Are there natural human rights?--NYT Opinionator

I think the title here is misleading. The author is asking whether these rights exist politically, under the assumption that they most definitely exist a-politically. He's essentially trying to figure out what we do with people/nations who don't have the same vision of human rights we do.

"Revolutions are based upon complaints.  These complaints can arise from practical concerns, like having food at an affordable price, or from more theoretical or social concerns, such as being able to publicly speak one’s mind.  Both are grounded in an understanding of what people ought to be able to enjoy as citizens of a country.  This expectation of fundamental entitlements is what we talk about when we talk about human rights.  But whether or not every person on earth has certain rights just by virtue of being a person alive on the planet — a concept I will refer to here as natural human rights — is a question of some controversy.  In these times, when new questions of rights, complaints and subsequent conflicts seem to arise anew each week, it’s worth knowing where we stand on the matter."

A response I posted elsewhere:


According to this article, this question comes down to what we consider the best determinant of morality--the good of the group or the dictates of some higher, other-worldly set of principles. That said, doesn't the question "Are there natural human rights?" really seem just another way of asking if it's possible to get Muslims and Communists (and whatever other group-focused societies there are) to change their worldview to favor the set of inherent human rights we--the rest of the world-- are supposedly keen to? And if this has "political ramifications," aren't we assuming that if natural human rights actually do exist, it is within the capacity of a government (representing its citizens) to accurately define them? Wouldn't that be quite an assumption to make? Just look at the healthcare debacle in the US: if the entire country is divided over healthcare legislation purportedly written to preserve natural human rights of health and well-being, how could we hope to export any cohesive sense of "natural rights" east-ward? Any attempt would ultimately represent a very narrow, probably partisan perspective, which would then fail in its stated attempts at universality. In reality, governments are in the business of populations, statistics and widely regulating human behavior for the good of the group. Sounds like precisely the wrong sort of institution to be determining what individuals need and deserve. So I say, of course, natural human rights exist. Of course of course of course. Should a government, or anyone for that matter, be responsible for defining what they are for anyone but themselves? I say no. It's very presumptuous, and very American, to assume we know what people need better than they do.


For someone with certain convictions about human rights, a government or group of professors or anyone who wants to define what those rights are in a way that's meant to characterize the needs and desires of mankind is the last thing they'd want. What happens when rights-based morality is the minority and the concept of human rights is pushed to the legislative margin? I'd say leave government out of this.