Comments on: What good is a right to life?

By: John

John — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:42:07 +0000

“Who violates that right when people die of starvation and malnutrition? It is hard to point to a person or institution responsible, but that doesn’t mean that the right doesn’t exist.”

As far as I can see the West is blamed, especially big multinational corporations, for manipulating economic conditions and hogging resources.Colonialism also gets the blame.

By: Did you see the one about « Homepaddock

Did you see the one about « Homepaddock — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:53:41 +0000

[...] What good is a right to life ? at The Visible Hand [...]

By: rauparaha

rauparaha — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:12:21 +0000

@StephenR
I don’t think you need someone who is a violator to have a right. Many rights require significant resources to provide. Consider the right to a fair trial. It’s not possible with current resources to provide a jury trial every time someone is accused of an offence. The resources available limit the extent to which the right can be exercised, but I don’t think it makes the concept of the right useless.

I see unfettered human and civil rights as more of an aspirational ideal than a realistic goal

By: StephenR

StephenR — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:51:09 +0000

Timely post, and I broadly agree. I’ve just gone from financially contributing to Amnesty International (‘boo torture!’ etc) to a little more than that. They (we?) have an upcoming ‘Dignity’ campaign which as part of it seems to focus on poverty being a violation of human rights, which I am a little uneasy about for the reason that Easterly outlines in your quote. However there is plenty to mitigate this so i’m unlikely to run away screaming.

So, I’d be interested to know what you don’t agree with in:

The only useful definition of human rights is one where a human rights crusader could identify WHOSE rights are being violated and WHO is the violator. …