On 25/09/2007, Charlie charles.baker@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That would suggest that I accept that "human rights" have some kind of real existance beyond people's power to enforce them. I do not.
Hope this isn't too off-topic here, but do you really mean this about human rights?
Do you mean that in the sense of the rhetorical flourish, that human rights don't exist if we don't enforce them, so lobby your government?
Or do you literally mean that there is nothing more to human rights but our enforcement of them?
Yes. This can be demonstrated by examining the situations where enforcement breaks down.
Because if it is the second, then what human rights we have depend entirely on the local governments willingness and ability to enforce them. If a government doesn't enforce a right not to be murdered, for example, how can you make the argument that they should, if the right has no existence? To what principle can you appeal, if not the prior existence of a right?
The principle that I personally don't want to get killed and I'd rather those who I chose to care about don't get killed. Thus it is in my personal interests to work with others who don't want to get killed to neutralise those who go around killing people.
Enlightened self interest. It gets more complex with balanced interests and the like but this isn't the time or place.