should human rights be guiding principles in making forgein policies?

[daised]

what does everyone think. I personally believe they should play a role and be taken into conseideration but it is unrealistic and impractical to base a foreign policy solely on moral beliefs of either the country or that particular diplomat.

 

[OMEGA]

wow daised.

i am impressed!

yes there are international lwas already created that set aside univeral rights for all people.

the geneva convention, and variuos other policies, and groups have already been established to this end.

however we still operate in the nation state padigm......and sovereign nations still have signifigant leway politically, legally, and economically in determining what they want to recognize, or not recognize as "rights"

 

[daised]

yes, international laws stating the equality and basic human rights every individual should be provided with has been set up, but we all know that this is not a fantasy world where every country follows all their laws, and everyone is treated equally. There are nations where people are blatenly mistreated, my question is what do you think the United States should do about these countries? Are we acting because of our morals, or because we have other interests at heart? SOrry, i had to read an article for government and it got me thinking (something that i try not to do, because i get headaches)

 

[OMEGA]

Iterests are all that matters in the paradigm that exists.

but sometimes, ethics do break through sometimes..
like how we pressurred South Africa during aparthheid

 

[daised]

yes, ethics do break in but we helped south africa not only because the American public felt so strongly agianst it we had economical interests there as well, if you beileve that we helped out that country for strictly ethical reasons, then you are extremely naive and i wish i was still like that.

 

[Warik]

Basic individual rights should take precedence over everything else in any situation. A society cannot claim to be civilized if it gives itself the luxury of ignoring its own morals whenever it is convenient.

-Warik

 

[OMEGA]

that was refreshing to hear Warik

the word moral in your statment should be edited with a more precise term

most morality is subjective.......jmo

 

[Zirakzigil]

Some morality is subjective but other is absolute.

For instance I can't think of a way for you to argue for a moral code where causing people pain for no reason is good.

 

[3Vandoo]

No Universalism in Human Right is very touchy right now every cultures see HR with their own rights and us "westerner" we have no rights what so ever to dictate ours views to the rest of the world BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT!!!!!!!!! we can argue with it at no end

 

[Warik]

that was refreshing to hear Warik

the word moral in your statment should be edited with a more precise term

most morality is subjective.......jmo

I believe morality is objective. I believe there is a set of rules, guidelines, principles - whatever you want to call them - that a "good" person must follow. Whether they can ever be identified accurately is the true question. I believe, however, that making the rules and actually following them - always, without fail - is a start.

People tend to stray away from their morals because they feel that making a morally appropriate decision at a given point in time will put them at a disadvantage. They fail to realize, however, that if everyone were to make morally appropriate decisions, everyone would be at the advantage.

I pitched the idea to my friend and he thought it wasn't a very good one because he claims that humanity thrives on competition. I disagree. I believe humanity thrives on improvement and convenience. Why were things like the remote control and the video game console invented? For money? To a point... but why was there money to be made from these items? There was money to be made because it is easier and more convenient to use the clicker than to get up off the couch, and it's much easier, and often funner, to play a video game than to come home bruised and sore after a vicious football or basketball game.

I can go into my moral theory and my ideal world, but that's really beyond the scope of this post. Besides, no one would listen. If they would, my theory would already be a proven reality. =)

-Warik

 

[Warik]

For instance I can't think of a way for you to argue for a moral code where causing people pain for no reason is good.

Actually, some ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and Ethical Egoism (both bullshit theories of course) provide arguments in favor of such things... hence the reason they are bullshit... hehe.

-Warik

 

[Lao Tzu]

i'd be nice but it isn't realistic. what constitutes a right, what is torture, what necessities are we entitled to?

Luckily (i know i am alone in this) things like the Geneva convention were created to avoid torture. Right now 90% of american people want the terrorists tortured, but the Geneva convention prohibits it. however, all we have to do is 'not call them prisoners of war' (we did the same thing to German POW's in WWII, we didn't call them POW's, so we didn't have to give them rights) and the law doesn't apply.

considering that from a sociological standpoint what is 'right' is what benefits our society and what is wrong is what threatens it (and what is unimportant is what doesn't affect it) a universal system of right/wrong isn't feasable. We don't consider it wrong to put people in solitary confinement until they go insane, cuba doesn't consdier it wrong to lock up political opponents, some asian cultures don't respect animal rights, some mid east countries don't respect women's rights, etc.