Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览保罗·格特弗里德(Paul Gottfried)档案
“人权”出了什么问题
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

媒体发表的一些神言,作为一名学者,我不幸听到不断地听到这些词,一旦它们从某人的嘴里说出来,我就会畏缩不前。 在这些特别令人讨厌的术语中,有“社会正义”、“公平”和“敏感”,所有这些都充满了正义和不诚实。

然而,最近让我感到最痛苦的术语或概念是“人权”。 上周,当我听到福克斯新闻评论员胡安威廉姆斯坚持同性恋婚姻是一项人权时,痛苦变得难以忍受。 如果威廉姆斯如愿以偿,最高法院将在这个国家的每个小村庄强制承认这种安排。 那是因为他认为这是“公平的”,并且无论如何都是第十四修正案的平等保护条款所要求的。 我不知道第十四修正案如何要求强制实行与人类社会开始以来以及直到几年前在这个国家对婚姻的理解方式不同的婚姻做法。 可以理解为什么可以援引第十四修正案来维护每个美国纳税人的权利,无论其肤色如何,都有权使用他或她支付的公共设施。 但是,除了通过司法篡夺行为,它怎么能要求所有美国人都被迫承认婚姻是同性之间的同居安排。 据推测,这需要一项必须受到同等保护的权利。 对什么? 大概是那些相关的人决定称之为婚姻然后强迫其他人接受惩罚的任何事情。

然而,如果那些希望尝试新的婚姻形式的人认为乱伦是个好主意,会发生什么? 这是否也成为第十四修正案保护的权利? 集体婚姻怎么样?荷兰已经在尝试这种做法? 根据胡安·威廉姆斯的说法,这是否也受到我们宪法的保护? 答案是,如果威廉姆斯决定将乱伦和群婚定性为人权,那么乱伦和群婚可能有权受到法律保护以免受歧视。 到底是什么——再增加两项权利真的不会混淆“人权”这个词,就像它已经被混淆了一样。 事实上,这个词现在已经被简化为一个修辞比喻,意在用发音者的道德严肃性给听众留下深刻印象。

立即订购

我对这个词的反对不是基于道德相对主义,因为我不假装是一个道德不可知论者。 我可以想到至少一项所有人都应该享有的权利以及政府应该提供的权利:这是托马斯·霍布斯 (Thomas Hobbes) 的自然权利的一个例子,该权利应受到政府的保护,免遭暴力死亡。 但谁相信什么权利不是这里的重点。 每当某些个人、机构或国家希望表达政治偏好或社会重建计划时,我反对使用人权夸大其词。 只需提出你的论点,让听众决定。 此外,我不反对听取针对那些做可怕事情的社会的道德论据。 提及这些社会的领导人所做的事情,然后让其他人来决定你的起诉是否正确。 说你谴责的事情侵犯了人权,只会让空间充满噪音,而对人类知识没有任何实质性的贡献。 例如,如果有人向我展示,如果看到塔利班与未婚的年轻男子交谈,塔利班就会用石头砸死妇女,那就足够了。 发言人绝不会通过补充说塔利班“侵犯人权”来加强他的简报。

我也会提出反对人权语言的传统主义案例。 尽管直到几十年前,我们在同一个社会中的大多数人都可以就正确和错误的行为达成一致,但与传统的道德真理相比,人权更容易发生变化。 它们的有效性取决于政治和文化风向; 相信一个人可以通过诉诸基于“人权”或“民主价值观”的新的普遍伦理来弥合整个西方世界道德或社会共识的崩溃是愚蠢的。 我们的社会在基本行为问题上存在尖锐甚至越来越大的分歧,诉诸所谓的普遍权利语言不太可能治愈这些分歧。 值得注意的是,无论是支持还是反对堕胎权的人,都同样向我们吐露了人权言论。 这种做法并没有解决任何重要问题,除了让演讲者对他们的事业和维护它的自己感觉良好。

(从重新发布 美国保守党 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 人权 
隐藏27条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Yeah, I object to human rights too. I think that drone ought to be sent to your home Mr. Gottfried and flatten it and every inhabitant in it just because I felt like it. Damn you and your laws and your society and beliefs. Whatever, I don’t care. Destruction ought to be rained down upon you because I felt like it and you’re annoying and make me feel uncomfortable.

    Who needs human rights, least of all you, anyways?

    我对吗?

  2. German_reader 说:

    Some time ago Daniel Larison mentioned a book by Samuel Moyn “The last utopia: human rights in history” which I subsequently read and found rather interesting. Moyn’s main thesis is that human rights as currently understood only really emerged in the 1970s so are a product of the very recent past. I’m not qualified to judge whether this is true but in any case human rights today seems to be a ill-defined concept with extremely shallow intellectual foundations so their scope is constantly enlargened by “progressive” activists and their sympathizers in judiciaries. They are the perfect instrument for left-wing social engineering and therefore should be opposed by any conservative.

  3. Evan 说:

    It’s hard for me to place my bet on restoration of bourgeois morality backed by strong nation-states. It’s easier for me to imagine–grandiose though the suggestion may seem–that traditional, archaic morality will have to re-emerge in the levelled post-bourgeois setting established by imperious univeralists. In other words, it’s back to the wilderness for us, and the kings and strong-men return.

  4. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    Underlying this notion of human rights as used by “progressives” is the idea that there is no human nature, nothing given. Rather, all is infinitely reshapeable, malleable, subject to human wishes. Up to perhaps half a century or 70 years ago, there was at least the residual historical and sentimental attachment to more ancient ideas of what human nature included. But once we’ve dispatched this remnant, you’re left with “whatever you want it to be” as the answer to the question, “what exactly human beings are.”

    This stems from the abandonment of the classical and medieval formal and final cause in modern science, as in the poem that prefaces Newton’s Principia Mathematica. Once there’s no possible knowledge of formal or final causes (or of anything’s –including human’s–whatness or whyness, to put it more colloquially) then all you can know is mass, extension, speed: those aspects of reality that are susceptible to description through number and mathematical formulae.

    If this mathematical abstraction of reality is all you can know, all else ultimately will become up for grabs; and that’s what’s happening now. We’re just on the final stage of what’s been occuring since the sixteenth century.

  5. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    I think you fall into the trap of your own argument. Slavery was considered morally acceptable for the majority of humanity’s time on earth and it wasn’t until a small sliver of that time frame that humanity became enlightened enough to move past this (Mali and other countries not withstanding).

    To use the same moral argument against same-sex marriage, of which moral opposition for thousands of years was grounded in the same religious principals which also allowed for slavery is why your argument doesn’t seem to hold any water.

    Social mores change over time, but real progress is finally being made which treats humans, whether they be disabled, racially different, or born with different sexual preferences on the same grounds because people are finally able to separate faith based beliefs from things that occur biologically within human beings.

    Remember, equal civil rights for African Americans is only a 50 year old practice in our country.

  6. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    “I’ve no idea how the Fourteenth Amendment can require the imposition of a marital practice that differs from how marriage was understood since the beginnings of human societies and up until a few years ago in this country. ”

    Overall, this is a great post, but surely Professor Gottfried is being a little disingenuous here. It’s because of this often useful concept called “logical inference”. As one discovers more truths, one can use them together with already-accepted propositions to find out things that were not obvious at the beginning.

    So if society decides that things like group or incestuous marriage (or something even worse) fit the definition, then the 14th Amendment presumably protects these too. So there is a legal right there.

    I think he should be more willing to adopt a “natural rights” way of talking about things like this this. The problem with “human rights” talk is that it confuses the issue between what is legal and what is natural or reasonable, when that is in some sense exactly the point at issue. As he points out, the phrase “human rights” is just being used as a rhetorical device to suggest that one’s opponents are being inhuman monsters. The abortion example at the end is a particularly good one — both sides spend all their time talking about fundamental human rights and so never need to respond to the worries of their evil, dehumanizing opponents.

  7. My other objection to “human rights” is that the phrase and associated rhetoric is used to justify wars of choice. Gaddhafi was a repentant dictator, until the three harpies, Clinton, Rice, and Power, decided he was a human rights violator and needed to be toppled.

    When someone accuses a foreign government of violating “human rights,” the question becomes, “Are you calling for sanctions or for war?”

    The same French Revolution that issued the “Declaration of the Right of Man” made liberal use of the guillotine to scientifically separate the heads of its opponents and heretics from their bodies.

  8. Evan 说:

    @The Wet One

    Ah, yes–the global human rights regime is doing 这样 a superb job of not drone-bombing innocents.

  9. Agreed 100% with Paul Gottfried. Human rights thinking has taken over completely, but we should still oppose it as best we can. At the least, never use that conceptual framework ourselves.

    I use a different example about human rights in marriage: Is it a human right for a man to marry up to four women at a time? If not, why not?

    To the commenter who suggested that opposing the whole concept of metaphysical human rights means accepting indiscriminate attacks on people: Try reading the article again.

  10. One thing I’ve noticed just lately is how far human rights 法律 is from the vulgar notion of human rights – to the advantage of human rights law. Most people who are always appealing to human rights don’t realize just how considerate the law is to states who want to 限制 so-called human rights.

    Many of the most important human rights are derogable – they can be suspended for reasons like state security. This includes, to take just one example, the right to due process: human rights law says that states can lock people up indefinitely without trial, if there’s a security justification for it. Also derogable, and highly restricted even in normal situations, is the “human right” to free assembly and non-violent protest. States can ban those under human rights law.

    Vulgar human-rights talk is one thing; international human rights law is quite another.

  11. Anonymous • 免责声明 说: • 您的网站

    The problem occurs when people start believing that humans inherently have rights. We are given life from God, and if our “rights” go against His nature, then those aren’t really right at all.

  12. If you don’t like rights talk, may I suggest you find a country other than the United States? Because I don’t think there’s any getting away from it here, not since the founding.

  13. What of my human right to enjoy Belhaven Scottish Ale at a price that I can afford?

    And if others have a human right to health care, what of my human right not to become a doctor? At some point doesn’t society have to draft people into the medical profession in order for the right to health care to be real? Must I take to the hills in order to avoid becoming a dental technician against my will?

    It also strikes me as odd that those who proclaim human rights are also those most resistant to the proposition that such rights emanate from some source. From whence do such rights come?

  14. All so true. The real victims are those who have to live with the excruciating knowledge that not everyone is like them, and even worse, that the day has come when they can no longer compel people to pretend that they’re something they’re not. True freedom is the freedom to choose what I would choose. That’s all the rights any human needs.

  15. Nathan 说:

    Mr. Gottfried: “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .” The unalienable rights doctrine is the basis for individual rights here and arguably anywhere in the world. Note that sometime later Mr. Madison, his fellow Virginian is forced by the likes of Patrick Henry to do a Bill of Rights set of amendments to the Constitution, something he was reluctant to do because he felt that enumerating rights automatically limited them. Leaving it at “unalienable” and among these “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” allowed an almost unlimited view of rights as seen in terms of limited government.

    And we note in the Bill of Rights the basics rights, First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, are all very much rights which keep voracious governments at bay. These rights if you will form the foundation do they not of any discussion of “human rights.” Torture? Eighth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment covers so many “human rights”. We could go on. If you don’t like that concept what part of the Bill of Rights do you discard/change? We can complain that definition has expanded to foolish extremes, that the right to a dwelling is far beyond what the Founders envisioned especially given Madison’s famous quote about benevolence spending. But still human rights remains, in the context of the unalienable rights doctrine, in the context of the Bill of Rights, both of which conservatives certainly see as universal, a valid construct.

  16. TomB 说:

    Bravo, Nathan.

    我的意思是 … *保守派* ... *反对* the idea of having rights vis a vis the government/the mob?

  17. matt 说:

    I have been amazed by how little a role the appeal to rights has played in the advancement of SSM. Activists banged the rights/equality drum for years, but it wasn’t until people could see SSM as a positive social good to be enjoyed by others they considered normal that the tide really turned. Cf Charles Murray. It was in fact a “just make your arguments and let the listener decide” dynamic: “just show me a believable picture of the way of life at stake and let me decide.”

    At this point, people like Williams can go back and dress up their (in my view, correct) opinions in high moral language, but that’s not a working part of the argument.

  18. I was thinking of the Moyn book that the German Reader mentioned when I returned to this subject recently. Actually the rhetorical phrase goes back further in time than the 1970s, which is the period when began to rise to its present popularity. Carl Schmitt was railing against the application of Human Rights invented by the victors after World War Two, and the UN issued the first of its changing laundry list of “Human Rights” in 1948. I’ve no idea why someone should be allowed to bomb my house even if I challenge the tendentiously employed and/or tautological concept of HR. There are multiple positive laws prohibiting such behavior in Western societies; nor am I prevented from morally condemning brutal acts in the absence of this recent rhetorical or conceptual tool. Moral reasoning did not start in the 1970s or even in the 1940s.

  19. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    “that all Americans be forced to recognize as marriage a cohabitation arrangement between people of the same sex.”

    A court decision would force the government and the law to recognize the union between a same-sex couple. You on the other hand are not forced to do anything. If you wanted to, just pretend the law never passed

  20. The Founding Fathers believed in natural rights, but that doesn’t mean we should. The Bill of Rights stands on its own as positive law. That is, as Burke said in an English context, as “positive, recorded, hereditary title” – ours by inheritance, not by natural law.

    And speaking of which, Burke predicted our human-rights inflation two centuries ago. He foresaw “that vague speculative right” – what was called natural rights then and human rights now – being “scrambled for and torn to pieces by every wild, litigious spirit.”

  21. Nathan 说:

    Mr. Gross: I get your point. But still sir what do we base our concept of “rights” today on? The unalienable rights doctrine, flawed though it may be to some (I’m not convinced it is) still is the foundation for all individual rights here and every place else. And I’m sorry I believe, personal warts aside that the Founders were the greatest group of political thinkers ever assembled together at any time in history. Who would you replace them with? Romney? Rubio? Newt? Sean? Rush? Mark? Any, all, none? Choosing between them as a group, and anyone today, I think I’ll go with them.

    Mr. Gottfried: Was HR invented by the victors after WWII? How were the horrors of Sobibor and Babi Yar supposed to be dealt with? To be sure the justice was flawed. Having Stalin’s representatives on any court was a travesty. And understanding Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine (Avery his secretary for India wrote in his diary that he was no different than Hitler) made his presence there questionable too. And Max Hastings in his book Bomber Command made it clear that moral issues were raised about area bombing. All conceded. But still we knew that the newly constituted governments in Japan and Germany were not going to do anything about the murderers among them. Some action in this case, was better than nothing? Make some statement of principle, especially that following orders was not a defense should set the stage for actors later, didn’t that have some merit?

    The holocaust was legal under German law. At the very least the international agreements that emerged from those trials stated clearly that actors could not rely on the laws of their own countries, that they had to make an individual determination of the legality of their actions. That alone made much of what happened at Nuremburg and Tokyo worthwhile? And in the end the people prosecuted HAD surrendered their unalieanble rights, had they not? Their due process rights were not materially violated were they?

    Flawed as perhaps those trials were perhaps I don’t see the Innocence Project taking on any of the people convicted.

  22. 亚伦格罗斯,

    The Ninth Amendment goes beyond the enumerated rights of positive law to speak of other, unnamed, rights still retained, so I don’t think defining the bill of rights simply as positive law works.

  23. matt 说:

    Do you find the notion of “natural law” equally tautological and tendentious?

  24. William Burns, good point. I should have excluded the Ninth Amendment, at least your interpretation of it, when I said the Bill of Rights doesn’t need any natural rights foundation. If you interpret that amendment allowing judges to rely on so-called natural rights, as opposed to natural law, then I see it as a bug, not a feature.

    I don’t believe in legal positivism and I don’t at all reject natural law. Positive law is just one of several kinds of law, all of them valid (and often conflicting).

    Nathan, we should base our concept of rights today on exactly what Burke said: ““positive, recorded, hereditary title.” That is, our constitutional inheritance from our Founding Fathers. I think that’s a much more solid basis on which to build than is natural/human rights.

    You asked whether I’d depend on some mental midgets that you listed, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others. Of course not. But legal theory aside, I don’t think we’re doing all that badly with legal positivists like Antonin Scalia and the late Robert Bork.

  25. V 说:

    I see some are faster writing comments than reading up to where the author refers to Hobbes and protection against violent death.

  26. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    The best part of this article is the clear recognition of the non-stop threat to liberties that accompany redefinition of a status enjoyed by individuals under civil law. Those who compare a new and asserted evolving and progressive moral view or “understanding” of marriage with the abolition of slavery in this country are intellectually and morally off-base and their argument invalid because such a comparison ignores the role that history plays in life and law and fails to recognize that slavery was a status almost universally forced by individuals on other individuals even where it was legally permissible.

    The key question here should be: In this country, with regard to issues involving “rights”, what is the essential reason our governments were instituted in the first place? The answer isn’t complex: our government weren’t instituted to grant rights to the citizens who founded them but to recognize the basic rights citizens enjoyed as those rights had been generally understood and to secure those rights by protecting them from intrusion and violation by the governments themselves. Thus, the federal “Bill of Rights” is accurately described not as a set of legal grants of rights to individuals but protection of individuals legally from governmental acts violating the basic rights that its citizens were understood to possess. So, I’ll accept redefinitions of a legal status such as marriage to include an individual of the same gender only after history has validated such status in society, something I don’t think will happen anytime soon because of the non-stop threat to liberties associated with redefining a matter such as marriage.

  27. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    Surely, liberals use the term “human rights” unreflectively and reflexively. But leftists actually hate the term and largely agree with this analysis. One example I’ve seen lately goes “housing is a human right!” Really? So when primitive human tribes emerged from the Neanderthals, their thought was, “gee, now that I’m a MAN and everything, I’m entitled by God or Nature to a shelter”? There’s no such thing as a “human right,” whether you’re left- or right-wing: rights are things people fight for and often die for, and only grudgingly do governments “secure” them (and often, don’t). Nothing is gained in discussions about rights but referring to them as “human” or “natural” rights….

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Paul Gottfried的评论