• Makes no sense

    There is a very simple answer to this. If human rights existed, why can countries violate human rights? Who enforces these rights? Why are middle Eastern countries able to violate the lgbtghgdfjkk human rights, and not are not arrested or something for it? The entire concept of human rights is fake, and it's obvious to see why.

  • They should, but they don't

    Human Rights do not exist, it is a security theatre, making us feel that we have a value as human beings where at the same time the ones who made the Human Rights are the ones who transgress them. There is no place in this world where the Human Rights are not being transgressed. Human Rights should exist, however they are just words written on paper and not morals on mankind.

  • It is taken

    Human rights only exist when one defends them with violence and takes them to create them. Those in power create what is right and wrong and human rights, so the only way to keep what you believe to be them is to fight, and perhaps kill for your rights. Rights don't exist unless one takes them and fights for them.

  • No, in a very real sense human rights do exist.

    I am in agreement with SauinDuine, the question is worded in a manner that creates confusion as to the intent of the question. Does it mean that human rights should exist but do not in reality, or does it assert that there is no such thing as human rights? Human rights do exist and they are worth fighting for. Schopenhauer correctly stated that sacrifice is frequently required in order to secure and maintain these rights. They are, however, worth the sacrifice.

  • Human rights do exist.

    It doesn't matter how human's obtain rights, but the idea and concept that Human's have rights are ingrained with society. Schopenhauer himself states that human rights exist but only if the human rights are obtained through violence. The question needs to be worded better.

    Was the original question better worded to be that Human rights are not inherent but obtained?

  • Human rights, like gods were invented by man.

    To examine this question we must ask the more fundamental question: “what is natural?” The very concept of “natural” suggests an intentional agency in nature, a purpose or plan, when we have no evidence of anything but inanimacy. Human rights are just another super-human ideology, a fictitious invention, which is necessary for society and civilization to exist but no more exists than god or the ten commandments. The jungle doesnt care if you are free to pursue happiness or even if you live or die.

  • Terrible question, horrible

    I have no idea why this guy made the question worded like this. The question was confusing and seemed terrible. I disagree completely and believe that this question is completely, and utterly inappropriate, pointless, and confusing. I just waisted my time answering this weird question, and should have spent it doing something else.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.