Human Rights

[Serket]

Just finishing up a major assignment on this so its really the only thing on my mind.

Are human rights universal?

Should the right to a fair trial be universal?

Are there any circumstances when the right to a fair trial should be suspended?

Are there any circumstances when the right not to be tortured should be suspended?

[blueback]

Morality is an individual decision.

Sometimes a lot of individuals agree with each other, but the decision is still made individually. Why do you think we always try to look for affirmation of our moral code? It's because we are uncomfortable with the fact that we are responsible for our moral choices. If we just obey what someone else says then it's not really our fault.

That being said:

Are human rights universal?
No. The rights of a sentient, rational being are universal, but at the moment those are all humans. Everyone who is sentient and rational is capable of evaluationg the universe on their own terms and therefore has the inate right to do so freely. Our survival is based on our ability to think so to deny someone that right is to deny their life. Sinc survival is ultimately the most important value to a creature that evolved, that is the standard for judging morality.

Should the right to a fair trial be universal?
Yes, for all sentient, rational beings. Those who are sentient and rational have the right to not be forced to do anything. Since force can sometimes be used against them someone has to look at the evidence and decide whether or not they have put themselves outside the protection of natural rights. That process has to be standardized and transparent so that it can't be abused.

Are there any circumstances when the right to a fair trial should be suspended?
Nope. However, "fair" is a flexible term. In a life-or-death situation someone has to make triage decisions and that means they have to balance natural rights against other natural rights in a high pressure situation where the time-scale is greatly reduced and the repercussions are greatly enhanced. Therefore, a fair trial in that situation might not bear much resemblance to a fair trial during peace time.

Are there any circumstances when the right not to be tortured should be suspended?
Again, "torture" is a flexible term. I'm not sure that there is a right not to be tortured. Everyone has to endure pain during their lifetimes and those who want to acheive big things have to endure more pain. What form that pain comes in isn't necessarily predictable. If someone is in danger of being tortured they have probably put themselves in a situation where they knew the possibility of torture existed. In that case, is the torture not just pain they knew they might have to experience? Atheletes put themselves into situations where they might have to endure random, excruciating pain, sometimes caused deliberately by an opponent.

I know what you mean, though. Everyone has the right to avoid pain and seek pleasure as much as possible, but I'm not sure that anyone has the right to be protected from pain or be given pleasure by someone else. If we say that you can't torture someone then shouldn't we also say that you have to please someone? In reality we say both those things, but they don't seem to be theoretically consistent. I suppose if torture falls under the umbrella of force then it would be a violation of the right not to be forced to do anything. Therefore, you couldn't torture anyone without a fair trial.

[acyckowski]

Just finishing up a major assignment on this so its really the only thing on my mind.

Are human rights universal?

In practice, no. They should be, but there's always that pesky practicality of how you secure those rights, and how do you arbitrate between parties whose rights conflict. This applies at the nation-state level, as well: if China (or whoever) does not grant its citizens the rights they should, does another nation have a right (or obligation) to challenge their sovereignty to do so?

Should the right to a fair trial be universal?

Again, it should be. Blueback raises valid concerns about what constitutes "fair." The exigencies of combat, for instance, require a more abbreviated justice process, so the notion of "fair" has to allow for external constraints on the process while safeguarding the integrity of justice.

Are there any circumstances when the right to a fair trial should be suspended?

Suspended? No. This seems to be the hot button, recently, because nations which guarantee such a right to their citizens do not always confer those rights to non-citizens. In the absence of a universally recognized right and/or extradition treaties, I have no problem with a nation holding its enemies without trial.

Are there any circumstances when the right not to be tortured should be suspended?

If by torture you mean cruel and unusual punishment for crimes for which a person has been convicted, then no, that right should not be suspended.

However, if you mean harsh treatment of a prisoner to gain intelligence in the exigency of war, I would say there is no such right. If there were, the Geneva Convention would have been superfluous. Here, you have two factors in play, both evaluated along a continuum: first, the gratuitiousness of the harsh treatment, and second, the value of the intelligence expected to be gained.

It would be nice if we could design a theoretical construct that came up with a clean, pat answer, but that's not realistic. Moral nations do the best they can to minimize gratuitous harsh treatment, to redress failures, and accept imperfection as a sad fact of life.

[EsoteriEccentri]

Morality is an individual decision.


And that's all there is to it.
Of course, the morality of the majority wins because they have the power to lock you up if your morals are not theirs. But it is still an individual decision.
Despite the fact that you may argue it has a lot to do with instincts and situations we have been exposed to, ect.

I guess all these questions depend on your own morals, and the morals of the majority. =/

I don't think there is any yes or no answer, or any they should or they should not answer. It all depends.

[sriv]

Are human rights universal?
For humans, hell yeah.
Should the right to a fair trial be universal?
Only practically. I would not give Tommy the smart enough to know about court system toddler a fair trial if his parents told him to go to his room. If someone is going to get a $50 fine and they are not financially challenged, they do not need a lawyer or have to take their case to court. In most sensical cases, yes. New lie detector technology is immersing as well. Took long enough.
Are there any circumstances when the right to a fair trial should be suspended?
The apocalypse. lol. No.
Are there any circumstances when the right not to be tortured should be suspended?
Torturing is fine as long as there is only very short term consequences. Any method that may result in death, wound, or mental damage/PTSD should not be used.

[acyckowski]

Should the right to a fair trial be universal?
Only practically. I would not give Tommy the smart enough to know about court system toddler a fair trial if his parents told him to go to his room. If someone is going to get a $50 fine and they are not financially challenged, they do not need a lawyer or have to take their case to court. In most sensical cases, yes. New lie detector technology is immersing as well. Took long enough.


Good point about practicality. Regardless of the financial resources available, a citizen should have the right to appeal to a court of law for even the pettiest charges. I'm thinking traffic court, here. Cop says you were speeding, you say you weren't. A fair trial could constitute just you, the DA's office, and the judge. Nothing says you have to have a jury trial or legal representation to make it fair.

[merid]

Are human rights universal?

I don't think so. If you have commited acts that put you outside of the laws of the land then you should be punished. I realise that some countries have obscene laws that hinder rights but for most of the world the laws are pretty lenient.

Should the right to a fair trial be universal?

Yes absolutely. Fair trial is a tricky reality though, new evidence can get someone of death row after they have had a fair trial.


Are there any circumstances when the right to a fair trial should be suspended?

I think if you are a terrorist, and I realise that objectively terrorists differ with perceptions, but I don't think terrorists should have access to a trial. This is because terrorists want to commit terror and therefore are outside of the human rights boundary and they just aren't human.


Are there any circumstances when the right not to be tortured should be suspended?

Torture is pointless, if it was a case of a terrorist being captured I would just "double tap" to the head and save myself and them the trouble.

[sriv]

Good point about practicality. Regardless of the financial resources available, a citizen should have the right to appeal to a court of law for even the pettiest charges. I'm thinking traffic court, here. Cop says you were speeding, you say you weren't. A fair trial could constitute just you, the DA's office, and the judge. Nothing says you have to have a jury trial or legal representation to make it fair.

Oh yeah, the cop could just blame you again and again and it may affect your permanent record. Maybe with things that affect the record should be brought to court.