Are "universal human rights" demonstrable? How?



Are "universal human rights" (as per definitions by United Nations or others who try to argue for them) demonstrateable? How?

I personally question this concept due to several reasons:

  • Universality is a rare property. It doesn't (in a demonstrateable way) exist very often, if ever. Rather there exists differences, which is not universality, but particularity/particularism.

  • Human right is a social construct. Which means that it's not a consistent, hard, objective-like. I can change my opinion tomorrow and then it doesn't exist.

Are "universal human rights" a "synthetic" construct? Which means that, IF we choose to adapt to it, we CAN adapt to it. However, does this still make them somehow "valid", "true"? A religious person would be of similar kind, they CAN believe, but their belief is still not particularly true.

Which implies that: in order to avoid an "every claim goes" mentality. One must add criteria for correctness, such as measurability, demonstrateability, scientific method.

A complementary text that motivates this question:

On How Physicalism And Physicalist Value Avoids Naturalist/Moralist Fallacy (Epistemology, Physicalism)


Posted 2019-09-07T07:35:16.387

Reputation: 2 666

What do you mean with "universal human rights" ? What we can prove is a sentence from axioms. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA – 2019-09-07T08:44:55.560

This is too broad for us, I am afraid. On the general conception of human rights and their justification see SEP Human Rights. After reading it, perhaps you could make the question more specific. But do not expect them to be "demonstrateable" in any sense like the laws of physics, that is unreasonable to expect of any moral system. At best, one can hope to show that they help, on average, to promote human "well-being".

– Conifold – 2019-09-07T09:35:23.633

@MauroALLEGRANZA The way UN and other who promote them as laws define them. – mavavilj – 2019-09-07T10:46:20.340

@Conifold Are you sure it's broad? I find that there are not too many "significant" epistemological contexts to consider. E.g.: physicalism, social constructionism and a bit of ethics (which relates to soc. constructionism). To treat this as a "subjective opinion" would be broad, but it's also not sufficient to produce "general law". Due to there being counter examples where "subjective opinion" is not even a "general opinion". – mavavilj – 2019-09-07T10:47:42.237

@Conifold Also I disagree with "do not expect them to be demonstrateable". There are considerations in physicalism as to how it deals with moral theory. And I find that this way of looking at moral is "the modern way to look at moral". Whereas "moral theory" is old-school. A physicalist idea about moral is e.g. "If the moral claim can be measured physically, e.g. pain, then we can consider it". This is to contrast against a priori claims such as "every human has unalienable rights" (which we don't have to see, thus they're not physicalist). A mere a priori claim is "somewhat empty". – mavavilj – 2019-09-07T10:49:56.677

@Conifold Another way to look at it: if they aren't demonstrateable, then why should anyone believe them? – mavavilj – 2019-09-07T10:52:53.190

Look at the length of the SEP article, what is the point of low quality reproductions of parts of it here? – Conifold – 2019-09-07T11:16:10.813

@Conifold I will. Question can be removed, if it's unnecessary. – mavavilj – 2019-09-07T11:23:55.407

A complementary(?) question

– Rusi-packing-up – 2019-09-07T11:57:40.847

Universal human rights is rooted in freedom, life and health, and respect for proper boundaries. – Bread – 2019-09-07T21:14:46.533

Firstly, these rights are declared as being universal. Secondly, it is fallacious to proclaim an objective/normative division. Objectivity is, if expressed in language, normative because language and the determination of truth/objectivity through it is normative (and hence subject to incommensurable relativity to its context). The notion of "objective rights" is highly problematic in itself. Maybe I'll find the time for a proper answer these days.. – Philip Klöcking – 2019-09-08T14:27:00.153

Whenever someone violates another person's natural human rights to [life/health, freedom, and proper boundaries] -- they effectively negate or cancel their own human rights. Essentially this is because: to be human is to respect human rights; and to respect human rights is to be a human being. It boils down to empathy and kindness (kind is from the same root as kindred). – Bread – 2019-09-09T00:40:18.100

@Bread Where does it demonstrate that "to be human is to respect human rights"? There's no "one way" to be human. And tbh, I believe that the "naturalist human" is not governed by any generalist statements like that. Rather, the "naturalist human" is an "anarcho-naturalist" basically. A being that's "in a natural state, which is not governed by any pre-determined rules, because nature does not have them (trivially at least)". – mavavilj – 2019-09-09T06:57:36.807

@PhilipKlöcking I do understand your point about "objective/normative division being fallacious", but I don't agree on it as a fallacy, but rather what I refer to as "fundamental self-fulfilling prophecy" (this is just a saying) or "a fundamental axiom" (this is more science-like). Basically: everything we know, exists through subject, but this is not a problem, because everything we know, exists through subject. So it's an axiom-like "circular argument", which though is not fallacious, because it's true (as true as subjective-objective division or empirical solipsism). – mavavilj – 2019-09-09T07:03:07.927

To extend this to how moral is constructed. I believe there are two main types of moral belief: subjective (when only one agrees) and intersubjective (when > 1 people agree on the same principles). Yet there's no guarantee of consistency, because I can change my opinion in a moment. There's no "objectivity" per se, because "out-subject" or "nature" is objectively valueless (carries no concept of value, because conception of value is a social construct created humans). Or i.e. "moral exists, only when it exists". – mavavilj – 2019-09-09T07:14:48.650

You're wrong, the term human being is well defined. (While I'm here, the word I was searching for earlier was "forfeit" ; and it is such forfeitures of ones own humanity or violations of the human rights of others which is the cause of all forms of war, because those who do not forfeit their humanity naturally seek to maintain or reestablish it). – Bread – 2019-09-09T11:22:15.950

@Bread Please demonstrate, how it's well-defined, because I think it certainly isn't. An easy counter-example is that the definition has and can have multiple definitions, thus it cannot be "consistent". For example: are cave men and modern humans similar? If you claim that there's only one meaning, then it's possibly:

– mavavilj – 2019-09-09T11:23:42.393

Have a complementary view : How in the face of massive power differentials rights are likely to side the strong rather than do any real justice. See my conversation with Jobermark below. Can make it an answer as long as complementary≠conflicting – Rusi-packing-up – 2019-09-13T15:52:25.103

You become human being and then you'll have human rights. – Marino Klisovich – 2019-10-17T10:00:36.423



Universal human rights result when a deontology is taken as a prescription.

(Later edit: I realized I did not clearly weigh in on the actual question. The answer is ambiguous: you can demonstrate that proposed rights meet the axiomatics of the deontologies involved, and that most people from most cultures would naively sign on to those in some simplified form, the same way we readily accept naive set theory.

I can demonstrate slavery, or child labor, is always unfair the same way I can demonstrate that the continuum is uncountable. But not in the same way I can demonstrate an electric field produces a magnetic force.

History or reflection might give you a different way of looking at infinity. It might also leave you with no reason to trust any of my instruments. So ultimately, neither kind of demonstration is really superior to the other.)

For a Kantian/Rawlsian or other ethics that recognizes 'duty' and assumes it must have a rational basis, if something can in fact be implemented in such a way that it honors all individuals' autonomy properly, it is a moral law, and it might just as well be an enforced law. A lot of Enlightenment thought comes down to some echo of this kind of thinker, often via the notion of a social contract and the rights of people to enter, alter, or leave it.

If everyone honest is going to ultimately agree that a rule treats them properly, then you might as well cut to the chase and force the issue. Whatever you have a duty to do or not to do creates the right of all others to have you do or not do it.

We all recognize the idea that one should not kill innocent people, whenever possible. It is not something that is culturally determined or foreign to anyone. So as an international point of agreement, we can declare it to be a guiding principle. Starting from a few examples of that kind, you can discern the pattern Kant supposedly reached by abstract critique, and start making agreements that things that meet certain standards are natural to humans.

But, as is kind of notorious within 'duty' arguments, almost all meaningful duties are contingent -- they contain variables that individuals get to choose according to their best perception of their own autonomy. Is it necessary to sacrifice children to gods? That depends upon a cultural history and what role the sacrifice plays in keeping that culture in existence.

So virtually nobody can enforce any of these principles in a way that is really helpful. All they can do is use the underlying agreement to criticize one another's contingent choices. This is still useful in extending a certain kind of peace, but it privileges those who are already advantaged. Diffuse rules generally serve those privileged to be in a position to withstand considerable waste.

For instance, there are those who can legitimately afford peace and those who may actually perish unless they take what others have. Making the assumption that the notion of peace has a very high value suggests that those latter cultures should really just not exist. You can obligate the privileged to help them, but it is highly likely that they don't ultimately want outside help. They want the chance that nature gave them, whether or not the only chance they naturally have is moral in others' eyes.

So the idea kind of eats its own tail. Individual obligations may be impossible to protect from group needs to define themselves and sustain their identity, and vice versus.


Posted 2019-09-07T07:35:16.387


How is "is taken as a prescription" possible, universally speaking? A deontology is something that requires belief. No belief, no rules. – mavavilj – 2019-09-07T19:20:24.790

@mavavilj Not from the point of view of a genuine deontologist. Kant sees duty as natural to intelligence. Period. No agreement necessary. Because ultimately every honest individual has to agree that what is best for every honest individual is in fact best. The universality is built into the definition of duty. I am not saying Kant is right, only that this invades the Enlightenment psychology on which all these institutions are built. – None – 2019-09-07T19:23:30.753

"universality is built in to the definition of duty"? Isn't this "appeal to definition" or "a priori bullshit"? – mavavilj – 2019-09-07T19:25:47.383

Regarding my moral epistemological background, I believe that modern moral should be explainable by "empirical psychology". That is, what is moral, why it exists, so on. – mavavilj – 2019-09-07T19:26:52.900

@mavavilj This gets a little bit diluted by the notion of the nation and the social contract. You may have the ability to write, change or abandon your own social contract, but we have already decided that we are going to act as if everyone o the planet lives under a social contract. Even if we pretend to criticize the notion, this does not change. – None – 2019-09-07T19:39:42.240

@mavavilj If you want to criticize Kant, attack Kant. This is an explanation, not a defense. We got here how we got here. That path is traceable. We moved from the assumption that everyone literally belongs to someone, and there are only a few folks on the planet that are not in some way slaves, to this other notion that we are all basically identical It is an improvement, even if it is still wrong. – None – 2019-09-07T19:40:52.403

@mavavilj Empirical "bullshit" (since you have already pulled out the word) does not have moral content. That is kind of what makes it empirical. So you need to look at morality from some system of negotiated ideals. Those should not contradict empirical facts, but there is no way to get from just facts to any form of morality. Strong unifying assumptions must be injected. Kant is as good a source as any, as long as you don't believe too hard. – None – 2019-09-07T19:46:42.410

+1 for "privileges those already advantaged" There was a reposte from Iran against the udhr (can't seem to cajole google right now) where Iran says udhr is basically universal christian rights

– Rusi-packing-up – 2019-09-08T07:34:23.180

@Rusi I don't think that is fair. It is more like universal Deistic rights. It would be just as hostile to any cultural arc that still really needs its religion (or an explicit ideology) for cohesion. After all, 'Christendom' now has one half trying to be multicultural (North America) and the other half consigned to atheism with Christian nostalgia (Europe). As I see it, Enlightenment Deism carries a relativist agnosticism that is meant to be hostile to religious states, but also to the Russian and Chinese forms of Communism. – None – 2019-09-09T09:10:56.173

@Jobermark Not sure who you saying "Unfair!" Me? Or Iran? I'm not saying Iran is right. (I said I can't even locate the blessed reposte!). I'm only saying that UN being the authority + udhr being UN approved leads to one more (of the zillions) case of your statement "privileges the advantaged". And you're applying universal deistic rights to whom? Iran or udhr? Actually I don't understand the word "deist". Sometimes it's a euphemism for atheist. Sometimes an apology for theist. – Rusi-packing-up – 2019-09-09T09:36:21.403

Found some links Iran And the Cairo udhr :

– Rusi-packing-up – 2019-09-09T13:15:00.927

I am saying that the UHDR would be equally hostile to any genuinely Christian culture in history. It does lash out at African countries currently taking on a more explicity Christian identity. It is not Christian in motivation but Western and secularist. To paint the difference in terms of religion is what I am calling unfair. The Enlightenment version of God is a Platonic/Aristotelian God, not really the Christian one. It is also developed as much by Arabic and Persian scholarship as by European bias, when Muslims were the ones with greater means. – None – 2019-09-09T15:30:53.903

Your statement «The UHDR would be equally hostile to any genuinely Christian culture» I can agree. But do notice what happens as the field of force of Christian(dom) weakens radially outward:
Vatican →Italy → France→UK → US.

In particular take the 2 right wing politicians le Penn and Trump. One wears her secularism on her blouse the other freely hobnobs with evangelicals.

Maybe something to do with the fact that Christianity has never been a force in US; compared to medieval papacy in Europe?? – Rusi-packing-up – 2019-09-11T04:39:04.327

(cont) And the need for secularity around Rome is so overarching that the Vatican is politically disjointed from Italy. In short I question whether secularism has any reasonable semantics far from the tensions of Christendom. Dawkins Harris Hitchens and Dillahunty are as much Judeo-christians as any evangelical. Of course I'm talking of ethos not faith/profession. IOW hostility of faith/profession does not necessarily contradict matching of language, culture, ethos. – Rusi-packing-up – 2019-09-11T04:40:09.100

Just to be clear: I had Jesuit teachers who were an inspiration and I've cherished singing/playing bach church music. IOW I've a high regard for christ even christianity. My point (here) is secularism is faux-chrIstianity just as UN propagates faux-peace : As long as Germany and France don't bomb each other what happens in Rwanda or Iraq or even Bosnia is not an issue! And a faux UN can only produce a faux “universal” declaration of human rights. – Rusi-packing-up – 2019-09-11T05:51:39.477

@Rusi, The fact that there is actually a culture there that originated both things does not make the more rational one of them part of the other. Yes, the West had and has its religion, but major forces, e.g. the founding of the U.S. reflect more on origins in Aristotle, and before Christ. To label the culture Christian has always been stupid when done by its supporters and its haters. And that legacy from Aristotle goes both through Christian Scholastics and Arab Alchemists. Western abstraction and 'scientism' favors those who already have power, and was not consistently Europe. – None – 2019-09-12T22:52:35.627

Yes, we are focused on ourselves, and we created the institution, stacked its bodies, etc. That makes the institution about us. But what we are about is not our religion, or rather it is our 'other' religion -- a certain way of looking at natural law that preceded Christianity and has outlived it. The West derives its power from the principles that underly science, and sit at odds with all religion. To label it Christian is convenient for people who are about their stated religion, but it misunderstands what is going on. – None – 2019-09-12T22:59:26.483

@Rusi. I know I am now totally off-topic. But inside the internal racism of the West, as preached by our own Eugenicists and White Supremacists, the center of the West is not at its Sothern edge, where its religion is centered but in the North that delivered physics. ("African influence starts at the Pyrenees." said German and English eugenicists...) Look at those three atheist names you offered. See something? They are not of 'the Continent', but part of a Western tradition hostile initially to Catholicism but ultimately to Christianity and therefore to everyone else's religion. – None – 2019-09-15T14:48:56.333

It's always a pleasure and an education talking to you. But in the last couple of your messages I'm lost... Eugenics? North/South? 3 atheists? (I see 4...) etc. I wonder if you're calling a spade as a ferric flatplate joined to deadtree with which planetary material is manually moved ... Not that I blame anyone out here for talking in riddles. In the last couple weeks I've had so many of my answers arbitrarily deleted it's beyond malice to just plain ridiculous and don't blame if you're wrapping in obscurity to protect against some well-meaning bumbling ignoramus policeman. – Rusi-packing-up – 2019-09-16T13:32:39.793

@Rusi. It is not code, but it may be way too much of a German/British/American context. Our own internal racism is kind of being recapitulated in a different form in bodies like the UN. But there is no point in studying racism... – None – 2019-09-16T20:38:47.820


"Human Rights the way UN and other who promote them as laws define them" are a social construct, a mere convention of rules defined and enforced by a state (or in the case of the UN, the states which ratified the convention).

Some people do consider them to follow from reason, some consider them to follow from divine revelation. I personally see both those source as weak, considering that reason proceeds form premisses that have to be accepted in advance and that revelation has to be trusted on prophets.

I personnaly prefer to consider that, as the OP say, they are contingent and can be changed. If anything, even if human rights were a transcendent reality, people could only enjoy them the way states enforce them (what good is your transcendent right to free speech when cops can lawfully take you to prison for having spoken your mind about the president?), so the only version of human rights one will ever enjoy is the conventional, contingent one.

That does not mean they are worthless or arbitrary. I, for one, would not want to change the way they are defined in my country, as it warrants me a bunch of rights I want for myself, and I am not powerfull enough to get those rights as a personal grant. The best way to make sure i have them for myself is to proclaim them to be universal, which is to say that anyone should have them, including me.

For example, I have no private militia to enforce freedom of speech only for the ideas that please me. Therefore the best way for me to be able to speak my mind is to partake in the collective convention that makes it so that everyone can speak their mind. In that sense, freedom of speech is not "universal" in itself, but the majority of the population has an interest in proclaiming that it is.


Posted 2019-09-07T07:35:16.387

Reputation: 1 603

Addendum: it might look like i just used reason to justify human rights after just having said it was not a good fundation. My point is, "I personnaly want such and such right and it looks like everybody feels the same" is amuch more self evident axiom than "humans have a special essential dignity that grants them such and such right". – armand – 2019-09-15T12:23:15.663

"self-evident" maybe, but not sufficient. If "personal opinion" would suffice, then we could have e.g. culture that abides fully to some religion. On the other hand, in epistemological solipsism a "personal opinion" could be sufficient, if it doesn't require intersubjectivity. But tbh, I think human rights are somewhat "religious", because some of their demonstrations are "supranatural". "Every human is has these and these universal rights". One cannot verify "every human", "every human" are not the same and thus universality is not a physicalist property in this context. It's soc. constr. – mavavilj – 2019-09-15T20:05:27.113

I understand your objection, but it comes from the fact that you are still considering HR as a metaphysical thing existing "as is", while I propose to consider them as a political artefact. I agree that metaphysical HR is akin to religion as it can't be discussed or amended, only discovered through reason and accepted. "Universal" in a political sense just means "granted to everybody without condition". – armand – 2019-09-15T23:42:41.673


In the original (and often misunderstood) understanding of natural rights, certain qualities were considered to be properties of human beings (in much the same way that mass and hardness are properties of a stone). The idea often gets tangled up in semantics — one of the 'properties' of human beings is 'property ownership', and the dual senses of the term confound many people — but a natural right is always an expression of the right to exercise a natural property of humanity.

The problem that philosophy tries to address — the moral problem — is that humans are (ostensibly) free moral agents, and have the capacity to break, violate, or change these natural properties. For instance, we can change the hardness of a stone by melting it in a furnace or dissolving it in acid. Likewise, we can change the properties of a human being by killing or depriving or enslaving him. Are you going to suggest that the hardness is not a universal property of that stone because we can melt or dissolve it? Then why suggest that the right to life is not a universal property just because we can kill people?

We 'demonstrate' that a rock has the property 'hardness' by observing that it is hard. We 'demonstrate' that a human has the property 'life' by observing him live. Then we negotiate what we can and cannot do with those respective properties (e.g. we have laws preventing people from changing the properties of inanimate materials to produce addictive drugs). The UN Declaration of Human Rights is merely an effort to negotiate firm principles with respect to the particular innate properties that inhere in being human.

Ted Wrigley

Posted 2019-09-07T07:35:16.387

Reputation: 9 139

That's about the idea, but I think one should add that defining "human being" and their properties is much harder than defining stones and their properties. In fact, there are good reasons to say that it is futile to even try to find a set of properties that is both distinctive for and universal among human beings. – Philip Klöcking – 2019-10-19T21:25:28.927

@PhilipKlöcking - oh, I don't think that last is true at all. The mere capacity for rational choice and moral agency — exercised or not — is sufficient to identify a human. You'll notice that the act of dehumanizing a person or group always entails some assertion that they are normal, reactive, unthinking, stupid, or otherwise incapable of higher cognition, empathy, or pro-social attitudes. The problem isn't that we don't know what it means to be human; the problem is that some people refuse to accept humanness in people they dislike. – Ted Wrigley – 2019-10-19T23:18:00.547

Well, I did extensive research there and both biologically and regarding rationality the usual assumptions do not hold. What is "capacity" meant to mean here? Physically severed brains do not allow for said capacity, may it be from birth, due to injury, or because of diseases. That's not about liking or disliking someone – Philip Klöcking – 2019-10-20T10:19:42.303

'Physically severed brains'..? There are always going to be ambiguous border cases, but a fuzzy border does not negate the existence of a class. 'Capacity' means 'potential: the vast run of human beings have the potential to engage in reasoning and to make moral/ethical judgements. Do you dispute that? – Ted Wrigley – 2019-10-20T13:40:10.397

1I do not dispute it, I just say that some months of research on that very topic convinced me that either we are speaking of the class of human beings who are unequivocally protected by human rights - this makes the justification of human rights fuzzy and the class rather arbitrary - or we are stuck with really delicate demarcation problems of border cases which have real ethical and legal consequences for individuals. I am sympathetic with your suggestion, it is close to what I used to think. It just doesn't work if you think it through. – Philip Klöcking – 2019-10-20T20:26:55.253

For some more elaborate words on that, see this answer of mine.

– Philip Klöcking – 2019-10-20T20:28:07.817

I disagree with the 'arbitrary' judgement, but this isn't really the place to dispute it. I'll take a look at the link. – Ted Wrigley – 2019-10-20T21:44:16.973

@Philip Klöcking : Yes - e.g. what about people who really are "stupid" (we could better say "intellectually disabled")? They exist. What about people who lack at least affective empathy (psychopaths)? Again, they really do exist. Should we be able to work 'em like an ox? Yet that still seems wrong. That's the trick. Yes, there's obviously a problem when it comes to these qualities being attributed to someone one doesn't like ... but on the other hand, there are plenty of people who really do possess those qualities. What do you do with them? – The_Sympathizer – 2019-12-18T07:18:48.203

And indeed, those are the ones that are perhaps some of the most necessitating of the protection that a "human rights" regime is supposed to provide. The ones that lack or are diminished in certain faculties or aspects, and who cannot adequately defend themselves from aggression or exploitation by others, causing them suffering they can't escape, for those others' profit. – The_Sympathizer – 2019-12-18T07:22:15.280


Earn your human rights by becoming a human being in the true sense of the term. Animalistic humanoids don't have human rights. They are not treated as human beings by the Laws of Nature. Human rights are granted by existence. No governmental body can ever give you those rights. You must be recognized by other true human beings.

Human beings do not necessarily live on this planet only. Imagine, one day in the future, the human race develops relations with 50 intelligent, human-like, alien civilizations. Anyone from these 50 alien races can be called a human being if he meets the necessary qualifications for a human being. The term "human being" can refer to any intelligent living being in this universe, provided his consciousness is sufficiently developed. And it is indeed rare to find a real human being.

Marino Klisovich

Posted 2019-09-07T07:35:16.387

Reputation: 139

1I agree, but this is not how "statist human rights" operates. It's "order by force", rather than "spontaneous order". – mavavilj – 2019-10-17T10:57:03.890

This seems to have been answered by one of these animals. – Gordon – 2019-10-17T13:24:57.267

This is like the antithesis of what those who originally conceived human rights had in mind. It's universal for a reason. The reason is that otherwise, those in power may decide who is to be privileged as human being and who is not. It is not on you nor anyone else to tell apart true human beings and the vermin who does not deserve to be titled human. – Philip Klöcking – 2019-10-17T19:18:23.250

@PhilipKlöcking, This thought brings one deadly notion: that a human being can never be self-authoritative on his state of humanity (no self-conscious in that matter) before he is officially accepted as a human being. This implies that people are incapable of becoming true human beings. This is what religions said for enlightened people. Who were the originators of Universal Human Rights? Were they true human beings? How did they become true human beings before UHR existed? – Marino Klisovich – 2019-10-17T19:56:28.130

Your notion of "true human beings" and humans being self-conscious regarding their humanity are simply misplaced concepts when talking about human rights. Their idea is legal, having defensive rights against states which are immeasurably more powerful than individuals. The notion of "human" has problems of its own, but what you suggest means that comatose and mentally disabled people as well as small children, psychologically ill people or elderly people with dementia are not human and hence are not protected by human rights, maybe not even the diplomats who negotiated the UDHR. – Philip Klöcking – 2019-10-18T08:58:20.350


There are two aspects of "Universal Human Rights".

Firstly, an important demarcation that we must understand is that the essence of these human rights in order to make any sense fundamentally (if at all) has a requirement of semblance to a rudimentary civilized society, if nothing more. If applied to present day or historic tribal groups more than half of these rights stand invalidated as natural constructs, proving that these are rather typical of synthetic social structures. This would constitute the temporal aspect.

The second aspect pertains to how the the qualifying conditions, if one can construct in principle, could stand to the tests of measurability, correctedness or demonstrability that you raise. The very idea that these have an element of human adaptibility or choice involved exclude the possibility that these are demonstrable in the absolute sense.

Consider the following scenario. If the access to the web is cut which does occur in many countries (which already are signatories to these UN declared rights) the question that arises (and has arisen legally) is whether or not access to the net is a fundamental human right or not?

This scenario would have been unthinkable just four decades ago! Similarly several questions relating to the original charter of human rights will start emerging. The issue of cyber privacy or privacy in itself is a clear manifestation that the "Scientific" methods and the subject of interest of the probing mechanism must be revised in order to be understood coherently.

There was a landmark case as to whether Privacy is a fundamental human right or not in the Indian Supreme Court.

Finally, the basis of these rights is an attempt to design such synthetic structures which hopefully promote or aid the survivial of the constituents of the societies. Which is why in a circular manner these structures will keep morphing and even crossing itself at times.


Posted 2019-09-07T07:35:16.387

Reputation: 1


To say there're Universal Human Rights it depends on:

1- Truth, is it Absolute or Relative. Or there're parts of the Truth which are absolute and others which are relative. Or Truth are Absolute but has two types: a- Main, mother truths. b- offshoot truths.

Offshoot truths are also Absolute Truths, but we may be deceived and consider Offshoot Truths as Relative.

Thus, demonstableness of Universal Human Rights depends upon our understanding of the Truth.

2- Demonstableness also depends upon our understanding of development of Humanity.

Thus, If the Truth is absolute and Human Mentality and Psych can't change, then Universal Human Rights are Demonstrable.

How?. By the Agency of specialists.


Posted 2019-09-07T07:35:16.387

Reputation: 413