|
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. |
19th May 2017, 07:53 PM | #1 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,466
|
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. |
__________________
Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them. |
|
19th May 2017, 08:22 PM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
I don't even know where to begin with this. Can you focus on one part of your question, and start there?
|
19th May 2017, 09:24 PM | #3 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
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. |
19th May 2017, 10:33 PM | #5 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
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. |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
20th May 2017, 01:00 AM | #6 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,466
|
|
__________________
Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them. |
|
20th May 2017, 01:01 AM | #7 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,466
|
|
__________________
Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them. |
|
20th May 2017, 02:39 AM | #8 |
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
|
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.
|
20th May 2017, 05:36 AM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 13,231
|
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.... |
20th May 2017, 06:42 AM | #11 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
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? |
|
20th May 2017, 08:01 AM | #12 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
|
Why does the result matter? Isn't appeal to consequences a fallacy?
Quote:
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:
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. |
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler |
|
23rd May 2017, 12:37 PM | #13 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,108
|
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." |
23rd May 2017, 12:55 PM | #14 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
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. |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
24th May 2017, 04:53 AM | #15 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
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? |
|
24th May 2017, 05:37 AM | #16 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dundee
Posts: 3,580
|
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 |
|
24th May 2017, 07:10 AM | #17 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
|
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. |
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler |
|
24th May 2017, 07:18 AM | #18 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Rights are human inventions. If they're built into law so that everyone has them automatically, then they are called universal.
|
24th May 2017, 04:04 PM | #19 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
A right that you have to depend on anyone else providing for you, is no right at all..
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
24th May 2017, 11:59 PM | #20 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
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. |
25th May 2017, 02:54 AM | #21 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
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 |
|
25th May 2017, 07:05 PM | #22 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
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.. |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
25th May 2017, 10:55 PM | #23 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
“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. |
29th May 2017, 02:11 AM | #24 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 481
|
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? |
29th May 2017, 02:15 AM | #25 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 481
|
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).
|
29th May 2017, 04:24 AM | #26 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
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? |
|
29th May 2017, 05:31 AM | #27 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
29th May 2017, 09:14 AM | #28 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 481
|
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. |
29th May 2017, 11:20 PM | #29 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
30th May 2017, 04:47 AM | #30 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
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? |
|
30th May 2017, 08:31 AM | #31 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 481
|
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). |
30th May 2017, 09:36 AM | #32 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
|
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
30th May 2017, 10:06 AM | #33 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 481
|
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. |
30th May 2017, 11:39 AM | #34 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
30th May 2017, 11:45 AM | #35 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
|
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
30th May 2017, 11:56 AM | #36 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,661
|
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. |
30th May 2017, 11:57 AM | #37 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
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? |
|
30th May 2017, 11:59 AM | #38 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
30th May 2017, 12:40 PM | #39 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
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. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
30th May 2017, 01:45 PM | #40 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|