PINAR DEL RIO


support babalú


Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying


bestlatinosmall.jpg

quotes.gif

activism


ozt_bilingual


buclbanner

recommended reading





babalú features





recent comments


  • Rayarena: Yes, I’ve always heard the envy part and that’s what it was pure, unadulterated envy. It was the classic case of...

  • joelima: Asombra, dude, don’t impugn Tiny Tim! Tiny Tim actually had an act.

  • asombra: There’s no shortage of deeply disgusting politicians, but Jimmy Carter is WAY up there. He stinks on ice.

  • asombra: Looks like two aging queens curtsying and shaking hands. Ugh.

  • asombra: Carlos, the envy part Cubans definitely inherited, alright. My mother, an exceptionally good judge of character, always said...

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics


elsewhere on the net



realclearworld

Human rights, whether God-given or not

Dr. Jose Azel in The Miami Herald:

Human rights, whether God-given or not

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2013/10/04/20/12/1scOWy.St.56.jpegIt is an unnerving surreal scene in the documentary Oscar’s Cuba when supporters of the Cuban government shout “down with human rights” to intimidate defenders of opposition leader Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. And more colorfully and unambiguously, the crowd bellows “we sh@$ on human rights!”

How can individuals and governments hold such a condemning view on human rights? As Americans we demand our rights; we admire the struggles of peoples everywhere claiming their rights; we worship the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence. Collectivists, however, see rights differently, so where do rights come from?

Are rights man- made, the social creation of a particular vision of society as Marxists claim? Or, are rights a self evident endowment of our Creator as Jefferson asserted? The question of whether rights are creations of particular societies, or independent of them, is fundamental to our stance on standards of moral conduct and political organization.

There are three principal epistemological traditions on the origin of human rights: (1) Rights are moral laws and they come from God. (2) Rights are political laws and they are created by governments. (3) Rights are moral laws inherent in man’s nature.

If human rights are simply a creation of the human intellect it is very difficult to argue that they are universal and that every government is obligated to honor rights they disagree with. Accordingly, Karl Marx denounced rights as a fabrication of bourgeois society. Moreover, if rights are no more than a whimsical invention of government, they can be revoked at the pleasure of the government; they are permissions, not rights.

On the other hand, if rights emanate from God and exist prior to, and distinctly from, any man-made law, they cannot be granted or repealed by government fiat. Unfortunately, no divine origin for human rights can be judiciously advanced since there is no evidence of such divinity, much less evidence of the existence of rights that demonstrably emanate from God.

An additional problem is that there is not one God that is universally recognized and thus we are left to decide if it is the moral code of Yahweh, Allah, or Brahman that should prevail. To anchor rights on a divinity is to admit that there is no evidence to support the existence of universal human rights.

Very much aware of these issues, Enlightenment thinkers, and the Founding Fathers sought to anchor human rights in nature as a matter of natural law. But, in seeking to extrapolate rights from nature, liberal thinkers filled their arguments with references to what God had ordained, or granted. John Locke posited his “law of nature” linked to “men being all the workmanship on one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker.” And Jefferson noted that the moral law of nature is “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator.”

Continue reading HERE.

 

3 comments to Human rights, whether God-given or not

  • asombra

    "Nos cagamos en los derechos humanos." Ah, such good esbirros, minions, lackeys, miserable pieces of shit.

  • Well certainly, if there is no argument for natural or God given rights, then there is also no argument for any individual or group to exercise power or another, other than brute force, and surely we've advanced beyond accepting that.

  • "Our best intellectual argument is that each individual is morally an end in himself/herself and not a means to the ends of others." That statement is true only if you agree with it, as there is no definitive proof.