Throughout time, philosophers have agreed that every human has the same right to survival. From that belief stemmed a belief in certain rights that contribute to that ability to survive. If one agrees that everyone should have equal chance of survival, then fundamental human rights must exist or equality would be an impossibility.
Yes, I believe that fundamental human rights do exist. It's the reason why most countries outlaw certain practices like torture. It is also the reason why there are rules in war and that war crimes are prosecuted to the fullest extent. To say that human rights don't exist would be to deny the existence of these international rules and regulations.
The right to a fair trial in a court of law.......the right to some clean water and air, the right to nutritious and healthy food, and the right to have a decent shelter to live in, all exist definitely. Whether or not they are given to us is another matter entirely, but I do believe they exist for all of us.
Fundamental human rights exist, but they aren’t necessarily respected. Just as legal rights can be ignored, so can human rights. But if we take this to mean that human rights simply don’t exist, the platform on which all of human civilization rests simply collapses. Society must exist because we want to provide for basic human rights. We create laws and religions around human rights. Sure, different groups have different ideas, but usually most people are more or less the same page. Human rights are the foundation of human civilization and human social rules.
Life. Liberty. Happiness. Humans have a right to these three things. Not just because of basic human compassion, but because everyone has the free will to determine their own destiny. In a free society, everyone has the same basic right to exist. Without basic human rights, humanity has no right exist in the first place.
Numerous arguments have been put forward to justify human rights: Capability of moral action, the golden rule, intuitionism, and so on. These explanations are far more deserving of a summary here. Yet it must be said that while no definitive answer to this question has been put forward, neither has a counter-argument. This leaves an unresolved issue. Human rights, however, must resolve certain criteria. They must be universally applicable, no matter the society; one cannot have an obligation to obey something if it is physically impossible. Also, they must be universal across all human beings, applicable at all times. For the first of these to be resolvable within any society, even hypothetical, pure sustenance-living societies, true human rights must be negative obligations: obligations not to do things to other people. Rules enforcing positive action cannot be rights. These negative rights can include "not to be killed," or "not to be robbed," and although the laws of human nature and physics jointly allow violations, distinct reasoning against action can be provided. Rights exist. Or more accurately, they can exist, justified on an individual basis.
Rights don't exist much in the same way time does not exist, but where time is generally used as a multi-faceted form of measurement, rights seem to be seen as a consensus of rules that magically protect people from/with their choices via entitled justification. We do not have rights, we have choice. People will proudly claim "I have the right to life, or to speak my mind." No you do not, you have the choice to defend yourself, or the choice to say what you like.
I'm not for a moment saying "do not defend yourself because you don't have the right" or "don't speak your mind", by all means, do. It's your choice, but rights themselves won't do you any good if someone who disregards them decides to violate them. You cannot rely on them, they're not really there. They will not act in your favor or back you up, you merely have choice.
Rights do not exist. The power of choice does. Men are free to act with respect for the individual liberties of others, or to act without respect. There is no such force as a natural right that will reward virtuous action, or punish evil. There is only one force in human affairs. That is the force of individual will. Freedom is a choice, not a right.
In response to the Yes column, in particular the line "without basic human rights, humanity has no right to exist in the first place" - yes, we don't have a /right/ to exist, we just suddenly /are/ existing and our choices generally revolve around surviving. Nothing at all has the /right/ to exist, what defining force is there to suggest and enforce that we are justified in existing? Nothing whatsoever.
Human rights are nothing more than a thin veil behind which we Americans and Europeans practice cultural imperialism. We control our own fate. If we wish to overthrow our leaders we can vote against them or attempt to assassinate them or otherwise remove them from power. The citizens of the United States have no right to tell the Russians or the Chinese how they should write their laws.
Fundamental human rights don't exist because we are nothing but an intelligent animal, who managed to evolve to the point where we became self-conscious. Human rights exist but they are not fundamental, since we aren't born with them, they are given to us by other humans. If we acknowledge fundamental human rights should we begin to give fundamental rights to fishes, to birds and to mammals.
There are people homeless and jobless. The Bush era torture policies show that human rights are still being violated even by the government sworn in by the people of the state to protect from torture. Plus this question could be more specific, not even mentioning the world. Humans rights do not exist, yet human rights should exist.
Human Rights are misnamed. You only have them whilst you live in a community that endorses and protects them. If your community or you do not have human rights, then you may have to fight for them like countless people have done in the past and will continue to do. Australia, generally speaking, advocates for all humans to have some basic rights and we are prepared to challenge those who do not believe in this principle. Our allies generally operate the same way.
There are no human rights without champions to gain and protect them.
When you see that right from when people are young there told by tv by mum by teachers that you have to be good and listen to authority and never challenge the policy's or rules, well I have come to the conclusion that everybody is following and accepting pointles rules and policy because of individual comfort fear and ease when you look at the norrow minds of our leaders when you see that they are dis connected illusional and evil as they are using humans to stop other humans from feeding themselfs because people think dictating intimerdating and stoping freedoms is right well it is not because of this one level narrow way of thinking we are all stoping everlution and going around pointlesley making our world or societies less evolved and we are just going backwards. Hope strength and truth will always profail and will always be correct and right because beleive in togetherness unity truth and freedom to exist will always be evolution and of more significance, I think we behave like imitate school children with the good and bad and the tit for tat and the wars and the fact that we call ourselfs evolved but really we are part of a world that is crumbling as a result of ignorance of truth greed and narrow thinking towards humans and life, because we are seeing our very world giving us miserey and turning its back on humans because of our leaders and the follow up of ignorance and selfishness from population in the world because it's become a world of selfishness and desperatenes through people who do not want to cross people to be free and leaders that will just
Lie and lie again and will give no security or protection because they are drunk with crazed obsessive business and money that will leave behind all people who are not of signifficance to their policy of control or their systems that take and only give control and words of control and will imply unfairness and will dictate because they can and they think that hope and strength will never cross them but it can because you will never ever evolve or see the world prosper by sleepwalking and just taking the world for granted but fearing when it punishes us. It will be that inner strength will bring hope and will beat down Al the time weakness and cycles of repeating pointless ignorance and disbelieving people of freedom and hope.
Who says that humans have the "right" to exist anyway? I understand that humans have the basic capacity to determine their own fate (in theory), but does society, as a whole? When we use the word "rights" we are acknowledging that something or someone superior to us must allow for our existence and/or our positive welfare.
Unless you are in a position of power over the lives of others, you have to admit that your right to exist is subject to the whim of others.
A person can assert their "rights" until that last shot blows their head off. Unless the person holding the pistol wants to rethink splattering your brains everywhere, it's "lights out". Logic does not work with our species. Appealing to compassion or empathy may work better. Logic tends to piss us off.
I understand if are religious and believe in human rights, but if you use science and logic, what force in the universe says that humans have to have certain things. I'm not saying if someone is trying to hurt you to just let them, I'm just saying that you have to earn everything in life. For example, you work to grow crops, you work to hunt(animals too), you also have a right to safety, because the taxes you pay are the reason the government is strong enough to protect you. If someone is trying to kill you or someone you care for then you may react in kind, because it is nature.
"Rights" are a human definition; and who does the defining? Those with power. There is nothing unassailable or fundamental about it.
The modern concept of human rights was originally created not to protect the downtrodden but to safeguard the troops of world powers after World War I. Even today, human rights are used by said powers as a tactic of international diplomacy, as an economic and military lever to be used against rival states. To justify their actions, 'fundamental' rights could easily be removed or added to.
Just because something might be/have been supported by a majority (free speech, bearing arms, guilty until proven innocent, etc...) doesn't mean that they exist. I personally have beliefs in things I'd support, and that I'd fight for. But I am tired of people calling out their "Rights" as if that makes them right, it makes them support something. Neither right nor wrong, just yourself.