absentia.
So, you consider the Nuremberg Trials unjust because there were some verdicts in absentia? (No Godwin violation, it's relevant...) You will protest that Martin Borman was treated unfairly because he was tried in absentia? Though as it turns out he'd already committed suicide by then, but still the principle applies.

What about European countries that allow for it today?

Look, if you want to say that all trials in absentia without exception are grossly unjust, okay. I disagree. Feel free to disagree, we can each think the other is wrong. I might go as far as saying most trials in absentia are unjust, including Italy's trial of Amanda Knox (but there's a thread for that). But not all.
epeeist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 11:39 AM   #34
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,812
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Then there are no rights.
Of course there are..

A right that I have the power to defend, is mine as long as I can defend it..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 11:45 AM   #35
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,950
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Of course there are..

A right that I have the power to defend, is mine as long as I can defend it..
you are mixing up powers with rights: you also have the power to blink, but that doesn't mean that you got the right to.
__________________
“I don’t believe in astrology; I’m a Sagittarius and we’re skeptical.” - Arthur C. Clarke
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 11:56 AM   #36
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 654
I agree with a lot of folks here. Rights are a legal fiction but I think we're better of pretending they are more than that because it helps reinforce those fictions in society. People aren't willing to fight for legal fictions but they will fight for inalienable rights. So, no there aren't any universal rights.

In the US we don't all agree that health care is a right so it isn't. To some degree it never will be, at least not until we have unlimited resources. So, if you want to sell the idea of universal health care coverage to people who don't think its a right, start talking about the practical benefits rather than some moral imperative that they don't believe in. In the US we already pay for universal coverage and it only covers half the population for instance.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 11:57 AM   #37
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,091
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
So, you consider the Nuremberg Trials unjust because there were some verdicts in absentia? (No Godwin violation, it's relevant...) You will protest that Martin Borman was treated unfairly because he was tried in absentia? Though as it turns out he'd already committed suicide by then, but still the principle applies.



What about European countries that allow for it today?



Look, if you want to say that all trials in absentia without exception are grossly unjust, okay. I disagree. Feel free to disagree, we can each think the other is wrong. I might go as far as saying most trials in absentia are unjust, including Italy's trial of Amanda Knox (but there's a thread for that). But not all.


In general I do feel that trials in absenting are unjust, including trials for war crimes. I believe that it is a vital part of a justice system that an accused must be given the opportunity to answer the charges against them in order to be fair.

Most legal systems do allow for such trials as an exception to the general rule, and provided such trials are an exception they are not a threat to the general right to a fair trial and the open administration of justice.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 11:59 AM   #38
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,642
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Of course there are..

A right that I have the power to defend, is mine as long as I can defend it..
That's not a right.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:40 PM   #39
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,354
And herein with hit brick wall of manufactured semantics that kill every discussion.

It is linguistically (and to a lesser degree morally, legally, and so forth) odd to apply the word and concept of a "right" to something that by definition someone else has to provide for you. But again that's just some linguistic sloppiness at worst, not some mathematical proof of anything.

I do get the more libertarian argument against framing discussion about things which have to be provided to you as "rights" (and in full honesty internally that's not how I frame the concept in my own thoughts) but that neither invalidates or counters the question.

But on the other hand the term "right" has special power in our society that we can't pretend doesn't exist.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 01:45 PM   #40
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
In general I do feel that trials in absenting are unjust, including trials for war crimes. I believe that it is a vital part of a justice system that an accused must be given the opportunity to answer the charges against them in order to be fair.

Most legal systems do allow for such trials as an exception to the general rule, and provided such trials are an exception they are not a threat to the general right to a fair trial and the open administration of justice.
Trials in absentia are only unjust if the accused is available to be at the trial. If the defendant has vanished on his own, not so much. He/she had the chance to be at the trial but chose not to.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.