My own self

WARNING. This post might actually convey an opinion. (It might also not, I'm certainly not going to put me in a position where I can be held accountable for anything I write in this post) Some people might find this concept offensive. (I certainly do.) You have been warned.


The concept of "Human Rights" bugs me. It bugs me that people, usually secular such, walks merrily around proclaiming they have "a right" to this and "a right" to that.


On what grounds? Because your grandfather's grandmother's third cousin knew one of the guys writing your consitution, and you're still living in the same general geographical area as they made their laws for? Okay, then, maybe you've got "a right" to this and that as a citizen, as a member of the nation following this constitution.

But at what point does this "right" the collective you're dwelling in has decided to grant you become universal for all humans? What the hell gives you the right to say "this is a human right"? "The UN says so"? What the hell gives the UN the right to say what counts as human rights and, more importantly, what don't? Last I checked, not even one hundreth of a percentile of the humans supposedly covered by the "human rights" have a vote in the UN. If they're lucky, they might share one with a few million others.

In Norway, I think, and in Sweden, owning a television set is considered part of the bare minimum of what a person should have. If you don't have a job, if you don't have an income, if you don't have any money, the government finances, among other things, your television set. It is, basically, considered a right to have a television set. Oooookay? So, in Norway, we have more human rights than they do in, say, Kenya? Then it isn't human rights, people, then it isn't a right you have just for being a human. Then it's Norwegian rights. Rights you have for being a Norwegian human. And that's another matter entirely.

But even people making this distinction keeps nagging about human rights as if they were universal. The right not to be discriminated against. The right not to be abused. The right of "free speech", oh, that one's maybe the worst one.

What a load of bullocks that one is.

Where do these people who made these rights get them? Did they just have a gut instinct "this is something everybody should have a right to"? If they did, why is these people's gut instincts guidelines for international ethics? Or did they look to their culture, what was considered right and wrong, and pick out what was generally considered the essenatials? If so, why does these rules claim to be universal, and not British or French or American or at least Western? Because they sure as hell didn't get it written down by God.

And therein lies the heart of the matter. (Those who want to read the last sentence as "Which brings us to tonight's wørd" may feel free to do so.) Justification.

Secular Humanists are awfully fond of pointing to the "Human Rights". It's their only claim to universal authority, because they, as opposed to most other religious people, have no holy bidding granting them and their opinions this authority. And yet these "Rights" they love so much come from nowhere at all - if from anywhere, they're from societies shaped in centuries by Christian ethics.

And then, there's conflict. Of course, there's always conflict, so that's not new, but there you go anyway.
Doesn't everyone stand a right not to have his or her beliefs insulted? To be treated with respect? According to these "Human Rights" that is. But everyone also has the so-called right to say whatever the Gorm they please. Including lies. Including insults. No matter what you want to do, no matter how many other people's rights you violate, there's always one right or another which gives you the right, the justification, to do it.
And that's just the tip of the ice-berg.

Now, the reason I'm writing this post is that we (barely) touched the topic on a seminar earlier today, and my lecturer used a word I've never really thought about in this context before, but which seems obvious now.

Duty.

The point of the Human Rights, regardless of their justufications, is that they try to grant every human a certain amount of certainity, happyness and security in their lives. Doing that by giving people rights don't work (well). People like having rights. People like being able to scream about their rights being neglected. People, in general, like screaming, it seems. It's probably a universal character flaw, but there you go. We love each other nonetheless. We have the right to be loved, you see.

Nonsense.
We have the duty to love. We have the duty not to insult others. We have the duty to let others say what they mean. We have the duty not to steal stuff. And we have the duty not to shoot our hunting-comrade in the face.

Human Duty. Not Human Right. Bugger the Rights. Rights are for imbeciles. Duties are for people. The only justification, a collective wish for everyone to feel as good as possible at all times, is not for rights, it's a justification for duty.


And that's the wørd.