If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News4 mins ago
Impact of the notion of human rights on culture and morality.
15 Answers
Generally I have been as a left wing pc type, an advocate of human rights legislation and adoption of this into British society, and this has been part of my moral guidance. However I am reading an article which questions the notion of rights, especially feminist writers who suggest this has led to a morality based around a human being who is autonomous and separate with the power to choose a moral course independent of others. This is usually the white western male not living in poverty. For women moral decision making is within the context of interdependence with others and relationship.
So human rights create a space where people have to have their basic needs met and forces society to have a welfare system - this is a good thing. But, does the rights model also create people who are individual orientated and out for own gain and not concerned about the well being of others? Does this exclude those whose morality is based on other models such as women, non western societies?
Those with religious views may feel religion provides all answers about morality, which encompass gender and cultural differences.
So human rights create a space where people have to have their basic needs met and forces society to have a welfare system - this is a good thing. But, does the rights model also create people who are individual orientated and out for own gain and not concerned about the well being of others? Does this exclude those whose morality is based on other models such as women, non western societies?
Those with religious views may feel religion provides all answers about morality, which encompass gender and cultural differences.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ruby27. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not exactly sure waht an appropriate response to your question would be ruby27, except to begin with a reiteration of what I see to be a false assumption. You say "So human rights create a space where people have to have their basic needs met and forces society to have a welfare system - this is a good thing. With which I would strongly disagree. I fully understand that our views here in the U.S., for the most part (and for now) are opposed to the welfare systems in place in the U.K. and Europe. In most cases, welfare provided by taxing productive members of society to completley care for un-productive members leads to a caste system, reliance on others for one's needs and a government imposed attitude of entitlement that is soon passed from one generation to another.
Please understand that basic needs for a limited time frame should always be supplied by a caring society to those who have a proven need due to circumstances beyond their control. But the massive systems, especially those I read about in the Scandinavian countries (and against which there is beginning an oppositional ground swell) soon drains the resources (taxes in excess of 65% to as high as 90% of income or more) and willingness of entrepenuers to continue providing such largess for nothing in return.
The issue is probably the major difference between Republicans and Democrats here in the U.S. and will only continue to grow in contentiousness throughout this next election cycle.
Human rights should provide a foundation for equal justice under the law, but to impose the total care of those unwilling to be productive on those who are will soon render the host society impotent, in my view...
Contd.
Please understand that basic needs for a limited time frame should always be supplied by a caring society to those who have a proven need due to circumstances beyond their control. But the massive systems, especially those I read about in the Scandinavian countries (and against which there is beginning an oppositional ground swell) soon drains the resources (taxes in excess of 65% to as high as 90% of income or more) and willingness of entrepenuers to continue providing such largess for nothing in return.
The issue is probably the major difference between Republicans and Democrats here in the U.S. and will only continue to grow in contentiousness throughout this next election cycle.
Human rights should provide a foundation for equal justice under the law, but to impose the total care of those unwilling to be productive on those who are will soon render the host society impotent, in my view...
Contd.
I'm not quite convinced in the asssertion that women in western cultures have a basis for morality that is that different to men.
There can a big differece between moral frameworks in western societies and others. We do have a tendency to try to impose that western notion abroad. Whether it's the "muscular Christianity" of the missionaries, the imperialists "white mans burden" or the "bringing democracy to the world" in our own times.
It seems to me that the notion of human rights was born in the enlightenment and expressed in documents like the declaration of independence - although that of course has roots in Magna Carta.
I don't think you can really cliam that the rights model creates selfish people - you've always had those who will persue their own selfish ends, you might argue we have more now but I think media portrayals have more to answer for there
Reading between the lines it seems that perhaps we're talking about "family rights"? as opposed to individual human rights - perhaps legally forcing errant fathers to return to deserted wives for example.
I guess it boils down to the goal of society - the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people - seems a good goal to me - I'd suggest the best way to achieve that is individual based otherwise you're imposing your view of how to make the best society by force - and there are bad precedents for that
There can a big differece between moral frameworks in western societies and others. We do have a tendency to try to impose that western notion abroad. Whether it's the "muscular Christianity" of the missionaries, the imperialists "white mans burden" or the "bringing democracy to the world" in our own times.
It seems to me that the notion of human rights was born in the enlightenment and expressed in documents like the declaration of independence - although that of course has roots in Magna Carta.
I don't think you can really cliam that the rights model creates selfish people - you've always had those who will persue their own selfish ends, you might argue we have more now but I think media portrayals have more to answer for there
Reading between the lines it seems that perhaps we're talking about "family rights"? as opposed to individual human rights - perhaps legally forcing errant fathers to return to deserted wives for example.
I guess it boils down to the goal of society - the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people - seems a good goal to me - I'd suggest the best way to achieve that is individual based otherwise you're imposing your view of how to make the best society by force - and there are bad precedents for that
Contd.
You also say that "... For women, moral decision making is within the context of interdependence...". Again, I think you're describing situational ethics. When one's moral underpinnings are dependent on changing circumstances, a slippery slope is about to be traversed. The outcome leads directly to acceptance of truly immoral decisions if the right circumstances are encountered, no?
Interesting question, though... thanks!
You also say that "... For women, moral decision making is within the context of interdependence...". Again, I think you're describing situational ethics. When one's moral underpinnings are dependent on changing circumstances, a slippery slope is about to be traversed. The outcome leads directly to acceptance of truly immoral decisions if the right circumstances are encountered, no?
Interesting question, though... thanks!
Sorry for Splitting your answer Clanad
Hmm
Sweden inflation 1.4% GDP per capita $31,000 (10th in world) and ranked 5th in Quality of life behind USA 10 and the UK a dismal 29th
I think we'll have to agree to differ on welfare and the pros and cons of giving the poor health care as it's not really what the thread's about
Hmm
Sweden inflation 1.4% GDP per capita $31,000 (10th in world) and ranked 5th in Quality of life behind USA 10 and the UK a dismal 29th
I think we'll have to agree to differ on welfare and the pros and cons of giving the poor health care as it's not really what the thread's about
Not a problem, jake... the site doesn't like long responses today. I do think, however, regardless of our differing views, that the welfare state alluded to in the original question does encompass health care. It's a significant part od the debate here in the U.S.
This, from a site called Taxpayers Association of Europe :
"... Great Britain had the lowest growth rate of major European countries in the 1950s and 1960s, yet by the 1980s and 1990s it was growing faster than most of the major continental nations. Why? After 1970, the tax burden rose sharply in Western Europe, but much less so in Great Britain. By 1990, taxes on average were significantly lower in England than in such major continental nations as France, Germany or Italy. Lower taxes meant more capital formation, more entrepreneurship, more output. London has again become clearly the leading commercial city of Europe.
Sweden, by contrast, has declined in a relative economic sense. By virtually every indicator, Sweden was one of the world�s three or four richest countries in 1970. Today, it is not in the top 15 countries by any measure, and per capita income is actually falling below the average of the European OECD countries. A crushing tax burden has led to a reduction in capital formation, a decline in hours worked, and general stagnation. High taxes, low growth."
This, from a site called Taxpayers Association of Europe :
"... Great Britain had the lowest growth rate of major European countries in the 1950s and 1960s, yet by the 1980s and 1990s it was growing faster than most of the major continental nations. Why? After 1970, the tax burden rose sharply in Western Europe, but much less so in Great Britain. By 1990, taxes on average were significantly lower in England than in such major continental nations as France, Germany or Italy. Lower taxes meant more capital formation, more entrepreneurship, more output. London has again become clearly the leading commercial city of Europe.
Sweden, by contrast, has declined in a relative economic sense. By virtually every indicator, Sweden was one of the world�s three or four richest countries in 1970. Today, it is not in the top 15 countries by any measure, and per capita income is actually falling below the average of the European OECD countries. A crushing tax burden has led to a reduction in capital formation, a decline in hours worked, and general stagnation. High taxes, low growth."
Clanad.
The cradle to the grave welfare state has been criticised for producing people who are dependant. (See recent post about the family with 12 children). To create this dependency is not desirable, but I think this is the exception rather than the rule. Most people do try and lead productive lives not 'coasting' through life thinking oh well the NHS, DSS or Social Services will pick me up, so I can eat drink to excess, produce any amount of children and not bother with a pension. Most that are in the welfare system want to get out and certainly do not want their children there.
Now I have posted any research to back up my view point, but I am fairly confident about what I am asserting. I think we have different perspectives which probably can not be totally proved one way or the other.
As for womens/ mens rights - will continue on new post.
The cradle to the grave welfare state has been criticised for producing people who are dependant. (See recent post about the family with 12 children). To create this dependency is not desirable, but I think this is the exception rather than the rule. Most people do try and lead productive lives not 'coasting' through life thinking oh well the NHS, DSS or Social Services will pick me up, so I can eat drink to excess, produce any amount of children and not bother with a pension. Most that are in the welfare system want to get out and certainly do not want their children there.
Now I have posted any research to back up my view point, but I am fairly confident about what I am asserting. I think we have different perspectives which probably can not be totally proved one way or the other.
As for womens/ mens rights - will continue on new post.
I have not previously come across the term situational ethics so can not be sure whether it is the same.
The rights movement has a long history in this country. Initially it was the rights of the Baron's that came into conflict with the rights of the King? That would fit with the notion that right movement has been pushed by those capable for asserting their rights. They certainly were not interested in the rights of the agricultural labourers. Then the Trade Union movement (of which I am a fan), rights of men but lagged behind for women. Feminist movement (big fan), were primarily interested in white middle class western women forgetting sisters of color.
So the rights movement has been very effective and praiseworthy, but � perhaps at times to self serving?
I am not suggesting there are more or less selfish/benevolent people now than before. However I was interested in the notion that the rights movement as an ethical endeavour, may lead prevent thinking, my right, which I must exercise and how does this impact on you/others?. Can a 'right' be enshrined without context, can it be meaningful without considering rights in relationship and interaction with others. 'Rights' are not out there, some sort of fact/objective reality but an emergent/relational guide? I am going to ponder on this and perhaps be a little more reflective about �rights�.
Just a thought in order to indulge in some moral exercise.
Thanks for the answers.
The rights movement has a long history in this country. Initially it was the rights of the Baron's that came into conflict with the rights of the King? That would fit with the notion that right movement has been pushed by those capable for asserting their rights. They certainly were not interested in the rights of the agricultural labourers. Then the Trade Union movement (of which I am a fan), rights of men but lagged behind for women. Feminist movement (big fan), were primarily interested in white middle class western women forgetting sisters of color.
So the rights movement has been very effective and praiseworthy, but � perhaps at times to self serving?
I am not suggesting there are more or less selfish/benevolent people now than before. However I was interested in the notion that the rights movement as an ethical endeavour, may lead prevent thinking, my right, which I must exercise and how does this impact on you/others?. Can a 'right' be enshrined without context, can it be meaningful without considering rights in relationship and interaction with others. 'Rights' are not out there, some sort of fact/objective reality but an emergent/relational guide? I am going to ponder on this and perhaps be a little more reflective about �rights�.
Just a thought in order to indulge in some moral exercise.
Thanks for the answers.
Out of curiosity why might there be different moral/ethical frameworks based on cultural differences but not on gender. Surely you have scratched your head at the incomprehensibility of the opposite gender, whilst being instantly in touch with same gender/different culture when it came to, why do women have to nag, are men incapable of doing two things at once - dreadful stereotypes I know but we all have them in one way or another.
We have many faiths, many political perspectives, wide ranging scientific facts and theories - so moral and ethical orders (to which I include the 'rights movements' should be just as varied. It just doesnt seem that individuals seem to explore the basis, foundation, rational for their own and others as widely as other human endeavours. I think, but would be very interested in others take on this.
We have many faiths, many political perspectives, wide ranging scientific facts and theories - so moral and ethical orders (to which I include the 'rights movements' should be just as varied. It just doesnt seem that individuals seem to explore the basis, foundation, rational for their own and others as widely as other human endeavours. I think, but would be very interested in others take on this.
With rights come responsibilities, and in the U.K. the balance is wrong.
That is one of the reasons we have immigrants flooding into the country, as we are told they will do the jobs that we British refuse to do! We can only refuse if our bread is being paid for by others. Never mind bread, also lager and widescreen plasma T.V.'s!
From a Christian viewpoint, men and women are equal, but have different roles to play in the sight of God. This leads to a misunderstanding that somehow, Christians see women as secondary to men. Not so. In islam, yes, and Hindus discriminate with their caste system.
But, now I've mentioned religion. Maybe you didn't want that?
That is one of the reasons we have immigrants flooding into the country, as we are told they will do the jobs that we British refuse to do! We can only refuse if our bread is being paid for by others. Never mind bread, also lager and widescreen plasma T.V.'s!
From a Christian viewpoint, men and women are equal, but have different roles to play in the sight of God. This leads to a misunderstanding that somehow, Christians see women as secondary to men. Not so. In islam, yes, and Hindus discriminate with their caste system.
But, now I've mentioned religion. Maybe you didn't want that?
Have you actually read the Bible, Theland? Women are blatantly not regarded as equal to men; it explicitly says so.
Men are in charge of women:
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Men are made in the image of God but women are made in man's image, and women were created for men.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Women may not teach or disobey a man because men came first and Adam didn't disobey God, Eve did. But it's okay, if they have kids, women can be saved too.
1 Timothy 2
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Men are in charge of women:
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Men are made in the image of God but women are made in man's image, and women were created for men.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Women may not teach or disobey a man because men came first and Adam didn't disobey God, Eve did. But it's okay, if they have kids, women can be saved too.
1 Timothy 2
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
I don't object to the mention of religion, it is after all a moral framework and is culturally located. However as an aside would strongly argue that the religions (Arbrahamic) are man made constructs, they have and are systems that promote the advantage of men (and those usually based within a class system) and disadvantage of women. I think WaldoMcfroog has proved this conclusively with excerpts from the bible. So becasue of that and religions homphobia, I do not consider religion as an ethical moral framework.
What I was vaguely pondering is the advantages and disadvantages of the rights movement as an ethical endeavour. Whether we had a rights system or and ethic of interdependence, I would still be wanting to promote the welfare system and immigration and migration of people through countries. Sort of do I want coffee or tea, not do I want a drink. Still left wing pc.
Tthe moral/ethical framework individuals have will have been formed by considerations such as gender, race, class, politics, media, and period in time - basically all the social interactions we are exposed to. For those with a religious view there will be the same exposure but maybe very different interpretation
Exploration of the different materials that contribute to how a moral/ethical framework is constructed and whether what fitted/suited once, still does. What shapes people in their thinking and actions should be a work in progress rather than a dogma!
What I was vaguely pondering is the advantages and disadvantages of the rights movement as an ethical endeavour. Whether we had a rights system or and ethic of interdependence, I would still be wanting to promote the welfare system and immigration and migration of people through countries. Sort of do I want coffee or tea, not do I want a drink. Still left wing pc.
Tthe moral/ethical framework individuals have will have been formed by considerations such as gender, race, class, politics, media, and period in time - basically all the social interactions we are exposed to. For those with a religious view there will be the same exposure but maybe very different interpretation
Exploration of the different materials that contribute to how a moral/ethical framework is constructed and whether what fitted/suited once, still does. What shapes people in their thinking and actions should be a work in progress rather than a dogma!
Waldo has it wrong. He is mistaking the differing roles of male / female, and missing the point that, muslims aside, women are equal partners, but in matters of faith and teaching, their role is not as pc as he would like it. The basis of the family structure is firmly rooted in this, and has served us very well for so long. Now it is threatened and that is a blow to our very stability as a society.
I am? Well, let's see what the OT has to say, shall we?
Leviticus 12
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean 7 days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3 And in the 8th day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Is circumcision required?
4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying 3 and 30 days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean 2 weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and 6 days.
Lev 27
3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty year
4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
That's God speaking in both those quotes. How much evidence of the equality of men and women in the eyes of God himself do you require?
Leviticus 12
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean 7 days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3 And in the 8th day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Is circumcision required?
4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying 3 and 30 days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean 2 weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and 6 days.
Lev 27
3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty year
4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
That's God speaking in both those quotes. How much evidence of the equality of men and women in the eyes of God himself do you require?
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Recession Risk As Britain Reels From...
News10 mins ago
It Will Never Make It To Strictly
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.