WHY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE WRONG
Mail version: the complete version, with links, is at
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/human.rights.html
--------------------------------------
A Serbian child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as
much
pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British
governments do
not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights.
That
fate is reserved for East Europeans, Africans, and Asians. The western
human
rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They
claim
opposition to human rights is based on 'ethical relativism', and that
their
own 'moral universalism' is superior. Yet they would never subject their
own
fellow citizens to the same treatment as (for instance) the inhabitants
of
Belgrade. Clearly, the 'moral universalism' is itself relative. More
likely,
it is just a propaganda slogan anyway. Increasingly, the doctrine of
human
rights is the cause of suffering, oppression and injustice.
Increasingly, the
argument that superpowers have a 'moral duty' to enforce human rights,
is used
in the same way as the doctrine of the 'civilising mission' once was
used to
justify colonialism. This text presents a clear rejection of human
rights,
without any appeal to cultural relativism / ethical relativism.
The ethical system of rights
-----
In the claims made by advocates of human rights, rights generally have
the
following characteristics...
-- a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another
person
-- usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all
human beings
-- the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the
right
to be declared
-- there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which
constitute 'respect' of the right
-- these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
-- there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or this
restraint
from action)
-- the person with the right has no moral grounds to oppose this action
-
even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
-- therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken
against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a
right, and
these actions do not constitute a harm
-- since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not
wrong,
even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person
affected considers them a harm
These are the far-reaching claims made by all advocates of rights, and
especially by the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this
summary,
that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral
autonomy.
Some people in history have indeed claimed the rights that were conceded
to
them - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They
are
not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person
must
accept all rights declared for them (by others), clearly contradicts the
idea
of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of
consent. 'Declared rights' are by definition authoritarian. It is these
aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for
oppression.
The Prizren water supply
-----
The logic of rights can be illustrated with a familiar example, addition
of
substances to drinking water. Consider these examples...
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to filter the drinking water to
remove bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask
their consent.
That seems relatively harmless, and indeed desirable. But the moral
logic is
no different in the following examples....
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add chlorine to the
drinking
water, to kill bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city,
or ask
their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add fluoride to the
drinking
water, to improve dental health. It does not inform the residents of the
city,
or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add contraceptives to the
drinking water, since the high birth rate is overloading the health-care
system. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add Prozac to the drinking
water,
to reduce the incidence of post-traumatic depression. It does not inform
the
residents of the city, or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add a genetically modified
HIV
virus to the drinking water, as a form of vaccination against an AIDS
epidemic. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
The list shows how easy it is to extend the range of a right (and indeed
the
UN administration in Kosovo has taken extraordinary steps to control
cultural
and political life there). The United Nations decided, without
consulting me,
that I have a right not to be tortured - and that is considered morally
legitimate. But what is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a
right to
be tortured? The United Nations decided that I have a right to life. But
what
is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a right to death?
But this type of argument - the 'slippery slope ', or 'consequentialism'
- is
rejected anyway by many moral philosophers. They would claim that, just
because a principle has undesirable consequences in certain cases, that
does
not rule it out as a moral principle. But it is the principle itself
which is
wrong here - the principle that certain actions are in effect exempt
from
moral judgment, because they constitute 'respect' of a right.
Human rights: opposing principles
-----
The best way to illustrate this is to look at how rights could be
ethically
acceptable. That could be through these alternative principles...
***
1 "Rights are voluntary. They can not be imposed on a person without
consent."
2 "Every person is free to chose their own rights, if any."
3 "It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself
subject
to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a
right,
even a right that has been consented to."
4 "An action done to a person, to respect the rights of that person, can
be a
harm to that person. Each person is morally autonomous in deciding what
constitutes a harm to themselves."
5 "Specifically, the state or international organisations may not
declare
rights for persons, unless those persons participated in the formulation
of
those rights, and expressed their consent."
6 "Rights may be renounced at any time."
7 "There must be an impartial procedure of appeal against rights.
Obviously
this function can not be exercised by pro-rights organisations, such as
the
United Nations."
8 "An agreement on rights can not bind persons, who have not entered
into the agreement."
9 "Objections of conscience to any right are valid."
***
This list only shows how different the present human rights idea is, in
comparison. No supporter of human rights would ever accept anything like
these principles.
The UN-declared human rights
-----
The present debate on human rights and sovereignty is largely concerned
with a
specific set of rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
Declaration was approved by the United Nations in December 1948. In this
case,
the failure of ethical legitimacy is clear. The human rights lobby
claims,
that this document is morally binding on the whole world, forever. But
what
basis does that have?
-- The document was approved by the diplomatic representatives of UN
member
states. No other persons or organisations participated in the
negotiations on
the text.
-- These states were the victorious allied powers of 1945, and their
allies,
with a few others. They did not even approximate the present membership
of the
United Nations.
-- In many cases, the government and political system in these states
had
been installed in 1944 and 1945 by Allied military action. (In Europe
especially, the Soviet Union and the US manipulated the political
process to
obtain the desired government, inside their new spheres of influence).
Even by
the limited standards of parliamentary elections, they governments did
not
'represent' their inhabitants. In some countries, such as Greece and
China, a
civil war was in progress.
-- Some of the signatory states were, at the time, de facto
protectorates of
Allied powers - such as Persia, Egypt and Iraq. Others were self-ruled
colonies, but with a whites-only government, such as Australia and South
Africa.
-- Several of the states excluded large sections of the population from
any
political influence - such as the remains of the German minorities in
Eastern
Europe at the time. Germany and Japan themselves were under military
occupation, and not represented.
-- Some of the States - Afghanistan, for instance - had no modern
political
system of any kind.
-- Most notably, Africa was 'represented' by colonial powers. At the
time,
most held no elections of any kind, in most of their colonial territory.
Often, all political activity by 'natives' was forbidden.
-- Probably only five governments decided, without outside pressure,
their
position on the Declaration: the United States, Britain, the Soviet
Union,
Sweden, and Mexico. All others were, to a greater or lesser extent,
dependent
on their protecting power (or colonial power).
-- The text was ultimately a compromise, between the United States and
the
Soviet Union. The USA was the initiator in this process, and the Soviet
Union
was on the defensive. The Declaration is, without doubt, a primary
historical
text of the Cold War.
-- Most of the world population never even saw the text, before it was
approved. Probably the majority could not even understand the few
official
languages in which it was written. The text is still not available, in
the
majority of the languages spoken on earth.
-- No election was held in any country, with the text as an election
issue.
-- No referendum, or any other form of test, was held to approve the
text, in
any country. There was no ratification procedure of any kind, since it
was not
a Treaty.
-- No individual ever formally consented to the document as an
individual:
the United Nations never organised such a consent procedure.
-- I am obliged to accept the contents, even though it was approved
before I
was born, and any influence on its contents was therefore impossible.
-- There is no procedure for revision of the declaration.
-- There is no procedure for periodic review, let alone periodic
re-approval,
of the Declaration.
-- The Declaration is therefore considered to apply indefinitely,
beyond the
lifetime of those who drafted it, and without any possibility of
amending it
or annulling it. Their descendants will, apparently, forever be bound by
the Declaration.
-- There is no independent appeal against its contents, or against the
rights
imposed, or against the application of the Declaration by the United
Nations
-- Specifically, there is no independent appeal procedure, against
military
action to enforce it. If the UN decides tomorrow, that it is necessary
to
destroy Beijing with a nuclear weapon, to enforce human rights, then
no-one
can take any legal steps against this decision. Neither the individual
residents, nor the Chinese government, nor any organisation, can appeal
-
certainly not to the International Court. The Universal Declaration of
Human
Rights is considered beyond appeal, in fact beyond all legal procedure.
For a document conferring such powers, this is a very weak ethical
basis. Even
more so, because it is now treated as the basic document of the United
Nations
(in contrast to the UN Charter, which guarantees national sovereignty).
If the
United States recolonises Africa over the next 15 years, then it will
almost
certainly refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - as the
legal
basis for its actions. And since the United States is now the only
superpower
capable of doing this, and no other power can successfully oppose it,
the
temptation will be great. Because of its claimed universal and absolute
force,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an emergent license for
global
conquest, in a uni-polar world.
Human rights are clearly political
-----
There is no doubt, that the doctrine of human rights belongs within a
specific
political tradition: the broad European liberal tradition. Human rights
have
also become a central element, in recent Anglo-American democratic
liberalism
(the type of political philosophy represented by John Rawls). But the
liberal
tradition is only one section of European political thought. Not only
are
human rights not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'.
This
text completely rejects human rights, but from a background which is as
European as liberalism. It is certainly not an African (or Asian, or
Slavic)
cultural or philosophical viewpoint. Human rights are not culturally
specific,
they are politically specific. The human rights doctrine is a classic
political ideology.
The imposition of human rights on the world, is the imposition of that
political ideology. And with it comes the rest of the liberal package.
The
supporters of human rights are also the supporters of free trade,
democracy,
an open society and the free market. The two recent explicit military
interventions to protect rights, in Timor and Kosovo, have also brought
open
free-market economies to these regions. In organisations like the NATO
or the
OSCE, the free market and human rights are always referred to together,
as if
they were the same thing. And because of that, in practice, they are.
--
Paul Treanor
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Mail version: the complete version, with links, is at
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/human.rights.html
--------------------------------------
A Serbian child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as
much
pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British
governments do
not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights.
That
fate is reserved for East Europeans, Africans, and Asians. The western
human
rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They
claim
opposition to human rights is based on 'ethical relativism', and that
their
own 'moral universalism' is superior. Yet they would never subject their
own
fellow citizens to the same treatment as (for instance) the inhabitants
of
Belgrade. Clearly, the 'moral universalism' is itself relative. More
likely,
it is just a propaganda slogan anyway. Increasingly, the doctrine of
human
rights is the cause of suffering, oppression and injustice.
Increasingly, the
argument that superpowers have a 'moral duty' to enforce human rights,
is used
in the same way as the doctrine of the 'civilising mission' once was
used to
justify colonialism. This text presents a clear rejection of human
rights,
without any appeal to cultural relativism / ethical relativism.
The ethical system of rights
-----
In the claims made by advocates of human rights, rights generally have
the
following characteristics...
-- a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another
person
-- usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all
human beings
-- the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the
right
to be declared
-- there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which
constitute 'respect' of the right
-- these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
-- there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or this
restraint
from action)
-- the person with the right has no moral grounds to oppose this action
-
even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
-- therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken
against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a
right, and
these actions do not constitute a harm
-- since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not
wrong,
even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person
affected considers them a harm
These are the far-reaching claims made by all advocates of rights, and
especially by the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this
summary,
that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral
autonomy.
Some people in history have indeed claimed the rights that were conceded
to
them - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They
are
not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person
must
accept all rights declared for them (by others), clearly contradicts the
idea
of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of
consent. 'Declared rights' are by definition authoritarian. It is these
aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for
oppression.
The Prizren water supply
-----
The logic of rights can be illustrated with a familiar example, addition
of
substances to drinking water. Consider these examples...
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to filter the drinking water to
remove bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask
their consent.
That seems relatively harmless, and indeed desirable. But the moral
logic is
no different in the following examples....
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add chlorine to the
drinking
water, to kill bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city,
or ask
their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add fluoride to the
drinking
water, to improve dental health. It does not inform the residents of the
city,
or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add contraceptives to the
drinking water, since the high birth rate is overloading the health-care
system. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add Prozac to the drinking
water,
to reduce the incidence of post-traumatic depression. It does not inform
the
residents of the city, or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add a genetically modified
HIV
virus to the drinking water, as a form of vaccination against an AIDS
epidemic. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
The list shows how easy it is to extend the range of a right (and indeed
the
UN administration in Kosovo has taken extraordinary steps to control
cultural
and political life there). The United Nations decided, without
consulting me,
that I have a right not to be tortured - and that is considered morally
legitimate. But what is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a
right to
be tortured? The United Nations decided that I have a right to life. But
what
is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a right to death?
But this type of argument - the 'slippery slope ', or 'consequentialism'
- is
rejected anyway by many moral philosophers. They would claim that, just
because a principle has undesirable consequences in certain cases, that
does
not rule it out as a moral principle. But it is the principle itself
which is
wrong here - the principle that certain actions are in effect exempt
from
moral judgment, because they constitute 'respect' of a right.
Human rights: opposing principles
-----
The best way to illustrate this is to look at how rights could be
ethically
acceptable. That could be through these alternative principles...
***
1 "Rights are voluntary. They can not be imposed on a person without
consent."
2 "Every person is free to chose their own rights, if any."
3 "It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself
subject
to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a
right,
even a right that has been consented to."
4 "An action done to a person, to respect the rights of that person, can
be a
harm to that person. Each person is morally autonomous in deciding what
constitutes a harm to themselves."
5 "Specifically, the state or international organisations may not
declare
rights for persons, unless those persons participated in the formulation
of
those rights, and expressed their consent."
6 "Rights may be renounced at any time."
7 "There must be an impartial procedure of appeal against rights.
Obviously
this function can not be exercised by pro-rights organisations, such as
the
United Nations."
8 "An agreement on rights can not bind persons, who have not entered
into the agreement."
9 "Objections of conscience to any right are valid."
***
This list only shows how different the present human rights idea is, in
comparison. No supporter of human rights would ever accept anything like
these principles.
The UN-declared human rights
-----
The present debate on human rights and sovereignty is largely concerned
with a
specific set of rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
Declaration was approved by the United Nations in December 1948. In this
case,
the failure of ethical legitimacy is clear. The human rights lobby
claims,
that this document is morally binding on the whole world, forever. But
what
basis does that have?
-- The document was approved by the diplomatic representatives of UN
member
states. No other persons or organisations participated in the
negotiations on
the text.
-- These states were the victorious allied powers of 1945, and their
allies,
with a few others. They did not even approximate the present membership
of the
United Nations.
-- In many cases, the government and political system in these states
had
been installed in 1944 and 1945 by Allied military action. (In Europe
especially, the Soviet Union and the US manipulated the political
process to
obtain the desired government, inside their new spheres of influence).
Even by
the limited standards of parliamentary elections, they governments did
not
'represent' their inhabitants. In some countries, such as Greece and
China, a
civil war was in progress.
-- Some of the signatory states were, at the time, de facto
protectorates of
Allied powers - such as Persia, Egypt and Iraq. Others were self-ruled
colonies, but with a whites-only government, such as Australia and South
Africa.
-- Several of the states excluded large sections of the population from
any
political influence - such as the remains of the German minorities in
Eastern
Europe at the time. Germany and Japan themselves were under military
occupation, and not represented.
-- Some of the States - Afghanistan, for instance - had no modern
political
system of any kind.
-- Most notably, Africa was 'represented' by colonial powers. At the
time,
most held no elections of any kind, in most of their colonial territory.
Often, all political activity by 'natives' was forbidden.
-- Probably only five governments decided, without outside pressure,
their
position on the Declaration: the United States, Britain, the Soviet
Union,
Sweden, and Mexico. All others were, to a greater or lesser extent,
dependent
on their protecting power (or colonial power).
-- The text was ultimately a compromise, between the United States and
the
Soviet Union. The USA was the initiator in this process, and the Soviet
Union
was on the defensive. The Declaration is, without doubt, a primary
historical
text of the Cold War.
-- Most of the world population never even saw the text, before it was
approved. Probably the majority could not even understand the few
official
languages in which it was written. The text is still not available, in
the
majority of the languages spoken on earth.
-- No election was held in any country, with the text as an election
issue.
-- No referendum, or any other form of test, was held to approve the
text, in
any country. There was no ratification procedure of any kind, since it
was not
a Treaty.
-- No individual ever formally consented to the document as an
individual:
the United Nations never organised such a consent procedure.
-- I am obliged to accept the contents, even though it was approved
before I
was born, and any influence on its contents was therefore impossible.
-- There is no procedure for revision of the declaration.
-- There is no procedure for periodic review, let alone periodic
re-approval,
of the Declaration.
-- The Declaration is therefore considered to apply indefinitely,
beyond the
lifetime of those who drafted it, and without any possibility of
amending it
or annulling it. Their descendants will, apparently, forever be bound by
the Declaration.
-- There is no independent appeal against its contents, or against the
rights
imposed, or against the application of the Declaration by the United
Nations
-- Specifically, there is no independent appeal procedure, against
military
action to enforce it. If the UN decides tomorrow, that it is necessary
to
destroy Beijing with a nuclear weapon, to enforce human rights, then
no-one
can take any legal steps against this decision. Neither the individual
residents, nor the Chinese government, nor any organisation, can appeal
-
certainly not to the International Court. The Universal Declaration of
Human
Rights is considered beyond appeal, in fact beyond all legal procedure.
For a document conferring such powers, this is a very weak ethical
basis. Even
more so, because it is now treated as the basic document of the United
Nations
(in contrast to the UN Charter, which guarantees national sovereignty).
If the
United States recolonises Africa over the next 15 years, then it will
almost
certainly refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - as the
legal
basis for its actions. And since the United States is now the only
superpower
capable of doing this, and no other power can successfully oppose it,
the
temptation will be great. Because of its claimed universal and absolute
force,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an emergent license for
global
conquest, in a uni-polar world.
Human rights are clearly political
-----
There is no doubt, that the doctrine of human rights belongs within a
specific
political tradition: the broad European liberal tradition. Human rights
have
also become a central element, in recent Anglo-American democratic
liberalism
(the type of political philosophy represented by John Rawls). But the
liberal
tradition is only one section of European political thought. Not only
are
human rights not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'.
This
text completely rejects human rights, but from a background which is as
European as liberalism. It is certainly not an African (or Asian, or
Slavic)
cultural or philosophical viewpoint. Human rights are not culturally
specific,
they are politically specific. The human rights doctrine is a classic
political ideology.
The imposition of human rights on the world, is the imposition of that
political ideology. And with it comes the rest of the liberal package.
The
supporters of human rights are also the supporters of free trade,
democracy,
an open society and the free market. The two recent explicit military
interventions to protect rights, in Timor and Kosovo, have also brought
open
free-market economies to these regions. In organisations like the NATO
or the
OSCE, the free market and human rights are always referred to together,
as if
they were the same thing. And because of that, in practice, they are.
--
Paul Treanor
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------