Discussion: Deciding Human Rights

[asterroc]

This came up on someone else's blog, and now I want to know what people think.

Viewpoint A: "Human rights should never be subject to a general vote. We should never allow the majority to oppress the minority."
Viewpoint B: "But how do we know what basic human rights *are*? Who defines them except the people, and therefore a popular vote?"

Discuss!

FWIW I ask these discussion questions when I'm uncertain of what I think on the topic and I want input to help me understand the nuances of it. As usual, I would appreciate it if vituperation was kept to a minimum, yadda yadda.

Comments

[q10.livejournal.com]

what if the majority elects a so-called ‘right’ the protection of which impairs something else that you consider a ‘right’? what if some of the people involved don't see the thing in question as a right at all? if we could agree on what kinds of things were or could be or should be human rights, your proposal would get us somewhere, but if we could agree on that we wouldn't have this problem. as it stands, most of the interesting debates in our society are framed, or can be framed, in terms of different people's ideas for conflicting rights - A's right to property against B's right to various forms of social insurance payed for in part by taxing A, or A's rights to property and freedom of association against B's right not to be be subject to certain kinds of discrimination, or A's right to free expression against B's right to be able to live a life where B doesn't have to be traumatized daily the extremely disturbing hardcore pornography painted onto the wall of A's house facing onto B's yard, or A's right to defend herself against perceived threats against B's right not to get fatally shot for getting lost at night and stumbling onto A's property by mistake. you may think some or all of these aren't or shouldn't be ‘real’ rights. i certainly don't believe in all of them, but if no ‘right’ can ever be taken away, then once the majority votes in one of the fake rights, it will stop the competing real right from getting enacted forever, unless the society is given the power to change its mind about what a right is, in which case no right can ever be completely safe.