Human Rights

Are human rights good... or just 'a' good?

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Human Rights
• Libertarianism
• Theology
• Freedom
• Anarchism Political Freedom

[SweeneyAgonistes]

It's funny how you conclude by clinging to one of the most modern, and IMO most destructive, ideas: that the telos of society is to create happiness for its members. Do you think a Greek noble cared whether or not some helot found "happiness" in life? In the words of Saint-Just during the French Revolution: "Happiness is a new idea in Europe."

[Aurini]

@SweeneyAgonistes You're preachin' to the converted.

I'm a transhumanist; I'm well aware of the moral paucity of 'happiness' as an intrinsic end (orasmium, anybody?).

I use quite a bit of philosophical shorthand, however; in this case 'happiness' is a placeholder. Better to use one word, than an added 15 minutes of explanation.

For the record, your heuristical perspective fills my heart with joy.

[snakebitgoat]

Wow you converted me to this ideal your mind is very unique and insightful :)

[Aurini]

@snakebitgoat Thanks! Just wait until I get to AI, the incoherence of morals, and the subjectivity of value. ;)

[TehAlexJonesChannel]

HUMAN RIGHTS? You don't have any fucking human rights... You either have complete freedom or total enslavement, you want to talk about your fucking human rights, look at what happened to Japanese-Americans in World War II, the only right they had, was RIGHT this way into the concentration camps.

George Carlin

[SweeneyAgonistes]

As for freedom of speech, I like pointing out that lots of the greatest literature was written before the concept existed or where it was strictly controlled, like in Tsarist Russia. The last fifty years have seen more freedom of speech than any other period in history, and what has been the result? Can one have the Renaissance without the Borgias?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

And the most poisonous idea that reigns today is the notion that all life is of equal value. Why should the mediocre be entitled to happiness or the pursuit thereof? What if their pursuit of happiness conflicts with that of the higher men? Why should quantity triumph over quality? Why should all that crawls on the ground triumph over all that is elevated?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

The real question is: happiness for whom and what kind of happiness? Most people would be happier sitting home all day watching TV rather than going to work. Most people have little motivation to accomplish anything beyond that required to live a comfortable life. The higher men who "move things forward" and possess that rare combination of talent and ambition will always be outnumbered by the mediocre.

[intercourseman69]

@Aurini

I don't know of any libertarian who says a desert island "proves" the sacredness of human rights. I do think that it illustrates our freedoms without any inhibition. In the real world among millions of people, we need to pick and choose when we surrender or enact our rights based upon our subjective values.

Of course, we choose when to exercise or limit our rights of our own volition. This to me is the fundamental libertarian ideology.

[Aurini]

@intercourseman69 I think my issue is that the desert island is supposed to 'prove' the sacredness of human rights, while in reality it falls short. Whereareas the economist argument illustrates the basics, without pretending that it (necessarily) describes the behaviour of millions in an accurate manner.