The implication seems to be that exploitation accompanies city life. An injection of the wisdom of an untamed heart is the beginning of justice.

You are asserting that 'rights' arise because of blatant violations of human justice men inflict on men. I like that. So then rights and the state arise from the same source, a need for protection.

Ok, but the state also acts as the mediator for the exchange of values, laws that govern civil order, property rights and the rest. It set limits, and the state can even encourage or discourage (like by taxing) certain activities.

Our concept of right is bigger than just moral considerations, or what do you think?

Something that sticks in my mind of late is the observation that privilege is invisible to the privileged.

Hence human rights are unimportant to those whose rights are observed.

Human rights are expansive in direct proportion to the amount of humans contributing to the laws.; barring a benevolent dictator. That's why democracies are more liberal than autocracies.

Medical care is a universal human right, some people say. An adequate diet is a universal human right, some people say. Marriage is a right, the Supreme Court of the United States said in Obergefell v. Hodges — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The freedom to choose who you want to marry within consensual boundaries is the point of the case and everyone has the right to medical care is to ensure that all people - refugees, homeless, drug-addicts - are provided with medical care; there have been incidents here in Australia where indigenous persons have been refused medical attention in certain clinics.

I agree that the lack of clarity could cause potential issues, for instance there has been a lot of discussion with what the right to leisure, play, and participation in cultural and artistic activities means in the UN Declaration on Children's Rights. But once more, where there is any lack of clarity, one needs to consider the purpose of the law itself, of justice to ascertain the purpose.

You are asserting that 'rights' arise because of blatant violations of human justice men inflict on men. I like that. So then rights and the state arise from the same source, a need for protection. — Cavacava

I think the state was originally a side effect of temple building and agriculture. I don't know how hunter gatherers dealt with transgression. How did Native American groups deal with it? I know the Lakota didn't punish their children much. They believed it's normal for kids to be wild and screw up, but they'll come around eventually. Apaches threw rocks at their kids to make them tough. So who knows?

I think Banno's point is probably on target. There has to be a privileged class.

But don't you think that talking about rights (as if a right is an object) produces a sort of illusion? So that we then go looking for the birthplace of this object. Maybe the reality of it is more in the moment, and as you say, extends beyond morality. Talk of rights takes place amidst all the machinery of law and authority.

Yep.

Yes we all live in some sort of structured society, and I think this is also true for the Native American tribes you reference, theirs is a tribal society. Perhaps there must be a privileged class in any type of society, these tribes also have their chiefs and priests.

I don't think the structure of society gets us that much closer in determining what is meant by a 'right'. However, in saying this I realize and I agree that rights must have an intersubjective characteristic to be rights, which adds to its determination (law, freedom, society). Talking about 'rights' as objects is fine, but it's an endless project.The determination of what is a 'right' must start from examples and by some critical method takes these examples, and from them, obtain the necessary and the sufficient conditions for the qualification of the concept of human rights.

Perhaps the language of dignity is broader than the language of rights?

The right to education is part of the right to fully participate in society - why is that absurd? — unenlightened

To categorically state that any person has a right--a justified claim--to any material good is absurd.

It makes sense to say that everybody has the right to equal access to A. But to categorically state that everybody has the right to A is absurd.

Do you believe that people have the right to have chocolate milk? If having chocolate milk is a right and nobody is growing any cocoa to make it with, are governments then obligated to grow cocoa or force non-government actors to grow cocoa? Are/were non-dairying societies violating people's rights?

Again, to say that people are guaranteed the freedom to do something or are guaranteed equal access to something is one thing. Saying that something must be guaranteed is another, even if it is "education", "marriage", etc.

People are being absurdly ethnocentric if they think that an arbitrary feature of their culture--something that may not exist in the future due to environmental, biological and cultural changes--is a universal right guaranteed to every individual.

Perhaps the language of dignity is broader than the language of rights? — Cavacava

Absolutely. (Y)

People are being absurdly ethnocentric if they think that an arbitrary feature of their culture--something that may not exist in the future due to environmental, biological and cultural changes--is a universal right guaranteed to every individual. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Good job people don't think that, eh?

Here are the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, edited by me to be shorter. — T Clark

Did anyone yet explain how their objections amounted to a shortening of this list?

The freedom to choose who you want to marry within consensual boundaries is the point of the case... — TimeLine

Everybody already had that freedom.

and everyone has the right to medical care is to ensure that all people - refugees, homeless, drug-addicts - are provided with medical care; there have been incidents here in Australia where indigenous persons have been refused medical attention in certain clinics... — TimeLine

But that is not what people mean when they say medical care is a right.

I agree that the lack of clarity could cause potential issues, for instance there has been a lot of discussion with what the right to leisure, play, and participation in cultural and artistic activities means in the UN Declaration on Children's Rights. But once more, where there is any lack of clarity, one needs to consider the purpose of the law itself, of justice to ascertain the purpose. — TimeLine

Everybody talks about the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence like it means the freedom to try to obtain some desired psychological state. But according to Marilynne Robinson in this essay, Jefferson's happiness means not some psychological state that social scientists measure but "a level of life above subsistence".

Everybody already had that freedom. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Last time I checked, same-sex marriage is not a freedom available for everyone.

But that is not what people mean when they say medical care is a right. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What do they mean?

Everybody talks about the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence like it means the freedom to try to obtain some desired psychological state. But according to Marilynne Robinson in this essay, Jefferson's happiness means not some psychological state that social scientists measure but "a level of life above subsistence". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Is this the same Jefferson that promoted the "right" to bear arms?

The principles of human rights was motivated to safeguard human dignity that is often undermined by a number of social, religious and political instabilities toward the establishment of a fair and equitable society. It is measured by the belief that all people deserve to live above subsistence (inalienable) despite gender, race etc., and serves as a reminder that Justice is the entitlement that will create the conditions of a community with the greatest distribution of happiness.

Last time I checked, same-sex marriage is not a freedom available for everyone. — TimeLine

And should it be? Marriage is a religious institution, and should therefore obey religious rules and regulations. All major religions, without exception, condemn homosexual (and lesbian) sex as immoral, and don't allow marriages to occur between people of the same-sex. I include here Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism as among major religions.

To enforce same-sex marriage as a possibility is to defame and humiliate an age-old custom which has existed for encouraging spiritual union between a man and a woman (because that's how marriage has been defined). There is no problem with allowing homosexuals to live together, share the same house, be in a civil union, etc. but to have them marry is not only an insult towards Western history and traditions, but also highly immoral. Just think of the priests that are asked to marry two homosexuals. They have a duty before the sovereign God to honour the institution of marriage. Would this not infringe upon their duty? Is this not another form of propaganda aimed at weakening the Church?

What I meant is that I feel puzzled as to where the limits of human rights provision should be established.I mean, hardly anyone would argue against someone's right to live, or his freedom, but then goes education, healthcare, where do you draw the line? Where do you say, "ok this is enough".

I think it depends on whether you interpret a list of rights as Contractual - something that all the signatories agree to try to provide to their citizens, or Metaphysical - having some fundamental existence irrespective of whether anybody agrees to the list.

If you want to interpret it as Metaphysical then I can see there is an irresolvable dilemma. If we assume that there does exist some mind-independent list of rights, it is impossible to know what rights are in it. There will be great disagreement as to what goes in it, and no way to resolve the disagreement. It may be possible to obtain 95% plus agreement on somewhat over half of the UN's list of 30, but that's all.

If one interprets it as Contractual, the difficulty falls away. The composition of the list is determined in the negotiations leading up to the signing of the declaration. There is no Metaphysical standard against which the agreed list can be tested. The situation is concrete: all countries that have signed the declaration are obliged to uphold the rights it contains.

There can still be arguments over interpretation though. Take 15: 'Men and women have the right to marry and to found a family.' Does the use of 'Men and Women', as distinct from the 'Everyone' that opens most other clauses, imply that the right only exists for a pair consisting of a man and a woman? Does it exclude same-sex couples, or was the 'Men and Women' chosen in order to exclude children? But if so, why not just say 'adults'? Does it generate a right of polygamy and polyandry since it uses the plural? And what about an inter-sex adult that is neither a man nor a woman? If it had said 'Everyone' it would automatically include them, but 'Men and Women' does not. Is that deliberate? Who knows (not me)?

Further, is the right to marry satisfied by common-law-marriage - ie long-term co-habitation? I expect a major motivation of number 15 was to rule out miscegenation laws (prohibition of 'inter-race' sexual relations), which I think applied to common-law arrangements as much as legal marriage contracts, and perhaps also to rule out familial vetoes on marriage a la Montagu and Capulet. Such an interpretation of the right is as a negative right: nobody may prevent you from forming a common-law marriage. It needs a stronger interpretation - as a positive right like number 26 (Education) - to say that it is a right for any two consenting adults to receive a formal, legal ceremony, called 'marriage' in law.

You wrote:

I am looking for the concept of right, a priori.

You'll be sorely disappointed. That's not we arrive at them. However, it is how we justify the path.