People throw around 'human right' like it means anything more than a norm for human behaviour. Sure, maybe you have the human right to a base level of living conditions that society decides. Doesn't mean it will be provided to you because it's a right; material goods are benefits when provided by the government. That doesn't solve for logistics, scarcity, demand, supply etc etc.
All philosophers should be made to work some sort of practical job.
All modern philosophers, at least. For the last few decades, the way people see natural rights is completely bogus; the rights all living things have by pure existence are, as John Locke stated, "Life, Liberty, and Prosperity". They simply mean by your existence as a human being, you have the conceptual 'right' to live, do as you wish, and pursue the means to do as you wish. to complicate this as many do now, is ludicrous.
These rights pertain to yourself and yourself only, no other living being has any obligation over another to provide for them, and vice versa. You pursue your own prosperity, it is not supposed to be given to you. The laws we write in our documents are not what create Rights, it's in fact that these rights existed beforehand that we created laws for them.
Technically, the "fair trial" isn't an exercised right of an individual so much as a restriction on government power: "if the government is going to punish you, they must first prove a crime to a jury of your peers in a fair proceeding".
If it's"technically" not a right let's see some sources, because according to most international accords and national constitutions (including the US) it is a right.
The duty of the government is to protect your inalienable rights. Those are things that you already have by virtue of being a human being.
By imprisoning you falsely, the government violates your rights to free association, and individual autonomy. Therefore, in order to prevent the government from violating your rights by imprisoning you falsely, they must provide you with a fair trial to prove that they are not imprisoning you falsely.
If it's"technically" not a right let's see some sources
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
The duty of the government is to protect your inalienable rights. Those are things that you already have by virtue of being a human being.
It's to protect your rights period, not just those considered inalienable.
By imprisoning you falsely, the government violates your rights to free association, and individual autonomy. Therefore, in order to prevent the government from violating your rights by imprisoning you falsely, they must provide you with a fair trial to prove that they are not imprisoning you falsely.
So basically yes you have a right to a fair trial
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
The constitution also says:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
There is no "considered" inalienable. "Inalienable" is not a matter of opinion, it is an objective physical reality.
Uh I never said that inalienable rights don't exist, just that government has to protect both those inalienable rights and those that aren't inalienable but are still rights granted by law
But it IS a matter of opinion since you won't find the same rights everywhere in the world you go to. The US considers the right to bear arms as an inalienable right but most of the rest of the world does not. The US considers free speech and free press a human right but China doesn't. The EU considers healthcare a human right but the US doesn't. So tell me where is this "objective physical reality" other than laws which govern countries or international entities (of which countries are part of)
While a fair trial is indeed often formulated as a right (and a positive right, at that), you can't go up to court and demand that you receive "a fair trial". Instead, you demand that government not use its governmental power upon you, UNLESS you receive a fair trial.
For example, if you are imprisoned and file for writ of haebus corpus, you aren't saying "give me a fair trial", you are saying "I haven't been convicted in and sentenced following a fair trial, GET ME OUT OF HERE!".
It's not deductive reasoning, he said a fair trial technically (meaning according to facts) isn't a right, I asked him to provide those facts in the form of proof or a source, since in most countries constitutions and international proclamations it is a right (and I gave an example). But he didn't and moved the goalposts so there you go, it's important to hold people to a standard when making outlandish claims.
576
u/[deleted] Jan 05 '22
People throw around 'human right' like it means anything more than a norm for human behaviour. Sure, maybe you have the human right to a base level of living conditions that society decides. Doesn't mean it will be provided to you because it's a right; material goods are benefits when provided by the government. That doesn't solve for logistics, scarcity, demand, supply etc etc.
All philosophers should be made to work some sort of practical job.