Breaching human rights.

[redruM]

I have been given an assignment for English to write an argumentative essay about whether human rights can be breached under certain conditions, and have been thinking hard about the matter but still can't come to a conclusion, I am leaning more towards no as I believe human rights must be respected no matter what, but some may argue that some situations (mainly war or terrorism) demand that human rights must be breached for the benefit of society.

What is your opinion on the matter?

 

[CptStern]

there is never a good excuse to suspend human rights ..war terrorism or whatever .."for the people by the people"

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

No, whats the point in having universal and fundamental rights if some people don't have them. You cannot exempt certain people, even criminals/terrorists as there is always a chance they will be innocent, and so torturing/executing them fails.

 

[Dan]

You or your teacher need to define the question better. What are human rights? Are you talking about the UN charter of human rights, intrinsic human rights, or national charter of human rights, or some other definition of human rights?

Of course human rights CAN be breached as in it is physically possible. But I think what you are asking is whether they should be breached. If you are talking about a nationally adopted charter, then it is a question of the importance of the state. The state must follow it's own constitution, and if a charter human rights is in the constitution, then the state can not exist (as defined by its constitution) if it upholds a violation of its own constitution without a proper amendment.

If you are arguing whether amendments to the charter of human rights is morally objectionable, well then that depends on your morals.

For a more general opinion:
History has shown us that human rights are not intrinsic. Slavery was common for most of civilized history. The the Romans did it, the Greeks did it, the Egyptians did it, the Persians did it... etc etc. So you can't say that humans organizations have a natural inclination to respect human rights. You could argue that recent evolution in modern government has made protecting human rights better for the state by looking at some of the wealthier nations out there today.

You could argue that human rights empowers the individual over the state, and motivates a person to seek personal wealth in a free market economy. Conversely you could argue that individual rights only come at a cost to other individuals. You cannot free one person from the threat of physical abuse without restricting another person from administering physical abuse. So you are taking away freedoms and imposing more state control over the lives of individuals.

Personally I think human rights are bullshit and I should be able to disrespect and abuse whomever I please.

 

[Eejit]

My sister did law including human rights law, she once told me that the only two human rights that cannot legally be broken by a government at any time are the right to marry and the right not to be tortured.

 

[redruM]

Yeah I think the assignment is referring to the UN charter of human rights, as weve been studying it for the past month or so. I agree that humans aren't necessarily inclined to respect human rights, but this has gradually changed in the past couple of centuries and in today's world breaching of human rights is a very touchy subject, so the question is if it is acceptable for governments today to breach certain human rights of certain people at urgent times when this seems necessary, in order to "perform a greater good" (save the lives of more people, etc).

My sister did law including human rights law, she once told me that the only two human rights that cannot legally be broken by a government at any time are the right to marry and the right not to be tortured.

Really? I didn't know about this. Do you know if this has been declared by the UN?

 

[Dan]

"My sister did law including human rights law, she once told me that the only two human rights that cannot legally be broken by a government at any time are the right to marry and the right not to be tortured."

Really? I didn't know about this. Do you know if this has been declared by the UN?

You can't make sweeping generalizations about the operation of different government and what is legal or not. It depends on which nation you are referring to.

 

[kirovman]

What about the hypothetical scenario of killing a potential suicide bomber the moment before he was about to detonate his bomb? Would that be a breach of his human right to life, and if so, is it acceptable

Or if not that scenario, what about someone holding innocents hostage?

 

[CptStern]

that's no different than a police officer firing on someone who has a gun

 

[redruM]

And isn't that the right thing to do? If the dangerous person/suicide bomber wasn't shot down, many more people would die in his place, isn't this an example of when breaching the rights of a single individual achieves a greater good?

 

[CptStern]

the charter of rights is more about writing legislation that takes human rights into consideration

 

[Eejit]

Exactly, almost all rights including the right to life can be suspended/ignored under certain circumstances e.g. war. What I was told is that the right not to be tortured and the right to marry are the only two which can never morally or legally be suspended in any situation.
I think this was mainly to do with UN human rights applying to signatory countries, but I'm not sure - that conversation was years ago.

 

[CptStern]

Exactly, almost all rights including the right to life can be suspended/ignored under certain circumstances e.g. war. What I was told is that the right not to be tortured and the right to marry are the only two which can never morally or legally be suspended in any situation.
I think this was mainly to do with UN human rights applying to signatory countries, but I'm not sure - that conversation was years ago.

lol too bad that doesnt extend to you if you're gay and are currently risiding in guantanamo bay wearing an orange jumpsuit

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I have been given an assignment for English to write an argumentative essay about whether human rights can be breached under certain conditions, and have been thinking hard about the matter but still can't come to a conclusion, I am leaning more towards no as I believe human rights must be respected no matter what, but some may argue that some situations (mainly war or terrorism) demand that human rights must be breached for the benefit of society.
What is your opinion on the matter?

Well, I find irony in this particular statement, (see, "Highlighted 1").

Only because the word terror and phrase, terrorism, is misdefined and extremely vague -- what we'd view as nessecary to stop militant Islam is also what simultaneously could arrest our neighbors in the night for nothing more then having different viewpoints, unradicalized by theocracy.

But what this characterizes is a form of state sponsored terrorism, very similiar to the after effects of the, "Red Scare". This also has the ability to be used for some extremely corrupt individuals in the wings of our government who might otherwise be vunerable to the power of our countries people. For example, say someone knows something about a particular electoral candidate that if leaked, would exhibit the potential to substantially weaken they're outward credentials to run for office or federal legislature?

Well, if that extremely corrupt member of our political system was intimidated by the potential of they're running candidate or they're own chances being put to the cooker, they could theoreticaly, charge them with a domestic form of terrorism and arrest them. Now, they usually have the means to do this because nobody questions the logic or the reasoning of those powers; instead, distancing themselves because subjectively, they too could also be in the same trouble.

Anyway, Human rights should always be respected -- irreguardless of what side you're on.

 

[Emporius]

there is never a good excuse to suspend human rights ..war terrorism or whatever .."for the people by the people"

Lets say there were several dirty bombs primed to go off in major cities, and you had one of the culprits involved in custody. Would you be willing to torture him to retrieve information?

Forgive me for the cliche example.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Lets say there were several dirty bombs primed to go off in major cities, and you had one of the culprits involved in custody. Would you be willing to torture him to retrieve information?

Forgive me for the cliche example.

If we where in a scenario like that, then by all means.

If they're guilt was an absolute.

 

[Emporius]

If they're guilt was an absolute.

Yes, assume they were caught in the act.

 

[Qonfused]

While I've said other things previously, I do believe that generic human rights (as Dan said, more specification is necessary, but I'm pretty sure that all of us know what we're all talking about) are inalienable except it certain situations. I do understand the point of why have rights if the government is able to strip them away at any time. I also realize how hypocritical it is. But with the situation outlined, I do believe that torture to one is better than the deaths of several thousand/million people. I don't agree with more harsher torture techniques, but sometimes it is necessary to get information in order to conserve the well being of a populous.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yes, assume they were caught in the act.

Okay, then I'd be for it. Assuming if it where the right or wrong thing to do, on either side of the possibility of some attack being thwarted or still happening ... yeah, I'd loose some sleep that night. And for awhile.

 

[kirovman]

Also, in a large proportion of the world, the right to not have one's beliefs insulted (which shouldn't really be a right anyway) seems to take presedence over all other human rights.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Well, we have to identify this one thing:

Everyone believes they're opinion is sovereign. Everyone.

And the irony is, we can talk about a fake right taking prescedence, but it's a silent one will admit is convenient.