What is a 'human right'?

Is healthcare a 'right'?
Is marriage a 'right'?
Is freedom of speech a 'right'?
How do you tell what you have a 'right' to do?

If you are the only dude on earth you are free to do whatever you want or say whatever you want. So you have a right to do this? Does this change when you enter a society? Does this change if you have a choice to leave a society?

What about healthcare. The man in the forest can treat his own wounds but does he have a RIGHT to make someone else do it for him? What about the healthcare provider? Does he not have a right to not provide care?

I'm confused. The word 'human right' gets thrown around alot today. What is a 'human right?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1eqUjX5XjrY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

a human right is something that society philosophically owes to an individual simply because that individual exists

It's a meme. A former supreme court judge from my country once said that the term "human right" has no use since you could say any right is a human right.

A human right is a meme that society has collectively decided to enforce and protect with violence and force, or threats of the two.

do rats have rites

>Is healthcare a 'right'?
it's a need, you'll kinda die from a disease if you don't have it and since you have "a right to life" it's kinda necessary
>Is marriage a 'right'?
liberty is a right, if your liberty doesn't infringe on the life, liberty, and property of others then let do
>Is freedom of speech a 'right'?
yes, otherwise you wouldn't ask such controversial questions on fear of death
>How do you tell what you have a 'right' to do?
jumped the gun I answered on the marriage question

yes because it is a subject of morality and morality is a social construct

he does but it might not happen anyway (what's right might not be possible)

to live and not be oppressed (though your responsibility is to not kill or oppress others it's a social contract after all).

so that is what it is sure but how do you know what it is epistemologically? how do we know what a right is?

>morality is a social construct

care to prove that?

Not French ones

>Is healthcare a right?
No.
>Is marriage a right?
No.
>Is freedom of speech a right?
Yes.

Human rights are based on Biblical principles. Libertarian, small government, Christian values, morals and ethics.

If you're an atheist there is no such thing as right, wrong or morality. Which is why atheist states (Communism) are so for big government, totalitarianism and dictatorship.

Like OP said if you are the only dude on earth is there anything that you can do that's morally wrong?

morality only exist in the social spectrum

what does the bible say about freedom of speech? I thought Jesus and the church hated blasphemers

society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. society serves itself by promoting its own welfare. it achieves this by taking care of its constituents. human rights, therefore, are the rights of society as a whole.

A meme or a spook etc
Pick the ones you like. Obviously the Cairo Declaration is the best

>If you're an atheist there is no such thing as right, wrong or morality
Utter nonsense. Morality is simply knowledge of cause and effect. Religious morality means avoiding doing the things that get you sent to hell; atheist morality means avoiding doing the things that cause material suffering.

> Cause and effect
Dr David Hume will see you now

'human rights' are a set of disgusting humanist memes which reduce living to a mere set of statuses.
Cause and effect does not exist. Stop being a reductionist

Anyrhing you want in life is purchased with your sweat, blood, or the promise of either of those.

You dont

Only pseuds or braindead normies use "human rights" as an argument for policy

They are literally and unironically a social construct.

Human rights are memes, but we pretend their real because its better for society.

If a lie leads to peace and prosperity, it should be upheld.

Things that strong able bodied men will protect.

you have to fight for your "rights" and freedom. There's assholes who do not want you to be free. They're are masochist who feed off suffering. You gotta get good with dealing with the world's bullshit.

>The RIGHT OF NATURE is the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.

>There's assholes who do not want you to be free. They're are masochist who feed off suffering. You gotta get good with dealing with the world's bullshit.

Such a nuanced and elaborate perception of the world

Might=right

Human Rights is Natural Law

youtube.com/watch?v=1eqUjX5XjrY

Hobbes 101 is that when he talks about "rights of nature", he doesn't actually talk about rights, especially not in our sense.

You fundamentally misread him.

Human rights were CREATED during the Enlightenment era of philosophers to improve the quality of life for everyone in order to make the royalty less likely to die due to revolt (always a threat) and also to- as mentioned- improve quality of life for the common person.

Rights themselves are left vague and uncertain as to what a right actually is, and I often wonder if rights were presented this way so that, overt time, more human rights could be added in order to further improve the quality of life for any philosophical country i.e. whites (at the time).

The next question to ask is:souls we do away with rights entirely? Improving the quality of peasantry has never been a bad idea, for rich or poor. Even by stripping people's rights and making the poor slaves, the rich do not become richer-at least not by much.

...

The era of enlightenment is gone and human rights today have almost nothing to do with improving the lives of the common people. Here lies the problem. When we accept things like LGBT 'rights' as human rights, the actual human rights, such as the freedom of speech, lose their meaning.

>Improving the quality of peasantry has never been a bad idea, for rich or poor
Exactly. The modern day peasantry is being enslaved and you can't help but wondering why. It can't possibly be profit, so it has to be something else.

I'd say something you were born with is a "right".
So it would go something like this:
>Is healthcare a 'right'?
No. You don't have the right to demand anything at all from other people. But not being physically harmed or murdered is a right.
>Is marriage a 'right'?
No. It's an artificially created institution. But loving, living and breeding with etc. whomever you want as long as they are willing is a right.
>Is freedom of speech a 'right'?
Yes.

On the other hand having the same privileges as other people is a right because people are born equal (I mean from a purely moral perspective, not in terms of qualities) i.e. if someone else has access to free healthcare I too have the right to access free healthcare.
On the other hand if someone paid a tax to access healthcare I don't have the right to demand healthcare without paying a tax too.

On second thought marriage is about sharing property so you should have the natural right to share your property with whomever you wish. I amend my statement on this one.

is fucking an animal morally wrong?