Life, liberty and tolerance - a Western predicament

[truehobbit]

Some recent discussions here have reminded me of a problem I've occasionally been pondering in the past, and which I think might be discussed here.

I think we can assume as a given that Western societies are defined by their acceptance of certain tenets about how humans are supposed to live together on this planet.
We call them "Human Rights", because we believe that every human being is by nature and by birth entitled to things like life, liberty, and freedom of thought.

The way I understand it, we consider these values in a way as absolute - we hold that to not subscribe to them is a violation of something that is by nature meant to be.

And we run into a problem when we are faced with beliefs that do not subscribe to them, because we are by our own pledge to guarantee freedom of thought bound to accept those beliefs, too.

Or are we?

Groups or individuals who don't subscribe to the Western value system (often found in Islamic countries, for example) often claim that by regarding these values as absolutely binding for the whole human race we are merely forcing this set of our values on people who simply have different values, thereby violating our own ideals of freedom of thought.

Personally, I do believe these values are valid for the whole human race, but I also think that in that, yes, we are overriding ideas that hold different truths. I think overriding these ideas is ok, but I also understand being thought patronising and missionary for thinking that way.

What do you guys think?

Suppose you are confronted with, for example, a group or individual whose values hold that women may be treated like domestic animals, or that it is honourable to kill people not belonging to your group, or that someone who professes a belief different from that held by the group should be subject to punishment etc etc - add as many as you wish.

Do you think that we need to accept that as the unique and personal belief of someone that just differs from our own, and that they are entitled to them under the right of liberty of thought?

Or do you think that values that invalidate other tenets of our idea of Human Rights are not protected by freedom of thought?

Are Human Rights just the idea of one group (Western civilisation) or are they universal?

If they are universal, is it alright to demand that others who are hitherto not accepting them, accept them? Or isn't that intolerance?

Are you ever appalled with the beliefs, tenets and value systems you hear expressed by people? Do you think you have a right to be appalled with practices that are no ill-will, but merely the result of a different value-system?

If the question is easily answered for you with respect to the "biggies" (life, liberty), what about "minor" aspects? Do you draw a line somewhere?

(I hope the question isn't confusing - please remember not to generalise about groups - this is not about prejudice but about how we handle our own, IMO conflicting, values of a humane society and tolerance for disagreement.)

[Jnyusa]

For purposes of discussion, to put us all on the same page, here is the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[Ethel]

I think we can assume as a given that Western societies are defined by their acceptance of certain tenets about how humans are supposed to live together on this planet.
We call them "Human Rights", because we believe that every human being is by nature and by birth entitled to things like life, liberty, and freedom of thought.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that personal liberty is the bedrock of Western (which, yes, includes Australia and New Zealand, for the nit-pickers) political philosophy. There's more to it than that, though. Our civilization has taken ideals and values from the Greeks and Romans, is imbued with Judeo-Christian morality, and in the last couple hundred years has empowered women as no society (that I am aware of) ever did before. We also tend to believe in free enterprise, entrepreneurship, the power of the scientific method, and honest elections.

The way I understand it, we consider these values in a way as absolute - we hold that to not subscribe to them is a violation of something that is by nature meant to be.

I think this is going too far. I would say, rather, that we have (more or less) reached consensus on certain key values, and have found that this serves us well. I am much more comfortable with John Locke's idea of the Social Contract than I am with any kind of Natural Law argument.

And we run into a problem when we are faced with beliefs that do not subscribe to them, because we are by our own pledge to guarantee freedom of thought bound to accept those beliefs, too.

No, we aren't "bound to accept" those beliefs. Not in the least. By our own core beliefs, we are bound to permit the expression of those beliefs in our own societies, within the limits of law. For instance: Mormon Fundamentalists believe that it is not only permitted, but required, by God, that they take multiple wives. Our laws decree that they are allowed to believe this and express it freely. But they cannot legally marry more than one wife in the US. Can they work to change those laws? Absolutely. But they cannot disobey them without consequences.

Groups or individuals who don't subscribe to the Western value system (often found in Islamic countries, for example) often claim that by regarding these values as absolutely binding for the whole human race we are merely forcing this set of our values on people who simply have different values, thereby violating our own ideals of freedom of thought.

We cannot force people residing in a different sovereign state to think or behave in any way at all. For that matter, we cannot force people within our own societies to think any particular way either. We can only force them to obey our laws, and only because they are citizens or residents of the nation state which enforces those laws.

Personally, I do believe these values are valid for the whole human race, but I also think that in that, yes, we are overriding ideas that hold different truths. I think overriding these ideas is ok, but I also understand being thought patronising and missionary for thinking that way.

I believe that the doctrine of personal liberty within the (reasonable) limits of the law is so attractive that it wins people over every day. We influence others best and most strongly by the success of our societies; by the opportunities for freedom and prosperity that they enable; by behaving as if we truly believe what we say.

Suppose you are confronted with, for example, a group or individual whose values hold that women may be treated like domestic animals, or that it is honourable to kill people not belonging to your group, or that someone who professes a belief different from that held by the group should be subject to punishment etc etc - add as many as you wish.

Do you think that we need to accept that as the unique and personal belief of someone that just differs from our own, and that they are entitled to them under the right of liberty of thought?

Again, it all comes down to law. People can believe what they like, and say so freely. This is part of that bedrock of personal liberty. But they cannot treat women as chattel because our laws forbid it. Laws which, yes, they can vote to change if they so choose.

Or do you think that values that invalidate other tenets of our idea of Human Rights are not protected by freedom of thought?

Freedom of thought means nothing if it does not mean protection for unpopular beliefs.

Are Human Rights just the idea of one group (Western civilisation) or are they universal?

If they are universal, is it alright to demand that others who are hitherto not accepting them, accept them? Or isn't that intolerance?

Again, I'd say that human rights are at bottom just a Really Good Idea. It's proof of the power of that idea that it has been so widely accepted in the developed world. (And is deeply longed for by so many elsewhere.) It's an idea that speaks for itself. We need not and cannot enforce it inside other nation states. But we can, and should, do our best to inspire, influence, encourage and challenge.

Are you ever appalled with the beliefs, tenets and value systems you hear expressed by people? Do you think you have a right to be appalled with practices that are no ill-will, but merely the result of a different value-system?

Good heavens, yes. Inside the home I grew up in, for one. My parents were hard core racists, and they also hated Jews. They were perfectly sincere in their beliefs. But I thought they were wrong and still think so. My father and I argued every day throughout my teenage years, sometimes violently (on his part.) Their beliefs were deeply abhorrent to me. But did they have a right to hold and express them? Yes, I believe they did and do. ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - that's the bottom line.)

You see, I think the ideals of Western Civilization - often honored in the breach, alas - are big, inspiring and life-affirming. I believe that open-minded people cannot help being drawn to them. This is an argument we can only win in the very long run, and only by example. Being our best selves and living our ideals is the very best way to change minds. Which means, among other things, tolerating the expression of ideas we may find hateful, wrong-headed and damaging.

Either you believe something or you don't. If you believe it's wrong to steal, it's still wrong if you steal something that someone stole from you.

[Athrabeth]

Are Human Rights just the idea of one group (Western civilisation) or are they universal?

Well, in terms of historical time, it was no more than a blink ago that my own country of Canada denied citizenship to Asians merely because they were non-whites.

It was no more than a blink ago that Rosa Parks' refusal to give up a seat on a bus set a torch to long smoldering racial hatred in the American south.

And it was also no more than a blink ago that Europe was thrown under the shadow of several totalitarian governments, resulting in the persecution and deaths of targeted millions, and war (both civil and international) that caused the deaths of many more millions.

I am always somewhat bemused by the view that "we in the West" have achieved functioning democracies because of some kind of shared intrinsic quality of.............what exactly? Religion? Philosophy? Skin color? IMO, it's got more to do with socio-economic factors like universal public education and the rise of an increasingly strong middle-class - "accidents of history" really, in that I don't think that's what those in power presumed would happen when they needed workers to keep pace with the technological advances of industry. It took a world torn apart and devastated by a brutal global war to even consider the issue of universal human rights......that, and the terrible realization that so many died as a result of "turning a blind eye".

And just who are "we" anyway? Does "we" include the Serbians who massacred 8000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica? Does it include the American industries that set up shop across the border in Mexico in order to maintain a low-paid, unprotected work force? Does it include my own provincial government, which has virtually abandoned the underclass of poor, mentally ill people so that they wander homeless and helpless on the streets of our cities?

Suppose you are confronted with, for example a group or individual whose values hold that women may be treated like domestic animals, or that it is honourable to kill people not belonging to your group, or that someone who professes a belief different from that held by the group should be subject to punishment etc

Hobby, I don't know if this was your intent, but it seems that you're saying that these examples can NOT be found in Western societies. I would venture that each of them can be found without too much difficulty:
"women treated as domestic animals": sex trade workers and sweat shop workers
"honourable to kill people not belonging to your group": well, that's pretty much what the American government would have its citizens think of what their soldiers are doing in Iraq
"someone who professes a belief different from the group subject to punishment": IMO, the tragedy of Columbine was the terrible result of precisely this kind of mindset.

The Declaration of Human Rights that I see Jny has just posted is a wondrous document, but reading it, I feel a deep and foreboding sense that "we in the West" have no more than a very limited grasp of its true meaning and intent, while naively presuming that we are faithfully upholding its tenets.

[Frelga]

I have often found myself in complete agreement with every word Athrabeth posted, but never before have I felt any regret at having to be in agreement. "We in the West" talk quite a bit about human rights, and that in itself is a great step forward. But when it comes to walking the walk, "we in the West" quite often stay in our glass houses instead, and chuck stones at the neighbors.

Do you think that we need to accept that as the unique and personal belief of someone that just differs from our own, and that they are entitled to them under the right of liberty of thought?

Yes, they are entitled to the their beliefs. No, they are not entitled to act on them.

If the question is easily answered for you with respect to the "biggies" (life, liberty), what about "minor" aspects? Do you draw a line somewhere?

Yes. The line is at deliberately causing physical harm to another human being. Anything on the far side is black and white as far as I'm concerned.

Another poster put it perfectly elsewhere - I am obligated to respect a person's right to hold any belief. I am in no way obligated to respect the belief itself.

[Jnyusa]

Some additional info about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ....

The Declaration is a UN Resolution. As such it is not binding on the members.

It was drafted after the atrocities of the Holocaust became known because, per Wikipedia:

... there was a feeling amongst many in the UN that its United Nations Charter did not sufficiently clarify the rights it protected. It was decided that a universal declaration, fully articulating each right, was required.

John Peters Humphrey of Canada was its principal drafter, after being called upon by the UN Secretariat. He was aided by Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States, René Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon, and P. C. Chang of China, among others. The vote in the General Assembly passed the declaration unanimously, but eight countries (the entire Soviet bloc, South Africa and Saudi Arabia) chose to abstain.

Although the declaration is not itself binding on members, it has served as the foundation for the original two legally-binding UN human rights Covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

_________________________

Opinion begins here.

If we are talking about 'universal' values, I think this is probably the most universal expression of human rights available in the world today. It is interesting, of course, how few nations have been able to live up to this resolution. But even more interesting is the fact that all those non-Western nations signed it. This would seem to indicate that their official values are the same as our official values.

When it comes to deciding which values will receive lip service, we all seem to be on the same page. When it comes to not living up to them, I'd say we are running neck and neck there as well.

Jn

[Parmamaite]

I really doubt that any nation in the world today can claim to fulfil all the human rights. These two articles for example are a problem in most countries

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

That said, I think the western hemisphere generally is doing a good bit better than the islamic world.

But that wasn't the question Truehobbit asked. I think it's a tough question, and a thin line to walk. Here in Denmark the freedom of expression is a little limited: libel and racism are illegal, and that's fine by me.

I also feel that we can and should try to change the situation in other countries, no country is entirely isolated, and diplomacy, economical pressure and simply information can sometimes work wonders.

For example: the EU are currently trying to persuade Turkey to pay more attention to the Human Rights, especially concerning the Kurds, we can do that because Turkey wish to become a member of the EU.

Another example: Apartheid was finally abolished in South Africa after a lot of international economic and political pressure.

I believe that Human Rights are universal, I'm fully aware that we can't impose them on societies where the general populace doesn't believe in them, but I hope that they will catch on sometime.

[Túrin Turambar]

I need to jump through a few hoops to come to a coherent position here, but I don’t mind so much:

1) I believe that certain ‘western’ rights (the ‘negative’ rights at any right – eg: freedom from unjust persecution) are universal. I would be comfortable in stating that we are right and that they (countries that oppress women or ethnic minorities, ect) are wrong.

2) This does not mean that I advocate invading any countries that disagree. As with any philosophical question, practical issues come into it. For example, we need the Saudi’s Oil and China’s trade, regardless of the number of people they execute for bizarre or trivial reasons. I think that we should have left Saddam in power to keep Al-Qadea out of Iraq.

3) As with most things, there are matters of degree. No-one’s perfect. But we’re still better.

4) Expressing contrary opinions is OK IMHO. Freedom of speech should be protected, outside the shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre kind of exceptions. You should be allowed to criticse western liberal values in western liberal countries – it gives us a definite moral high ground.

5) Acting on these contrary opinions is not OK. You should not be able to shoot people who offend your religion or beat your wife because ‘that’s what we do back home’. If I was to live in Saudi Arabia, I would accept the law. I expect the same from people around the world who want to live in Australia.

6) Let’s be positive. Many of our countries have bad records on a lot of things. But we also have a lot of things to be proud of. To use my own country as an example, yes, we are guilty of the near-complete genocide of the aboriginal race and we did have racist immigration policies until the 1960s, but we have the world’s fifth (?) oldest continuous democracy, we were second to grant women suffrage, we’ve only had about thirty political-related deaths in a century, and I’m free to sit here on the internet and say what I want without fear of being dragged off by secret police.

7) Expressing opinions in point form is convenient.

[vison]

As usual, I agree with Lord_M, Ethel, Athrabeth, and everyone else.

[Parmamaite]

Is that really usual Vison?

Anyway, I certainly agree with Lord M. this time.

[eborr]

Intersting when you read the UN declaration, how many western countries come up to the mark.

It seems to me that certainly in the UK sorry to be parochial our politics has changed entirely from substance to appearance, thus we can make all sorts of public statements concerning the support of decent liberal values, but the reality is different.

The fine ideals have become subjugated by spin and fear.

Our rights and freedoms have become more limited since the end of the second war and this trend is increasing.

As to whether they represent some kind of aspirational ideal, I would have to say they go a long way towards it, and I would have to say, that if some cultural reason one group chooses to dispence with any one of them then they are plain wrong.

The one great failing is that the notion of economic power is excluded, unless there is more economic equality, then equality before the law, before injustice cannot occur. It's time people grasped that one, and we finally put aside this notion that individual choice is a more valuable aspiration than fairness.