Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

wow, I've been very philosophical of late. Well, anyway...

Is there a right and wrong? A moral code that ALL human beings should abide by? Is it relative? What is it for you?
I think that the UN got it bang on with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Now if they would just DO more about it...)

1) All Human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights...and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
2) Everyone, no matter what thier race, colour, sex, language, religeon, political belief, or status is entitled to all the rights and freedoms in this declaration.
3) Everyone has theb right to life, liberty, and personal security.
4) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
5) No one shall be tortured or subject to creul, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
6) Everyone, no matter where they are, has the right to be recognized as a person by the law.
7) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal legal protection, without discrimination.
8) Everyone has the right to seek legal help if his or her human rights are violated.
9) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile without due legal process.
10) Everyone charged with a crime is entitled to a fair trial by an independant court.
11) Everyone charged with a crime is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
12) No one should be subjected to interference with his or her privacy, family home, or correspondence.
13) Everyone has the right to live where they want and move freely within thier own country.Everyone has the right to leave and return his or her country.
14) Everyone has the right to seek asylum in another country if they are being persecuted. This does not apply if someone has been charged with a crime such as murder, or anything that conflicts with the spirit of the United Nations.
15) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
16) Men and women have the right to marry and start a family. The family is entitled to be protected by society.
17) Everyone has the right to own property and the right not to be deprived of his or her property.
18) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religeon.
19) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and speech.
20) Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and association.
21) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his or her country, directly or through representatives, i.e. the right to vote and elect representatives. [This is often defined as the right to democracy.]
22) Everyone has the right to economic, social and cultural security.
23) Everyone has the right to work; to equal pay for equal work; and the right to join a trade union.
24) Everyone has the right to rest, leisure, and holidays.
25) Everyone has the to an adequate standard of living.
26) Everyone has the right to an education. Parents are entitled to choose education for thier children.
27) Everyone has the right to take part in the cultural life of his or community.
28) Everyone is entitled to live in a situation where the rights and freedoms of this Declaration can be realized.
29) Everyone has a duty to serve and support his or her community. An individuals rights can be limited in order to prtoect the rights and freedoms of others.
30) No one should act in any way that will damage the rights and freedoms of another person.

Sounds about right to me. I think that these Basic human rights should be followed to the letter. Without any 'exceptions'. Which is why I am both outraged and disgusted with the actions of countries around the world. Including Aus (with terrorism and illegal immigrants) and US (Guantanomo Bay and other 'tortures by proxy'). In my eyes, New Zealand is one of the few cool countires that come close to perfect (pleez don't rub it in Kragura and other kiwis).

I would like to hear you're thoughts on Right and Wrong. Justice and Injustice. Good and evil.

I look forward to your posts...

Right and wrong are points of view, as are good and evil and justice.

There are 2 points in that post that support abortion, and 2 that would prevent it, for example. It is all very well giving people "rights", but one persons' right may infringe on anothers rights and so only by limiting how people can fulfil their rights can can other people enjoy theirs.

The classic example is the right to freedom of speach as it applies to racism and the freedom of people to live without people shouting that they are the wrong colour.

Another example is the "rule" of law. As long as enough people believe that the police are in charge, they remain in charge. However, as soon as enough people believe that the police are not in charge, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it, the dream of law will have shattered.

I'm a big advocate of 29, especially when spelled correctly.
Australia doesn't exactly have what other developed countries might know as a 'bill of human rights' or similar.

Please find a link below to one of my favourite sites, for purely satirical pleasure on my part. I'm still not conviced that the HREOC isn't a very complex government joke.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/

BTW, EF, the title of this thread is slightly irrelevant. 'Rights', 'Right' and 'Right and Wrong' as opposites are all vastly different things.

29 just means that "the people in charge" can take away all your rights without a problem or argument just because they say so.

Person: "What do you mean you are taking all my stuff, shooting my dog and throwing me in a hole for the rest of my life?"
Government: "Well, we have determined that in order to 'protect the rights' of MP's, we are having everyone that we don't like stripped of their rights and thrown into a hole and there is nothing you can do about it because you have no rights, and we have rule 29!".

Emperors Faithful wrote:
16) Men and women have the right to marry and start a family. The family is entitled to be protected by society.
29) Everyone has a duty to serve and support his or her community. An individuals rights can be limited in order to prtoect the rights and freedoms of others.
30) No one should act in any way that will damage the rights and freedoms of another person.

I disagree with these.
Same sex couples have the same rights as Hetero couples. The wording should be changed to "Every couple has the right to...."

I am under no obligations to support my community, and a right that can be limited is not a right but a privilege.

And number 3 contradicts number 29, prison, the death penalty, etc deny people their rights.

What about family groupings that are not "couples" such as a large number of Islamic families where there is 1 husband and up to 4 wives?

Or indeed any group family, with multiple "husbands" and "wives" (although often not "legally" married).

And so we get to the problem with rights... sooner or later you begin to have them spiral out of control so that they are so complex and convoluted that they no longer mean anything and are totaly worthless.

And you will always find someone who falls outside them as well.

You're right. They should certainly have the right to be classified as a family for the purpose of human rights.

29) Everyone has a duty to serve and support his or her community. An individuals rights can be limited in order to prtoect the rights and freedoms of others.

SilverMK2 wrote:29 just means that "the people in charge" can take away all your rights without a problem or argument just because they say so.

Person: "What do you mean you are taking all my stuff, shooting my dog and throwing me in a hole for the rest of my life?"
Government: "Well, we have determined that in order to 'protect the rights' of MP's, we are having everyone that we don't like stripped of their rights and thrown into a hole and there is nothing you can do about it because you have no rights, and we have rule 29!".

I disagree, and I think you take it out of perspective by involving authority. Obviously 'the rule of law', as was mentioned earlier, conflicts with the entirety of the Declaration. 'Arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile without due legal process' indeed.
I think that one should personally restrain themselves from infringing the rights of others to peacefully assemble, speak and practice their own culture, and if you are in a position of established authority that exceeds this basic position, then utmost humility should be practiced. Such authority surpasses the Declaration, and in turn, the Declaration implies that any such authority is excessive. I'm not saying that either, or any bill of rights, law or government constitution, is perfect for the settings in which they are imposed as an authorative measure.

I have the right to spit on the ground, but I would not spit at a person's feet in the society I know, because that would usually make a person feel uncomfortable, unwanted, ofeended, or any number of things. I work all week for many facets of society, hospitals, police, ranndom people in their homes and at work, but if I choose to drink all weekend, that's my call. It still isn't appropriate for me to go and drunkenly ramble to children in a park, vomit on sidewalks, and sing loudly just because I'm drunk, and I don't need to do any of those things to justify my right to drink. There is nothing fundamentally unnatural about saliva landing on the ground, people experiencing altered perception, or a book burning, but if you burn the wrong book in front of the wrong person you're going to opress someone. I'm a book-lover personally, and wouldn't stand for any such thing except in order to demonstrate that it is nothing but a book.

We are deeply societal creatures, ingrained with a undeniable natural greed that any animal or piece of matter with the power to do so will take advantage of in favourable situations. In order to be effectively societal, we need a clear understanding of what are the right situations to both support and take advantage of our surroundings. The Declaration in question is as flawed as any democratic paper, affected first by the majoritiy interest, secondly addressing those whom the majorities pity, and finally amended by anyone else who can get a word in edgewise. Local laws and authoritie, deliberately non-universal and tailored to the majority interests of the locality concerned, allow these broad and generally unworkable 'rights' to be practiced as best they can in their specific contexts. The broad aim of democracy is to protect society from the individual evils of you and me, but it doesn't work for everyone, and is bureaucratic and unwieldy in the face of radical social change at the best of times. I'm a socialist, and I think that socialism is supposed to be the point of all responsible government, but I would never vote for any socialist party I've read about or spoken to a member of.

Without 'rule 29', as you put it, the Declaration may as well be ignored, because we all have far more pressing personal concerns to attend to most of the time. With 'rule 29,' it can be applied and appreciated as neccesary, without regard for those whose aims are not in the interests of, or against, the community. I agree with what some other posters have said, about conflicting statements in the Declaration, and in particular number 16, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with human rights on a 'universal' scale - it is more exclusive than anything. I personally think that marriage is irrelevant exceot where it is an established social prerequisite to... rape, possession, whatever..., and as a person in a stable and long term relationship who personally does not believe in either marriage or civil union, I'm blind as to why anyone cares in the first place. That's just me, and part of the evil of my individuality. If I lived in a society where I was expected to take and support several wives, then that would be a reason. If I didn't want to I wouldn't, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people thought I was a weirdo, or selfish, or an affront to society. I can still take pride in being a weirdo who plays Warhammer.

I could go on about this for a while... but I'm sure no one cares about what I'm saying as much as I do. That's kind of the whole point, opposed to the majority of Dakka users that won't even contribute to this thread. I feel confident enough in what I'm saying to say it, and if anyone is willing to argue, critique or agree with me, you're fulfilling my social expectations. Welcome to the thread... and to the OP, welcome to the internet. Your on-going self-affirmation is as sickening to me as it is clearly an important part of your mental and social development.


SilverMK2, do you have a better example of what you're trying to say there?

[/finally]
[/end]
[/rant]

29) Everyone has a duty to serve and support his or her community. An individuals rights can be limited in order to prtoect the rights and freedoms of others.

No, they don't. They do have the fundamental right to be left alone. Anything else is the sweet siren call of the dictator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

25) Everyone has the to an adequate standard of living.

utopian nonsense

Calm down missy. Wide open spaces don't quite fit into the social norms of the cosmopolitan centres that most of the world's inhabitants... inhabit. I said it was imperfect. I don't think any more of hardline authority than I do of hard, self-serving work, and I've done a gakload of both in my lifetime. Don't get me started on merchants though...

'Dictatorship' in some form or another is unavoidable where people are given authority; in government, media, finance, security, or anywhere. People with stubborn ideas of how things should be done are the usual cases that worm their way into these positions, whether democratically or not. To clarify something I said earlier, I'm a socialist who would rather be a good socialist under a democracy, because at least things are interesting. One socialist does not a socialism make, nor is socialism fundamentally undemocratic, intrusive, or expectant of anything other than that people act civilly or unselfishly. If you want to be a public servant, then you're a servant, and that's your call. Me? I'm a contractor. Number 29 would be heavily reworded in my opinion, because like Number 16 and others, it makes the Declaration as a 'universal' pretty hard to swallow.

Anyone care to comment on 23? I'm not a fan of trade unions myself...

Just because you live in a city doesn't mean you don't have the right to be free from oppression.

Right and wrong, east and yellow, all words. It's how you act and treat others that defines whether you are "right or wrong".

George Carlin needs to say something about this...

Please disregard his references to religion and listen to what he is saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

I give forewarning that some may be offended, thus I include this DO NOT LOOK CLAUSE!!!

I will reply to point 29 later when I have more time, but I will just say that in relation to 23, trade unions are both good and bad.

They have the potential to act on behalf of the individual worker against "the system" or the company, etc...

This is very important when you look at how things were before unions during the industrial revolution etc. Times were very different and laws were very different too (no or very lax child labour laws for example).

But then they can also be bad... during the 80s they caused a lot of trouble in the UK and even with the "support" of their members caused them, in both the short and long term, more harm than good. Especially all the coal miners, who went from wanting a bit more money and better rights and working conditions etc, to permanent strikes, violent protest, and eventually being out of work for good and the closure of the mines.

Admittedly, this was down to the government reaction as well as the action of the Trade Unions, but if the Union had been genuinely working for its members, it would have taken a longer view rather than being greedy and wanting everything then and there.

So yes, when a union works well, it can be a fantastic force for good of the "common worker", but if it goes bad, it can ruin an entire industry.

Our manufacturing industry has not been the same since the 80's and the rampant abuse of the unions against the government.

Frazzled wrote:Just because you live in a city doesn't mean you don't have the right to be free from oppression.

Are you going to explain that or are you just 'putting it out there'? I don't disagree with you, so I'd like to know where you're coming from.

My partner is Palestinian, and different bits of her family have been progressively shunted out of East Jerusalem for decades, to make way for Jewish settlers, often from Europe and America. I do actually try to be a bit small-mided with things like that... I mean, I obviously can't be as passionate about it, nor am I able to do anything but recognise it as 'wrong' from where I've been introduced to it. So what does actually stand up for these people? The Declaration does, for one thing. The Israeli constitution has already effectively revoked the right to a nationality from what they term as 'Israeli Arabs'... in fact, the Israel nationality law is a disturbing document overall.

Paramedics and ambulance drivers have been a big part of the union news in Aus recently. In Vistoria they've just rejected a $21p/h pay rise and stated that they will rush patients to hospital but will not stabilise them. "More patients may die but that will be on the government's head". Anyone want to Right or Wrong that one?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Just because you live in a city doesn't mean you don't have the right to be free from oppression.

Are you going to explain that or are you just 'putting it out there'? I don't disagree with you, so I'd like to know where you're coming from.

Its a non-nuanced. People, and the reply, use the excuse of living in metropolitan conditions as an excuse for future oppression. My rights to freedom are not contingent on where I live. Its an excuse by one group to tell another group what to do, in this case "for the good fo the community," which ususally means for their good or how they feel you should live. Obviously with rights come responsibilities, but the statement itself is an excuse for oppression.

I don't get the relation of the second paragraph to the first so let that be.

These should all be right that all people get all their rights and equalization, and yet one of these are violated almost every second.

Frazzled wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Just because you live in a city doesn't mean you don't have the right to be free from oppression.

Are you going to explain that or are you just 'putting it out there'? I don't disagree with you, so I'd like to know where you're coming from.

Its a non-nuanced. People, and the reply, use the excuse of living in metropolitan conditions as an excuse for future oppression. My rights to freedom are not contingent on where I live. Its an excuse by one group to tell another group what to do, in this case "for the good fo the community," which ususally means for their good or how they feel you should live. Obviously with rights come responsibilities, but the statement itself is an excuse for oppression.

I don't get the relation of the second paragraph to the first so let that be.

The relevance of the second paragraph was that the interests of a very influential majority, promoting their utopian vision of a perfect community, are bulldozing Christian landowner's homes whether they've vacated them or not. The 'lack of space' is a big factor, and civility is just so much more important when dealing with feet rather than acres. Just a little bit of oppression going on there, thought I'd bring it up in the spirit of the thread if nothing else. Exaclty as I wrote, 29 and other lines of the Declaration concern the victims in this case, but do not stop the local authority's oppressive mandate.

I pretty much hate cities myself... I'd probably make more money, drive a hell of a lot less than I do, but pay way more rent. In my opinion the living conditions are terrible almost any way you look at it. My family moved to Australia's largest city, I moved to a different regional area. I'm flying down there for a family thing tomorrow, damnit. Heh heh. If I have a freedom in any respect, it is that I don't have to live in a place that I find to be actually oppressive. Freedom is protected, but is not really a recognised right, no matter what authorities have said. Their existence belies their words. I'd rather a little implied oppression than for everyone to think they can do whatever they want. I guess you pay more attention to the second half of 29? I can still do whatever I want in my home, or wherever I'm not conflict with other people's perceived rights or restrictions.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I think you take it out of perspective by involving authority

I think that is the only context that it can realistically be taken in. After all, on day to day life, the majority of people remain civil to one another and by themselves do not limit or remove the rights of others. Most people don't even think about it. You just get on with life.

It is only when you add in power and authority that things really have the possibility of going very wrong, very quickly. After all, who decides what rights to limit, how much to limit them, and why they should be limited? As I mentioned above in this post (and as I believe you yourself commented upon), most people are usually just interested in getting on with things. Where I believe we differ on this point (at least I think we do, it was difficult to follow your post though parts) is that I believe the vast majority of people will act in a reasonably decent way towards one another most of the time without the need for artificial rules and rights.

The scary part comes in when what is when those who should be protecting the "rights" of the people suddenly turn round and alter or remove those rights for their own gain. Point 29 is written in such a way that it implies that not only can the rights of some (or all) be curtailed or even eliminated, it can be done for seemingly almost any reason.

For example, I could decide that your right to say that blue is a better colour than green is infringing on the rights of people who like green. Thus following the guidance of 29, I can limit your right to, say, being free from torture.

But as I have pointed out, it is quite difficult for the individual to do this. If I were to use a hot iron rod on you, I would most likley be arrested etc, because my interpretation of "the rights of man" differ from that of society. If, however, the government decided that it was in fact the case that green were better than blue, and that saying anything otherwise would be a crime, punishable by a barbed wire enema, it can be very difficult to halt this slippery slide into a totalitarian state.

SilverMK2, do you have a better example of what you're trying to say there?

Well, a historic example that cannot be refuted is that of Nazi Germany, which saw the rights of various groups of citizens gradually eroded until they were rounded up into camps and killed, worked to death and gradually treated horriffically. Now, this would never happen in a society that was on the watch for such things, I hear you cry. Yet such a thing was on the way to happening in the very United States of America that so values freedom.

During WWII, people who even looked slightly Japanese were detained in camps all over America for fear that they would be loyal to the Japanese. This was based off exactly no evidence what so ever and was done based simply because of race. Most Americans are immigrant families (as are most people in most nations if you go back far enough), but they did not think to lock up all the people who came over on ships from Germany to live, work and raise families in America...

More recently, we have seemingly had even more of our "rights" signed over on our behalf to combat terrorism. I was not consulted before this, nor were the vast majority of the population. It was decided on our behalf that loss of "some" of our privicy was a fair exchange for possibly being able to catch these terrible people who want to blow us all up and are hiding in every shadow in every corner, just waiting for you to drop your guard for even a second before killing you and your entire family...

And the reason that these people exist in the first place? Because the people in power abused their positions throughout history to take away the rights of others...

Frazzled wrote:My rights to freedom are not contingent on where I live.

True, but only if you consider freedom as an extension of will; rendering it inalienable by definition rather than practice. Otherwise even the right to freedom is just as Utopian as the right to an adequate standard of living.

Frazzled wrote:
Its an excuse by one group to tell another group what to do, in this case "for the good fo the community," which ususally means for their good or how they feel you should live. Obviously with rights come responsibilities, but the statement itself is an excuse for oppression.

So is the right to freedom.

Frazzled wrote:
No, they don't. They do have the fundamental right to be left alone.

Utopian nonsense. Life inevitably involves interaction with other people (unless you're some form of hermit), and whether or not someone is being left alone is almost entirely subjective.

@Artick_Fang: I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. (P.S. Australia DOES need a Bill of Rights, it's just too easy at the moment for the government to ignore basic human rights, aka Tampa Crisis)

@Frazzled: Yeah, sure. If you don't want to belong to a community, then you have the right to go where you want. Article 13. But if you ARE going to be part of a community, you can't just sit back and enjoy the fruits of other peoples labours. You have to help. (In some way, like GET A JOB!)

Also, in general, I included the UN Declaration of Human Rights becuase I beileve BASICALLY this pretty much states what IS right. And that breaking any of these is wrong.

14 is to easy to circumnvent. the government your fleeing from just charges you with a hienous crime.

Matter of fact that a lot of these are just loopholes more than guarantees.

The answers to whether something is right or wrong are purely situational. The needs of the particular situation are what drives what is right or wrong. A set in stone for the ages moral codes is impossible unless it makes allowances for this fact.


I find it funny that the UN has this code. A group of amoral Machiavellian Governments attempting to define morality for the human race is "Ironic" to say the least.

This code is more of a propaganda thing that they say "we stand for this" but the reality is they will never effectively, equally, or consistantly enforce this code.

Emperors Faithful wrote:But if you ARE going to be part of a community, you can't just sit back and enjoy the fruits of other peoples labours.

I disagree, I've been doing if for over a year. I have no job, do no community service, do nothing that serves or betters my community(other than keep my wife happy). My wife works, I just reap the rewards of her work.

4) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

29) Everyone has a duty to serve and support his or her community.

Fail.

^Did GW write the UN moral code?

Thank god Gwar doesn't believe in morality!

34) Pr0n exists for everything
35) if pr0n doesn't exist, it will be created

I think Dogma is on to something. We should consider whether a "right" is meaningful if it is merely established ("posited") by law, that is--granted by the lawmaker, or inherent. If a right is part of the nature of a human being then it cannot be circumscribed, except according to its nature, or denied but only violated.

Ya know, such a lofty doctrine or code of ethics can be reinterpreted into something meaningless at best and sinister at worst.

This is going to force me to think like a lawyer or TFG they are interchangable I know old joke. Bad FF No inter net donuts for you.

1)Legally unenforceable and hope it stays that way because if not then it is a clause for Totalitarian repression of free speech.
2)Being entitled to rights and guarantees never made or fulfilled is like multiplying freedom by 0.
3)Who defines what is Life, Liberty, and personal security. Personal security could mean that you have a police escort everywhere, just like criminals.
4)Legally Unenforceable. Docking pay would constitute a crime. Who is this one they refer to anyway?He will be doing good whille the group labours for free.
5)Who defines what constitutes such behavior. Prisoner being forced to wear pink in order to emasculate them could constitute emotionally degradeing treatment.
6)Easy, Government agent says I recognize you are a person......BANG!!!
7)Equal protection is meanless if no one is protected.
8)Legal help is not the same as legal protection
9)Depends on what passes for due legal process at the time. Legal process in the past has meant the time you get to say your prayers before the lever is pulled and the rope goes tight.
10)Bestow the title of independent upon the state funded and controlled court gets around that rule.
11)Just as long as they are proven guilty
12)Says no one "should" be as opposed to a declaration of such behavior of "will not" be tolerated.
13)Legally-Completely unenforceable. What if they want to park their house on an airport runway.
14)Already addressed this. The government just charges you with such a crime.
15)Which nationality and who determines such?
16)Define family and doesn't state you have the right to choose your partner.
17)Is property singular or plural here? Doesn't define the extent of this protection so is unenforceable.
18)A government Gauranteeing the right to free thought is another way of saying it is ok to establish a thought police.
19)Same as above. When does this apply? Does it still apply when it conflicts with one of the others?
20)Doesn't say free or unsupervised
21)Everyone having the right to take part in a totalitarian dictatorship isn't much of a promise.
22)Right to be protected and controlled by the government
23)You have the right to work for the same underpaid wage as the next person.
24)Failure to define what is considered rest, liesure or holidays or what is entailed in such.
25)Define adequate
26)What sort of an education and doesn't mean much if there is only one choice
27)What is considered taking part in?
28)What rights and freedoms? What situation?Living in a cell might be considered enough.
29)Everyone has the right to have there rights taken away
30)No one should but avoided saying such wouldn't be tolerated.

I'll leave it to the next guy to iterpret this into something funny

Have fun

focusedfire wrote:What rights and freedoms?

Sincerely asking: is that the topic? Or are we talking about reading the meaning out of documents?