Often this saying is invoked to point out exactly that- the belief that health care is not a human right because it requires the labor of others and is a human need- but that needs are not rights.
Is this correct? Well- I can say that using the USA as an example it doesn’t align to the basic principles of our nation. For example- those civilians set to court are guaranteed the right to an attorney. This is a right which requires the work of another. The true meaning of this phrase is basically that if it requires SLAVERY it isn’t a human right, but we require those in the military to serve on the principle of upholding human rights for others, without a government and services which are provided by the labor of others through taxes one cannot uphold and enforce any code of human rights so they become just paper- so by definition the existence of “universal” human rights in anything but a utopian society requires the labor of others. So I mean… it’s jargon usually.
In a narrow sense yes- that is to say- anything that FORCES the labor of another is not a human right- in other words, if you have to make a person a slave whom MUST provide a service and is not fairly compensated for it, that isn’t a human right.
Remember this when you discuss things like “cancel culture” and abortion, masking or vaccine laws, LGBTQ+ issues etc.
this principle is a simple one that underpins “enlightened society” and many bills of rights including the American constitution. The concept is that a single persons freedoms ends when it impinges upon the freedom of another person. Basic human rights by code DO include things like freedom to employment etc.
▼Reply
deleted
· 1 year ago
Nestle was right all along, clean water is not a human right
Human Rights is a human construct, a set of ideas we made up to draw a line in the sand of exactly how badly people should be allowed to treat each other and what is the difference between civilisation and barbarism. Feel free to argue against it, it is your human right.
Lol. Don’t know why that got a DV but I’ll bump it. That’s critically important- WE decide human rights because in nature you have no rights except for whatever will you can exert in the world.
That means what we define as human rights shows who we are as individuals and as a society. If we decide that every human has the right to a basic diet or survival needs then it becomes a human right.
If we decide people should suffer or die because we do not feel they are “worthy” or have “earned” life or some basic level of comfort or security that is a reflection of who we are.
For most of recorded human history into the present we have constructed systems where luxury and security and power trade in human misery. It’s the uncomfortable truth that is not secret at all- those who enjoy a high standard of living don’t do so by their own efforts and intrinsic value so much as they do so while perhaps exerting those efforts on the backs of others or specifically to exploit others for gain. Most people will be disgusted by or deny any insinuation they could be a cannibal or do certain acts but likewise it is historically observed that even when life isn’t on the line but just way of life- people who would call an act reprehensible will do it when it serves them and they see no other option.
So our concept of human rights has to snake and weave around the elephant in the room. How do we provide a mass of goods and services to huge population that consumes disproportionately huge amounts of resources and demands complex and resource costly products..? We force or coerce others into providing the materials and labor and bearing the suffering that such luxuries save us from. We consume resources that are needed by another in order to enrich our already rich lives. We use various rhetoric and justifications to ease or ignore the ethical and moral horrors we know full well out actions require or even create. We blame the people who benefit least from this system for their own situations because any other stance leads the blame back to us.
We must codify how to be a “good human” without impinging upon the necessary wrongs that our standard of living or security and social status require. We must set the bar on human rights without alienating the support of masses who rely on certain abusive or exploitive practices to placate them, and without implicating our allies while ideally painting our rivals as inhuman. If we remove religious beliefs from the equation you are born with no rights. You don’t even have a right to death as you can be robbed of your ability to choose to die. Nature deals only in the inevitable and in the ability to manifest will in the world around you. It is not concerned with how or why and least of all your rights anymore than a gear in a clock has rights in its system. It is, and the test happens.
Is this correct? Well- I can say that using the USA as an example it doesn’t align to the basic principles of our nation. For example- those civilians set to court are guaranteed the right to an attorney. This is a right which requires the work of another. The true meaning of this phrase is basically that if it requires SLAVERY it isn’t a human right, but we require those in the military to serve on the principle of upholding human rights for others, without a government and services which are provided by the labor of others through taxes one cannot uphold and enforce any code of human rights so they become just paper- so by definition the existence of “universal” human rights in anything but a utopian society requires the labor of others. So I mean… it’s jargon usually.
Remember this when you discuss things like “cancel culture” and abortion, masking or vaccine laws, LGBTQ+ issues etc.
this principle is a simple one that underpins “enlightened society” and many bills of rights including the American constitution. The concept is that a single persons freedoms ends when it impinges upon the freedom of another person. Basic human rights by code DO include things like freedom to employment etc.
That means what we define as human rights shows who we are as individuals and as a society. If we decide that every human has the right to a basic diet or survival needs then it becomes a human right.
If we decide people should suffer or die because we do not feel they are “worthy” or have “earned” life or some basic level of comfort or security that is a reflection of who we are.