Behind Human Rights: Systems Across Civilizations' Ethics

(For more on rights, click here)

Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co.

The article "The Motives, Ethics and Nature Behind Human Rights -- Understanding the Subjectivity of Systems Across Civilizations" presents a complex exploration of human rights, challenging conventional views and offering a fresh philosophical perspective. It engages deeply with philosophical ideas, drawing from thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and Edvard Westermarck, and explores concepts like moral relativism, social contracts, and the nature of rights as social constructs.

The article's real-world application, such as the Wagner Group rebellion and the Treaty of Versailles, ground the philosophical discussions in reality. The article takes a balanced and nuanced perspective on human rights, recognizing them as both necessary and illusory, and challenges readers to rethink widely accepted ideas about human rights, justice, and morality.

(Background music)

Part I: A System of Illusion

The concept of 'human rights' is a social construct rather than an inherent, objective truth. In other words, it is more of a shared perception, agreed to be part of the world beyond our minds, but it doesn't mean rights exist beyond our minds. It does not mean that rights are discovered, but rather, invented. Invented and then recognized by at least those who don't desire to violate them.

Sociopathy, in this case, makes people understand this well, further compelling these individuals to ignore the rights of others (Under the idea of Edvard Westermarck's moral relativism, sometimes, as a "justification").

Similar to the notions of "plant rights" or "intellectual property rights," it exists primarily within the realm of human thought and agreement. Fundamentally, what we term 'human rights' are a collection of mutually agreed-upon limitations on individual behavior.

The Reasoning Behind This System

Driven by our shared desire to avoid premature death, unnecessary trauma and excessive suffering, we have established these boundaries as a means to foster a more equitable and secure existence. This, according to the monarchist philosopher Thomas Hobbes, the reasoning for the foundation of society: To foster and apply a social contract where our individual freedoms are sacrificed in the name of our rights and in the name of justice.

Hobbes, opposing the idea of democracy like Socrates did, very much understood that the cultivation of rights have to do with limiting others. However, rights are about limiting others for the greater good, and not out of a need or desire to oppress the populace.

We can also learn from this that sometimes moral and immoral acts often interplay with each other to produce results of either kind, however I digress.

The System's Functional Purposes

By designating certain actions as 'rights,' we highlight their significance and collectively commit to upholding them.

However, it's essential to recognize that these rights are not absolute but rather conditional upon ongoing social consensus, enforcement and the development of the world at large throughout the course of time and history.

Therefore, even when judged as such, the value of rights is never absolute nor universal. Judging a society like this can therefore deter us from further harmony and collaboration with other communities and with each other.

The Problem with a Supposed Universal Objectivity

Not being able to develop this multicultural tolerance across the world, is the problem in general with the attempt to create this global, "universal culture". That is because morality is often function-based, and so are rights, being part of morality itself.

All and all, different communities, nations and people, develop their own systems of morality based not only on their hopes and dreams, but also on their local, distinct challenges. Hence why some countries deem military service as a compulsory duty, while other nations may regard this as just a possibility (like in the U.S) or even an excessive expense (Like in Liechtenstein) despite the awkward incidents that might come along with this.

Finally, in anarchic communities, rights of security might not even be considered relevant on the collective scale, despite the dangers that may rise as a result. In such places, it is often "every man for himself", seen in the micronation of Freetown Christiania.

Respecting other people and groups therefore has a lot to do with their moral reasoning, and whether or not we're willing to tolerate their own reasoning. These reasonings may be as different or even as hidden as they may appear to us. The approach is based on our freedom of choice.

Part II: The Anti-Social Society Paradox

Furthermore and quite unfortunately, in a world devoid of philosophical inquiry, rights are not justified by the reasoning of logical beings or the "common folk". Rather, they are "justified" through this ad-hominem logic: Through those wealthy and a high-enough social status to be supported and to have their will enforced by their followers, hired or otherwise.

When an idea is not given in education systems, nor effectively communicated or enforced, it can easily be rendered irrelevant in the eyes of many. That is despite the idea's ability to be a correct or competent philosophy.

Case Example: Basilean Ethical philosophy

As such, concepts such as "Natural Rights" are effective in logic, perhaps, but they will be seen by many as nothing more than lofty ideals, rather than ideas that are realistic and reasonable. Kaiser Basileus provides an example to such a concept:

Everyone has the natural right (free of created/systematic restraint) to do anything that isn't harmful to another creature. It cannot be less than that for the idea of rights to have any meaning. They have the right to wander the Earth freely and settle anywhere anyone else may settle. Because it is not necessary for the good of anyone else to infringe those rights, no one can have the right to infringe them.

From a more contemporary-point of view, Basilean ethics are easily violated without much effort, simply because there is no contra force to prevent such ethics to be utterly infringed. This might've led this philosopher to regard this world as a dystopian reality.

How Society Can Breed Sociopathic Tendencies

In general, this utter disrespect of rights among many people is, ironically, "sociopathic" and "anti-social", for this fits this core symptom described in people with Antisocial Personality Disorder. As it is normalized to ignore the feelings of others through apathy and specifically towards minorities such as the homeless, society could accidently encourage the genetic inclinations of people towards sociopathy and narcissism.

Without examining and rectifying the environmental factors that could lead to such human-rights-disrespecting personality disorders, society would, naively, breed its own sociopaths and narcissists. As much as they might be a product of genetics they are also the product of a morally-depraved environment.

Thus, when we criticize them when they are in political and corporate positions -- we also need to criticize our families, communities and the way we conduct ourselves in civilization.

Part III: Why Philosophy Is Relevant Here More Than Politics

In a world that ignores the continued relevance of philosophy, rights are not as discussed and examined well enough. Rather, they are far more laid in a pretentiously "universal matter", and/or are used as political jargon to gain and deter influence or credibility of people. People under the matrix of the "herd mentality" are then expected to accept ideas or face becoming outsiders from "the herd".

This is generally the problem with political methodology, when it is applied across the different areas of human activity. As much as people hate politicians, they are hated not because of their "verdict of being", or because they exist. No. They are hated because of their methods and from the actions that are followed from them.

Case Example I: Politics, Ulterior Motives and Military Combat

For instance, there are a lot of ethical disputes in military warfare when it comes to human rights. Whether a military force, be it a national army or a mercenary force, is violating the rights of others, is more questionable than one might think. That is because propaganda plays a large role in military conflicts, making our understanding of battlefields quite distorted and unclear. With our intellectual hubris, we become easier to manipulate by many organizations without even realizing it.

As much as we might be biased to define a country as an entity that commits crimes against humanity, is more up-to-debate than people might realize. After all, with advancements in AI technology, at this point we shouldn't even trust our eyes as much as our ears.

It is the nature of ideologies to make us believe in certain assumptions regardless of whether or not they are true. Politically, our beliefs matter more than reality itself. Therefore, when we are convinced that a country or an army is committing crimes against humanity, our political decisions may change accordingly. Whether or not any crimes of such kind are actually being done, doesn't functionally matter in comparison, in the lens of those who seek to mislead us.

Case Example II (Subverted): The Compassion of Welfare -- A Right?

In the world of social welfare, it is believable that some people have the special right to receive support from the state, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to survive independently...

Thus, the disabled fight to advocate a reasonable pay of welfare so the social minority/ies would be able to sustain themselves. And what other way to promote such an agenda than calling it a "right"? The right to for a proper standard of living?

The Necessarily Disabled Fallacy

Designed the way it is designed, society lacks accessibility to those it is not designed for. Physically, neurologically or otherwise. By this poor design, meant to cater to the average individual, certain people become unfortunate minorities merely because of this. As unique as people are, this extent of uniqueness is a double-edged sword that can render them disabled. That's despite "disability" not necessarily being an intrinsic trait, but rather a setback in relation to the environment.

It is like the idea of "fish people" needing to have aquariums attached to their heads whenever they are above a water surface (Like the villain Dr. Wasabi, being "objectively disabled" only because he's a piranha fish not living in his natural habitat).

Part III: The Double Edged Sword of Freedom

In the world beyond the mind, no one is entitled to anything. Likewise, some nations may not think that things like safety, other people's freedoms, and the preservation of democracy are important enough to be enforced by the authorities. That is because we need to look both ways. Freedom can also mean, "Freedom from responsibility and accountability".

Outsiders may call these nations as those who violate human rights. However, the idea that people are supposed to care, as moral and compassionate as it is, is not objective. Social contracts are not an integral part of external reality. Rather, they are integral part of human reality. They are business agreements, and nations are essentially business concerns.

Should we look at things that way, we can realize that contracts can be broken, as they often did throughout history. Contracts are agreements. Agreements are temporary and prone to decisions. Decisions can change.

• Adolf Hitler breached the the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact by re-occupying the Rhineland.

• The Wagner Group Rebellion, according to their late leader, was caused because the Russian Armed Forces attacked his mercenaries' camps. The accusation of betrayal was made after their alliance in the Russo-Ukrainian War.

• And of course, the famous assasination of the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, seen as a threat by his own Empire for proclaiming himself Dictator For Life. Ironically, he was a very effective -- and supported -- leader.

Why are we entitled to safety, to individual freedoms, and to democracy when there isn't necessarily an objective, universal set of rules to how people should live, and how states are best governed?

Technically, as long as a country has the powers to protect itself from the outside world, as in the case with North Korea, what power do human rights advocates have, against one of the biggest military forces in the world?

The Analogy of Harmonious Conflict

And why is that? It's because when someone comes to you with a knife and threatens to kill you, you expect not only safety, but justice to be done as well to the harasser. Yet, nothing absolutely ensures this. Nothing. The more corrupt a society is, the more unrealistic it is to passively expect justice without disappointment.

Don't expect your version of justice to be agreed upon by anyone. It is an unrealistic expectation. A bear that attacks you is trying to fulfill the justice of solving its hunger. You escaping the bear is the attempt to fulfill the justice of surviving. Justice is not only not universal, but in a Tao-like state of conflict, where opposite forces, by fighting, represent this uncanny harmony of the universe, where peace and conflict balance each other.

And by subjective equality, such opposition and conflict has the ability to execute harmony. Both you and the bear are serving a greater justice by this encounter. Harmony can be found both in peace and in conflict. Advocate your own justice as much as you like. It will never be absolute like you might think it is.

Conclusions

The theory of universal human rights, as with any theory referring to generalizations and absolutions, is paradoxically narrow. The more simplistic our reasoning is, the more we would generalize, not realizing our appeal to universality can very easily be a mental trap we set for ourselves. This trap can easily cage us from accessing the bigger picture.

Theories of universality entail the objective existence of a universal paradigm as its evidence. That evidence then gives reason to enforce them and implement these theories.

And yet, this world is very unjust, regardless of said theories, and reality is far more intricate and dynamic than these theories give their credit for. More than anything, claiming that there are universal human rights is like claiming there is universal justice and other forms of entitlements this existence just doesn't have.

What if these pro-justice, benevolent theories just don't do justice with their taken-for-granted claims on reality? What if, by not being criticized, we shoot ourselves in the foot by resuming following their conclusions?

The real reason why most of the world's countries are gracious enough to actually care for their citizens' wellbeing in some way or another is because rights are effective system of illusions, making people forget how objectively they're not entitled to anything. Society is more of a theatre than one might think, especially given how well we don't question our role in the stage, thinking we are the role we were given by the tyranny of circumstance.

In the end we are just meatbags capable of forming complex languages and thoughts, while seeing both as more real than they actually are.

However, we could all need or use help, for we are not stronger than our own environment. Like fish, we depend on the world's quality of substance. It's just we're busy with our egos than realizing the world beyond our mental aquariums, worsening this world as a result of our selfish actions.

Whether by intention, preparation, or circumstance, we'd either die quickly or have very poor lives. These illusions are false, but practical.