The Melian Dialogue: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
In the Melian dialogue, the Athenians represent realism, while the Melians represent idealism. The Athenians are straight, rather than attempting to justify their reasons in terms of what is right and fair, they are honest about their motivations.
'For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed'
'We will now proceed to show you that we are come here in the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now going to say, for the preservation of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire over you without trouble, and see you preserved for the good of us both.'
All the while, the Melians take the moral high ground. In the end, the Melian men are killed and the women and children are enslaved, and it is as the Athenians said, 'since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.'
On 25/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
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.
-- geni