Now that we’ve got all that out of the way, is there anyone that can give a satisfying explanation for human rights and why we continue to insist on them as a thing unto themselves?
Define a human right? or just describe one. Where does the right come from? what authority do we appeal to? How do you enforce the right?
Yes, I know poly sci and human rights activists and social scientists publish and shout endless on this subject, but… what’s there? what’s the current summary.
I ask because almost every high impact political or military move appeals to some protection or enforcement of human rights. I figure we all to agree on what we’re talking about.
This reminds me of when I was becoming disillusioned with philosophy (oh, about seven years ago, before I became *re*-illusioned
) — I call it the “specks on a tiny blue dot” syndrome. Which is just to say, rights, religions, governments, and PTAs are just made up. We’re specks on a tiny blue dot in a vast Universe. People go on and on about civil rights for this and that categorical feature — but does anyone really think any of that is going to matter in a billion years, or even 10 million (or perhaps far less)?
*Then again* — and here comes the re-illusionment — it could be that some of the prevalent social structures we observe are emergent features of some complex computation (that is social interaction). That, in itself, would suggest that these prevalent social structures exist in their own right.
However, we’re up against the wall about “determined” and “predictable” behavior. Social structures/strictures (including bills of rights and whatnot) could be said to be determined from some complex social interaction computation, but if we assume they’re not predictable (some would argue to the contrary), does that mean they don’t exist in their own right?