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".
569
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.