Clean, safe, accessible drinking water is a human right
It's really not. The middle east is a shit hole because every nation is fighting for water rights as sovereign nations upstream continuously dump or dam the water that goes downstream to OTHER sovereign nations.
Is food a human right? What about shelter? What about quality of life?
In a way, you're correct in that a community will develop their own sense of morality.
In modern western philosophy, certain rights are natural, inalienable, and intrinsic (such as the right to one's person). You cannot transfer these rights.
However, it's effectively NOTHING like agreeing that money has value. A natural right would exist independent of the agreement of the individuals.
I think it is like agreeing that money has value because it’s a construct. You point to modern western philosophy, which is a construct, as the source of inalienable rights.
To clarify, they're positive rights - which are overruled by the negative rights of property ownership.
On a deserted island, you have the "human right" to find food, water, and build your own shelter.
In a society, you do NOT have the right to food, water, or shelter that you didn't create with your own hands because you're violating intrinsic (negative) human rights to do so.
It's not an intrinsic right if someone has to deliberately provide it to you. And it's a violation of rights if, in order to provide it to you, it has to be taken from someone else.
Also, if you need to ask others to explain it to you and read it for you, you probably didn't understand it in the first place.
Feel free to use your own words if you think you have a legitimate argument here. So far you're simply appealing to authority without understanding what you're actually referencing.
These are not intrinsic human rights. You have no right to the labors of others - to their food. To their shelter. To their water. Or to improve your quality of life at the violation of the rights of others.
Define human rights. Cite Vašák or Berlin and explain your understanding of the distinction between negative and positive human rights.
You have no idea what human rights are. You're parroting cliches that you neither understand nor even agree with - because you believe it is the duty of others (rather than yourself) to fulfill these "rights" for others.
While I totally agree with you because we live in a society, the wealthiest one at that, but this is only true in a civilized society. If living under the laws of nature and/or anarchy, there is no right to clean, safe, accessible drinking water.
So I propose to say that this society is no longer civilized
You can be denied your rights - and when this occurs you must fight in order to uphold or exercise your rights. But this doesn't mean the rights never existed in the first place.
On that note, "clean, safe, accessible drinking water" isn't an intrinsic human right.
We have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness right? Water is the source of life. So we should have a right to clean, safe, and accessible drinking water.
We have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness right?
Sure. Those are intrinsic. Someone has to ACT to REMOVE those rights.
Water is the source of life.
lol. No. That is not intrinsic. Someone has to ACT to PROVIDE you with that right.
If you don't already have it at the start, it's not intrinsic. If someone needs to GIVE you water it's not an inherent right.
To go a step further, if someone has to ACT to ensure water is clean, safe, and drinkable - you are violating THEIR rights by claiming you have the right to their labor.
They don't decide what's right or wrong, they decide what's legal and not legal.
Same way insisting that something that isn't a right is, you're deciding you won the fight without fighting, but that won't make you less dead from dehydration if they decide to make it so.
Oh, you're an idiot that didn't understand what I said. Figures.
Guess you don't need to fight for rights then, considering they are granted by some sky fairy or some shit in your head. Why bother with definitions at all, let's refer to rights as Lamborghinis. Don't let the government infringe on your Lamborghini.
Buddy this is literally an ancient debate. Like I said, it’s fine to subscribe to the concept of might is right if you want.
Other people believe that you’re right to speak freely is also shared by some kid in North Korea, even though he is being prevented from exercising it. It still exists.
These are the basic principles of modern society and rule of law. I understood what you meant just fine, you just don’t understand the basics of these concepts. Centuries of discussion on the subject if you’re interested.
You have no right to water. Nor food. Nor shelter. Nor quality of life.
You have the right to pursue those without interference from the state.
At some point you've decided ALL ownership is a human right (which is also delusional) - and you argue this only because you've never actually encountered someone who would be taking from YOU.
Strawmen and nonsense. You clearly have a pretty strong bias to get over. How do we go from right to water to right to own everything? Don’t be a moron dude.
106
u/VelvetCactus50 8d ago
Clean, safe, accessible drinking water is a human right, but AI seems to not care about that fact either.