Talk:Human rights: Difference between revisions
imported>Peter Jackson |
imported>John R. Brews (→Proposal for a rewrite: cultural relativism) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:There's certainly a lot to cover. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | :There's certainly a lot to cover. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
==Cultural relativism== | |||
To me it seems that "human rights" has its legal and historical background as noted above. However, the "cultural relativism" criticism is a difficult one. It would appear that primitive concepts of inherent and inalienable rights is a fiction, pure and simple, and a real question of a practical nature is how much autonomy a system can allow its citizenry and still function according to its goals. Aside from the empirical question of how much autonomy is consistent with the continuing survival and evolution posed within the context of a particular system, there arises the larger empirical question about the relative merits of different systems, and just how the merits might be decided. | |||
So "cultural relativism" is bang-on, and "human rights" as defined by the UN are not consistent with freedom of choice in one's political system, which should be a "human right", yes? [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:40, 15 August 2012
Proposal for a rewrite
An article on human rights should in my opinion contain the following elements:
- historical origins - the American Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man etc
- philosophical examination; do rights exist? (Bentham, Amartya Sen)
- current legislation and case law
- political aspects
Since the current article does not contain all of those elements, it should, in my opinion, be replaced by one that does.
Nick Gardner 05:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see the workgroups listed are Philosophy and Politics. I think Law should be added.
- There's certainly a lot to cover. Peter Jackson 09:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Cultural relativism
To me it seems that "human rights" has its legal and historical background as noted above. However, the "cultural relativism" criticism is a difficult one. It would appear that primitive concepts of inherent and inalienable rights is a fiction, pure and simple, and a real question of a practical nature is how much autonomy a system can allow its citizenry and still function according to its goals. Aside from the empirical question of how much autonomy is consistent with the continuing survival and evolution posed within the context of a particular system, there arises the larger empirical question about the relative merits of different systems, and just how the merits might be decided.
So "cultural relativism" is bang-on, and "human rights" as defined by the UN are not consistent with freedom of choice in one's political system, which should be a "human right", yes? John R. Brews 16:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Philosophy Developing Articles
- Philosophy Nonstub Articles
- Philosophy Internal Articles
- Politics Developing Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- Law Developing Articles
- Law Nonstub Articles
- Law Internal Articles
- Philosophy Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Politics Underlinked Articles
- Law Underlinked Articles
- International relations tag