Human rights should be controlled in some cases. There should be no pardons for those who have killed, raped or who have done something really bad without any or very stupid reason. This, of course, doesn’t include Vendetta.

And Amnesty International should be cancelled.

Coming back to the point of “citizenship” and border of countries, etc.: in the rational definition of human rights, just by being born in one place, one doesn’t get any “right to property”, or any right to access or enter anyone else’s property. Citizenship is not a human right. In fact, far in the future, there may be a country that grants “probationary citizenship” to everyone born there. Only when the probationary citizen reaches adulthood (at whatever age may be specified as adulthood then, it’s currently 18 in most countries), he will go through an evaluation process, much like the ‘green card’ processing of the US. If the individual passes, he will be granted citizenship. If he shows Leftist tendencies, he will be expelled from the country!

I don’t think there is any violation of human rights in the above scenario.

Regarding living in a remote area of Montana where no one else is living: that land belongs to the US Government. Human rights do not give you the right to squat over another’s property.

But if I get your general drift, that many aspects of rights are granted, yes. There are many rights granted to citizens, and they differ from country to country, depending upon its constitutional and legal framework. But these rights (that are in addition to, and over and above, human rights), are not what we refer to as “human rights”. I think this is where your doubts are coming from. Such rights are indeed “granted”.

It is another matter altogether, that there are many countries whose laws undercut human rights!

So my point (if any!) is that many aspects of human rights are indeed granted.

Btw, don’t worry if you didn’t get my point, I am not sure I got it myself . I was just “Thinking out aloud” – I was not making an argument on something I was sure of. So it probably has enough holes.

The rational definition of human rights does indeed have absolute terms, including freedom of thought and expression.

Human rights are indeed intrinsic and are universally applicable, but not all humans share the same definition of it. So, the question, what does it mean, has to have a context. If it is a rational philosophical context, there are clear answers. If it is based on the current human context, the answer depends upon who are you talking about?

Regarding the specific example you cite regarding not being able to enter a free, democratic country without a visa, which intrinsic human right are you referring to? You cannot enter your neighbor’s house without his permission. Just like you protect your home from outsiders, a democratic country’s people protect its country from outsiders, with a certain foreign policy regarding who should enter, and how, and for what. As a human, you do not have the right to enter and gain the benefits of living in a foreign land, just by the fact of being human.

I apologize if I’m not getting your point.

Not as a counter to anything that has been said: I wonder if there is universal agreement to the definition “human rights” – like mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights? And when I mean universal, I do not mean “general consensus” – I mean universal as in intrinsic, inviolable etc. etc. It says “the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.” If so, doesn’t it have non-absolute (i.e. uncertain and dynamic – not finding the right word here) terms? For example – “Freedom of thought”, “Freedom of expression” and “Law”.

I mean most of us feel that human rights are intrinsic as a universally applicable thing – but do all of us share the same idea of human rights? If not, what does that mean? Consider a simple thing: The law says I cannot enter your free, democratic country without a visa and passport, and cannot stay beyond a certain time. Now how exactly is it upholding my basic, intrinsic right as a human?

Arun: When I wrote the post, I was under the impression that the Vatican is officially funding AI. Sneaksleep corrected my perceptions. The hair-splitting was never about whether in general AI is doing a lot of good or not.

In my post, I also wanted to make the distinction that Priyank made explicit, that human rights are inviolable, and cannot be granted. I will still stand by that hair-splitting!

I think I’m wholeheartedly with your stance regarding giving credit to organizations. It is difficult for any group of people to come together and do some real good, and as long as they don’t impinge on other human rights, they must be applauded!

On the other hand, if not, are we splitting hairs and perhaps being too idealistic? If one must evaluate every organization AND every individual by all their collective actions and intentions – then we will find no one is perfect. Many of us speak “talk the talk”, we rarely walk it.

I guess I am sort of ambivalent here. I am willing in general to give organizations credit usually if they truly did help things become better in situations (even in causes funded by religious organizations). But they do only if they are also allowed to do religious sermons and conversions to the people they are helping – that would cross the line and no longer fall into advancement of pure human rights. But then are they really that different from government aid ?

I agree that there have been many Catholic members of Amnesty over the years, and that has undoubtedly had some influence on some of the organization’s decisions (given the democratic process they use to set priorities)–though that influence clearly wasn’t enough to stop the new policy on abortion from going into effect. As for the name, I suppose it could have been Catholic influence that led to keeping it even after the human rights goals were expanded, but the pragmatist in me thinks it had much more to to with branding.

Regarding roots of the name “Amnesty”, you’re probably right. But when the organization decided on focusing on human rights in general, and not just political prisoners, it should have chosen a better, more representative title. Did the Catholic upbringing of many of its members play a role? I’m not sure.

Anyhow I’m glad they’re supporting abortion at least in cases of crimes against women!

Once again, thanks for visiting and sharing.

PS: feel free to include links in the comments. Just that if there are 2 or more links, the comment will come to me for moderation.